I calculated the running constants for all interactions. See my book titled ‘The Everlasting Theory and Special Number Theory’ on
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl , pages 71-74.
The results are consistent with experimental data. The curve for strong and strong-weak interactions of colliding nucleons has very rich internal structure. There is asymptote for coupling constant equal to 0.11390. It means that baryons have massive core. We should observe liquid-like plasma, not gas-like plasma.
Hmmmm... let's see.
"The Everlasting Theory" and "The Ultimate Theory of the Universe".
I take it that being too modest is not a problem for you.
"The Everlasting Theory" and "The Ultimate Theory of the Universe".
I take it that being too modest is not a problem for you.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 1 2009, 06:17 PM)
Hmmmm... let's see.
"The Everlasting Theory" and "The Ultimate Theory of the Universe".
I take it that being too modest is not a problem for you.
You should give his book (or at least the linked page) a good once over. The incoherency, misunderstandings of common physics terms and functions, numerology and wildly false claims are collectively funnier than a Monty Python marathon.
"The Everlasting Theory" and "The Ultimate Theory of the Universe".
I take it that being too modest is not a problem for you.
You should give his book (or at least the linked page) a good once over. The incoherency, misunderstandings of common physics terms and functions, numerology and wildly false claims are collectively funnier than a Monty Python marathon.
I misread the topic title... I thought he had found a cure for his diarrhea of the mouth. 
Conclusions from experimental data
1.
In the main channels of decays of the Lambda and Sigma+ hyperons, appear pions. In decays of hyperon Lambda, in about 63.9% cases appear π(-) whereas the π(o) in about 35.8%. On base of these experimental data we can assume that neutron with probability x~0.63 is composed of positively charged core and negative pion and with probability 1-x is composed of neutral core and neutral pion. In decays of hyperon Sigma+ in about 51.6% cases appear π(o) whereas the π(+) in about 48.3%. On base of these experimental data we can assume that proton with probability y~0.51 is composed of positively charged core and neutral pion and with probability 1-y is composed of neutral core and positive pion.
2.
We know that the nucleon-nuclear magnetic moment ratios are about +2.79 for proton and -1.9 for neutron. On base of these experimental results, we can assume that mass of the charged core is about H(charged)~727 MeV and of the relativistic charged pion is W(charged)~216 MeV. Such values of the probabilities and masses lead to the experimental data for magnetic moments.
3.
In the very energetic collisions of ions appears a liquid-like substance. It also suggests that inside the nucleons is a massive core.
4.
The triplet n-p scattering length is approximately 5.4 fm. The singlet n-p effective range is approximately 2.7 fm whereas the triplet n-p effective range is approximately 1.7 fm. Assume that outside of the core of nucleons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for strong interactions r(d)=A+dB where A~0.7 fm, B~0.5 fm, and d=0, 1, 2, 4. Then diameter of last ‘orbit’ is 2r(d=4)=2(A+4B)=5.4 fm, radius of last orbit is r(d=4)=A+4B=2.7 fm, whereas radius of the last but one orbit is r(d=2)=A+2B=1.7 fm. It leads to the atom-like structure of baryons!!!!
Such model leads to following conclusions.
There is asymptote for running coupling for colliding nucleons equal to 0.11390. It means that there is the asymptotic compression of the cores of baryons, not the asymptotic freedom of the quarks and gluons. The asymptotic freedom leads for high energies to gas-like plasma whereas the asymptotic compression leads to liquid-like plasma and it is consistent with experimental data. It proves that the baryons do not consist of the point quarks. This asymptotic compression suggests that baryons have massive core. It is in my theory. We see also that in my theory the beta function is negative for the separated fragments of the curve, is infinite for the jumps (there arise new cores of baryons) and practically equal to zero for energies close to the energy of proton the energy decays (about 18 TeV). More close experiment (the LHC) should show the internal structure of the curve for running coupling of the strong-weak interactions for colliding nucleons.
The internal structure of the core of baryons should be devastated when surface of the point mass attains the torus i.e. when radius of the point mass increases 1/f=26.71 times. It is when mass of proton increases (1/f)^3=1.9•10^4 times i.e. for energy about 18 TeV. Then energy of proton decays to smaller parts.
Electromagnetic interactions
In the liquid-like substance appear also the virtual relativistic electron-positron pairs produced in the d=0 state i.e. on equators of the cores of baryons. Masses of such relativistic electrons are 4.6 MeV i.e. are 9 times greater than mass of resting electron. The 4.6 MeV is the distance of masses between the charged and negative pions. Since mass density of the fractal field cannot change, then the relativistic pairs should be 9^2=81 times less than the resting pairs. It is because relativistic electron has 9 times greater mass whereas volume is 9 times smaller (dilation is only along direction of motion). Because α(electromagnetic)=G(electromagnetic)m(electron)^2/(ch-bar) but only one mass of electron denotes the relativistic carrier then coupling constant for the relativistic pairs is 9 times greater than the fine-structure constant. Simple calculations lead to value about 1/125.
1.
In the main channels of decays of the Lambda and Sigma+ hyperons, appear pions. In decays of hyperon Lambda, in about 63.9% cases appear π(-) whereas the π(o) in about 35.8%. On base of these experimental data we can assume that neutron with probability x~0.63 is composed of positively charged core and negative pion and with probability 1-x is composed of neutral core and neutral pion. In decays of hyperon Sigma+ in about 51.6% cases appear π(o) whereas the π(+) in about 48.3%. On base of these experimental data we can assume that proton with probability y~0.51 is composed of positively charged core and neutral pion and with probability 1-y is composed of neutral core and positive pion.
2.
We know that the nucleon-nuclear magnetic moment ratios are about +2.79 for proton and -1.9 for neutron. On base of these experimental results, we can assume that mass of the charged core is about H(charged)~727 MeV and of the relativistic charged pion is W(charged)~216 MeV. Such values of the probabilities and masses lead to the experimental data for magnetic moments.
3.
In the very energetic collisions of ions appears a liquid-like substance. It also suggests that inside the nucleons is a massive core.
4.
The triplet n-p scattering length is approximately 5.4 fm. The singlet n-p effective range is approximately 2.7 fm whereas the triplet n-p effective range is approximately 1.7 fm. Assume that outside of the core of nucleons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for strong interactions r(d)=A+dB where A~0.7 fm, B~0.5 fm, and d=0, 1, 2, 4. Then diameter of last ‘orbit’ is 2r(d=4)=2(A+4B)=5.4 fm, radius of last orbit is r(d=4)=A+4B=2.7 fm, whereas radius of the last but one orbit is r(d=2)=A+2B=1.7 fm. It leads to the atom-like structure of baryons!!!!
Such model leads to following conclusions.
There is asymptote for running coupling for colliding nucleons equal to 0.11390. It means that there is the asymptotic compression of the cores of baryons, not the asymptotic freedom of the quarks and gluons. The asymptotic freedom leads for high energies to gas-like plasma whereas the asymptotic compression leads to liquid-like plasma and it is consistent with experimental data. It proves that the baryons do not consist of the point quarks. This asymptotic compression suggests that baryons have massive core. It is in my theory. We see also that in my theory the beta function is negative for the separated fragments of the curve, is infinite for the jumps (there arise new cores of baryons) and practically equal to zero for energies close to the energy of proton the energy decays (about 18 TeV). More close experiment (the LHC) should show the internal structure of the curve for running coupling of the strong-weak interactions for colliding nucleons.
The internal structure of the core of baryons should be devastated when surface of the point mass attains the torus i.e. when radius of the point mass increases 1/f=26.71 times. It is when mass of proton increases (1/f)^3=1.9•10^4 times i.e. for energy about 18 TeV. Then energy of proton decays to smaller parts.
Electromagnetic interactions
In the liquid-like substance appear also the virtual relativistic electron-positron pairs produced in the d=0 state i.e. on equators of the cores of baryons. Masses of such relativistic electrons are 4.6 MeV i.e. are 9 times greater than mass of resting electron. The 4.6 MeV is the distance of masses between the charged and negative pions. Since mass density of the fractal field cannot change, then the relativistic pairs should be 9^2=81 times less than the resting pairs. It is because relativistic electron has 9 times greater mass whereas volume is 9 times smaller (dilation is only along direction of motion). Because α(electromagnetic)=G(electromagnetic)m(electron)^2/(ch-bar) but only one mass of electron denotes the relativistic carrier then coupling constant for the relativistic pairs is 9 times greater than the fine-structure constant. Simple calculations lead to value about 1/125.
What a shocker. Sylwester proclaims he's got a perfect theory, I point out he fails to predict that 'coupling constants' aren't constant but run with energy and suddenly he updates his work to include it. So it turns out your work wasn't 'The Ultimate Theory' last time, no matter how much you proclaimed it was.
And you've done nothing to address the fact the 'experimental data' you compare your work to depends on the SM. And also your values for the running couplings are wrong. And the distinction between 'liquid' and 'gas' doesn't exist in the case of quark-gluon plasmas (or other things such as carbon dioxide under high pressure), so your constant "OMG they predicts a gas and saw a liquid!!" whining is baseless.
You don't look at experiments, you just look at particle data group results. Results which are consistent with the SM predictions. You simply repeating "It's a liquid, not the predicted gas!" shows you don't understand it and you're willing to lie.
The fact you can revise your work without noting how stupid that makes such titles as "The Ultimate Theory" means you're drinking your own koolaid too much. Only cranks ever say "This is the ultimate theory!". Last time you said that you can't have been right, as you've had to change your work. Why should we believe you now, when you show you make claims like "It's consistent with experiments" when you neither look at raw experimental data or understand how the PDG finds its results?
And you've done nothing to address the fact the 'experimental data' you compare your work to depends on the SM. And also your values for the running couplings are wrong. And the distinction between 'liquid' and 'gas' doesn't exist in the case of quark-gluon plasmas (or other things such as carbon dioxide under high pressure), so your constant "OMG they predicts a gas and saw a liquid!!" whining is baseless.
You don't look at experiments, you just look at particle data group results. Results which are consistent with the SM predictions. You simply repeating "It's a liquid, not the predicted gas!" shows you don't understand it and you're willing to lie.
The fact you can revise your work without noting how stupid that makes such titles as "The Ultimate Theory" means you're drinking your own koolaid too much. Only cranks ever say "This is the ultimate theory!". Last time you said that you can't have been right, as you've had to change your work. Why should we believe you now, when you show you make claims like "It's consistent with experiments" when you neither look at raw experimental data or understand how the PDG finds its results?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
What a shocker. Sylwester proclaims he's got a perfect theory, I point out he fails to predict that 'coupling constants' aren't constant but run with energy and suddenly he updates his work to include it. So it turns out your work wasn't 'The Ultimate Theory' last time, no matter how much you proclaimed it was.
Sorry for delay. I am travelling a lot. AlphaNumeric, you have not time to read my ultimate theory so you write the nonsense. You also do not understand the words “ultimate theory”. These words mean that such theory starts from parameters associated with a fundamental spacetime. In my theory it is the Newtonian spacetime composed of the structureless tachyons – they have only size. Ultimate theory should show that there are not in existence more fundamental fields than this fundamental spacetime. In my theory, the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime show that this spacetime is fundamental. The “ultimate theory” means also that when we ADD NEW CALCULATIONS LEADING TO NEW EXPERIMENTAL DATA, THE NUMBER OF PARAMETERS CANNOT CHANGE. And it is in my theory. There always are only the 7 parameters.
Recapitulation
I did not change my ultimate theory. I only added new calculations leading to the additional experimental data i.e. to the values of the “running” coupling constants as a function of the energy scale. My ultimate theory always looks the same: There are the 4 phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime leading to the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, and the objects before big bangs suited to life. Outside of the cores of baryons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions. It leads to the ATOM-like structure of baryons. And the added chapter in my book is the extension of my ultimate theory. I showed once more that within my theory I obtain more and more physical quantities consistent with experimental data starting from only the 7 parameters. Very important is conclusion that there are two spacetimes i.e. the Newtonian spacetime and the Einstein’s spacetime i.e. the fractal field.
Sorry for delay. I am travelling a lot. AlphaNumeric, you have not time to read my ultimate theory so you write the nonsense. You also do not understand the words “ultimate theory”. These words mean that such theory starts from parameters associated with a fundamental spacetime. In my theory it is the Newtonian spacetime composed of the structureless tachyons – they have only size. Ultimate theory should show that there are not in existence more fundamental fields than this fundamental spacetime. In my theory, the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime show that this spacetime is fundamental. The “ultimate theory” means also that when we ADD NEW CALCULATIONS LEADING TO NEW EXPERIMENTAL DATA, THE NUMBER OF PARAMETERS CANNOT CHANGE. And it is in my theory. There always are only the 7 parameters.
Recapitulation
I did not change my ultimate theory. I only added new calculations leading to the additional experimental data i.e. to the values of the “running” coupling constants as a function of the energy scale. My ultimate theory always looks the same: There are the 4 phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime leading to the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, and the objects before big bangs suited to life. Outside of the cores of baryons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions. It leads to the ATOM-like structure of baryons. And the added chapter in my book is the extension of my ultimate theory. I showed once more that within my theory I obtain more and more physical quantities consistent with experimental data starting from only the 7 parameters. Very important is conclusion that there are two spacetimes i.e. the Newtonian spacetime and the Einstein’s spacetime i.e. the fractal field.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
And you've done nothing to address the fact the 'experimental data' you compare your work to depends on the SM. And also your values for the running couplings are wrong. And the distinction between 'liquid' and 'gas' doesn't exist in the case of quark-gluon plasmas (or other things such as carbon dioxide under high pressure), so your constant "OMG they predicts a gas and saw a liquid!!" whining is baseless.
It is tiresome to say you many times that experimental data do not depend on theories. If it was true then we could not verify such theories. Do you claim, for example, that fine-structure constant depends on the SM? There is the definition and such definition can look the same in different theories. Two different theories can lead to the same experimental data only when they differ by NUMBER OF PARAMETERS. It means that theory starting from less number of parameters is closer to ultimate theory.
Because you still write nonsense about gas and liquid, then my question is as follows: What predicts the QCD about value of the “running” coupling constant as a function of the energy scale for very high energies of colliding nucleons? Is it equal to zero or is there an asymptote for value not equal to zero? I claim that there is asymptote for value 0.11390. You can write your value and then we will wait for the LHC experiments.
To simplify your answer see
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...004/public.html (fig.2).
And second question:
Why the theoretical curve has changing width? See my explanation and figure in my book
http://cosmology-particles.pl , page 72.
It is tiresome to say you many times that experimental data do not depend on theories. If it was true then we could not verify such theories. Do you claim, for example, that fine-structure constant depends on the SM? There is the definition and such definition can look the same in different theories. Two different theories can lead to the same experimental data only when they differ by NUMBER OF PARAMETERS. It means that theory starting from less number of parameters is closer to ultimate theory.
Because you still write nonsense about gas and liquid, then my question is as follows: What predicts the QCD about value of the “running” coupling constant as a function of the energy scale for very high energies of colliding nucleons? Is it equal to zero or is there an asymptote for value not equal to zero? I claim that there is asymptote for value 0.11390. You can write your value and then we will wait for the LHC experiments.
To simplify your answer see
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics...004/public.html (fig.2).
And second question:
Why the theoretical curve has changing width? See my explanation and figure in my book
http://cosmology-particles.pl , page 72.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 12 2009, 06:28 PM)
It is tiresome to say you many times that experimental data do not depend on theories. If it was true then we could not verify such theories. Do you claim, for example, that fine-structure constant depends on the SM?
The experimental data doesn't depend upon the theory, the RAW experimental data that is.
I've told you many many times that the numbers you read in the particle data group's website are not raw data. Raw data from a collider are things like the strength of the particle beam, the magnetic field orientation and strength, the makeup of the beam, the path of the particle tracks, those sorts of things.
In order to extract say the mass of the electron you need to know things like how it's path curves when you apply a particular force. Well what's the equation which relates them? That's theory dependent. For instance, the Lorentz force is F = q(E+vxB) so if you assumed Newtonian mechanics then you have that ma = q(E+v x B) and if you've got the path the charged particle takes then you can relate its mass to its charge. But what if you don't use Newtonian mechanics? What if you use relativity? Then you get dp/dt = q(E+v x B) where t and v are relativistic. So despite having the same inputs, magnetic field, particle path, electric field, you get a different output, you get a different prediction for the mass/charge ratio of a particle. So for things which arent unambiguously and easily measured the 'measured values' can be quite different.
To work out the strength of a magnetic field you just measure an induced current, but even that you need to know Faraday's laws of induction, so your measurement of a magnetic field is dependent on you accepting before hand basic electromagnetic theory. And this brings me on to something you asked :
Infact, it was this quintessential difference between regular quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (ie the production of new particles and loop diagrams) which lead to the explaination of such things as the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which relates to the fine structure constant. Different theories give different values because it is not something you measure directly, its something you extract from your raw data using your theory. A theory is only valid if it can extract consistent results.
You keep saying how you've predicted the right values of the pion mass etc but what you actually mean is that you've got the same results as the people who publish particle data tables, but how did they arise at their values? They took their raw data, particle tracks, magnetic field strengths, electric fields etc and they used their model, the Standard Model to extract what the SM says the mass of the pion must be given the data. It's entirely possible, in theory, that the pion doesn't exist at all, it's simply an artifact of us misinterpreting collider data.
The experimental data doesn't depend upon the theory, the RAW experimental data that is.
I've told you many many times that the numbers you read in the particle data group's website are not raw data. Raw data from a collider are things like the strength of the particle beam, the magnetic field orientation and strength, the makeup of the beam, the path of the particle tracks, those sorts of things.
In order to extract say the mass of the electron you need to know things like how it's path curves when you apply a particular force. Well what's the equation which relates them? That's theory dependent. For instance, the Lorentz force is F = q(E+vxB) so if you assumed Newtonian mechanics then you have that ma = q(E+v x B) and if you've got the path the charged particle takes then you can relate its mass to its charge. But what if you don't use Newtonian mechanics? What if you use relativity? Then you get dp/dt = q(E+v x B) where t and v are relativistic. So despite having the same inputs, magnetic field, particle path, electric field, you get a different output, you get a different prediction for the mass/charge ratio of a particle. So for things which arent unambiguously and easily measured the 'measured values' can be quite different.
To work out the strength of a magnetic field you just measure an induced current, but even that you need to know Faraday's laws of induction, so your measurement of a magnetic field is dependent on you accepting before hand basic electromagnetic theory. And this brings me on to something you asked :
QUOTE
Do you claim, for example, that fine-structure constant depends on the SM?
How precisely do you think the value for the FSC is arrived at? What is measured? Magnetic fields, electric fields, particle paths and a few other things. The FSC is essentially the strength electromagnetism causes charged particles to interact. A large value means electrons push one another more, a smaller value means less. So to work out the value of the FSC you need to measure how much two electrons repel one another when you blast them at each other (ie try to collide them in a detector). So how do they do this, what effects are important? Well if you're living in 1920 you'd think they exchange a photon and that's it. And you'd be roughly correct, except that it's not quite right. Then you ask Mr Dirac after he's developed quantum field theory and he says that they exchange a photon but that photon can also turn into an electron/positron pair, which then exchange more photons. If you include that in your calculation you get a different answer for the FSC. If you then allow the photon to turn into other charge matter/antimatter pairings you get different answers again! If you include electroweak corrects you get another answer! Each time you include or remove the possibility of other types of particles they contribute to what you predict is the value for the FSC, in what are known as loop diagrams. Infact, it was this quintessential difference between regular quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (ie the production of new particles and loop diagrams) which lead to the explaination of such things as the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which relates to the fine structure constant. Different theories give different values because it is not something you measure directly, its something you extract from your raw data using your theory. A theory is only valid if it can extract consistent results.
You keep saying how you've predicted the right values of the pion mass etc but what you actually mean is that you've got the same results as the people who publish particle data tables, but how did they arise at their values? They took their raw data, particle tracks, magnetic field strengths, electric fields etc and they used their model, the Standard Model to extract what the SM says the mass of the pion must be given the data. It's entirely possible, in theory, that the pion doesn't exist at all, it's simply an artifact of us misinterpreting collider data.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do you claim, for example, that fine-structure constant depends on the SM? |
How precisely do you think the value for the FSC is arrived at? What is measured? Magnetic fields, electric fields, particle paths and a few other things. The FSC is essentially the strength electromagnetism causes charged particles to interact. A large value means electrons push one another more, a smaller value means less. So to work out the value of the FSC you need to measure how much two electrons repel one another when you blast them at each other (ie try to collide them in a detector). So how do they do this, what effects are important? Well if you're living in 1920 you'd think they exchange a photon and that's it. And you'd be roughly correct, except that it's not quite right. Then you ask Mr Dirac after he's developed quantum field theory and he says that they exchange a photon but that photon can also turn into an electron/positron pair, which then exchange more photons. If you include that in your calculation you get a different answer for the FSC. If you then allow the photon to turn into other charge matter/antimatter pairings you get different answers again! If you include electroweak corrects you get another answer! Each time you include or remove the possibility of other types of particles they contribute to what you predict is the value for the FSC, in what are known as loop diagrams.
Infact, it was this quintessential difference between regular quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (ie the production of new particles and loop diagrams) which lead to the explaination of such things as the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which relates to the fine structure constant. Different theories give different values because it is not something you measure directly, its something you extract from your raw data using your theory. A theory is only valid if it can extract consistent results.
You keep saying how you've predicted the right values of the pion mass etc but what you actually mean is that you've got the same results as the people who publish particle data tables, but how did they arise at their values? They took their raw data, particle tracks, magnetic field strengths, electric fields etc and they used their model, the Standard Model to extract what the SM says the mass of the pion must be given the data. It's entirely possible, in theory, that the pion doesn't exist at all, it's simply an artifact of us misinterpreting collider data.
Because you still write nonsense about gas and liquid
Infact, it was this quintessential difference between regular quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (ie the production of new particles and loop diagrams) which lead to the explaination of such things as the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which relates to the fine structure constant. Different theories give different values because it is not something you measure directly, its something you extract from your raw data using your theory. A theory is only valid if it can extract consistent results.
You keep saying how you've predicted the right values of the pion mass etc but what you actually mean is that you've got the same results as the people who publish particle data tables, but how did they arise at their values? They took their raw data, particle tracks, magnetic field strengths, electric fields etc and they used their model, the Standard Model to extract what the SM says the mass of the pion must be given the data. It's entirely possible, in theory, that the pion doesn't exist at all, it's simply an artifact of us misinterpreting collider data.
Because you still write nonsense about gas and liquid
No, I correct your often repeated lie about the supposed prediction of a fluid but what was seen was a gas. You also spent considerable time thinking that the prediction of asymptotic freedom was saying that deconfinement should lead to a free quark 'gas'. Utter nonsense. Deconfinement and asymptotic freedom, as I explained many times, are different phenomena, examined by different experiments. You didn't understand even the qualitative concepts and you've spent years whining about what is basically your profound ignorance and unwillingness to even spend time reading a book.
But no, you prefer to remain as ignorant as possible and continue whining about a theory you have zero understanding of. You've spent years whining about this and yet you haven't picked up any information about it, even by simple 'browsing' of forums or other websites. How is it you can find the mass of the pion online but you couldn't work out the different between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement? Or is it because that would require actual effort and understanding, not just reading numbers off a chart?
QUOTE
What predicts the QCD about value of the “running” coupling constant as a function of the energy scale for very high energies of colliding nucleons? Is it equal to zero or is there an asymptote for value not equal to zero? I claim that there is asymptote for value 0.11390. You can write your value and then we will wait for the LHC experiments.
Asymptotic freedom means it decouples as you increase the energy, it will go to zero. If you understood what running couplings meant, you bothered to even read the wikipedia page on the renormalisation flow of the strong force and could do basic calculus you could have worked it out yourself. The differential equation is on Wikpidia, if you bothered to try to find out even an iota of information before shooting your mouth off you'd have found it. But no, you prefer to remain as ignorant as possible and continue whining about a theory you have zero understanding of. You've spent years whining about this and yet you haven't picked up any information about it, even by simple 'browsing' of forums or other websites. How is it you can find the mass of the pion online but you couldn't work out the different between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement? Or is it because that would require actual effort and understanding, not just reading numbers off a chart?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What predicts the QCD about value of the “running” coupling constant as a function of the energy scale for very high energies of colliding nucleons? Is it equal to zero or is there an asymptote for value not equal to zero? I claim that there is asymptote for value 0.11390. You can write your value and then we will wait for the LHC experiments. |
Asymptotic freedom means it decouples as you increase the energy, it will go to zero. If you understood what running couplings meant, you bothered to even read the wikipedia page on the renormalisation flow of the strong force and could do basic calculus you could have worked it out yourself. The differential equation is on Wikpidia, if you bothered to try to find out even an iota of information before shooting your mouth off you'd have found it.
But no, you prefer to remain as ignorant as possible and continue whining about a theory you have zero understanding of. You've spent years whining about this and yet you haven't picked up any information about it, even by simple 'browsing' of forums or other websites. How is it you can find the mass of the pion online but you couldn't work out the different between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement? Or is it because that would require actual effort and understanding, not just reading numbers off a chart?
Why the theoretical curve has changing width? See my explanation and figure in my book
But no, you prefer to remain as ignorant as possible and continue whining about a theory you have zero understanding of. You've spent years whining about this and yet you haven't picked up any information about it, even by simple 'browsing' of forums or other websites. How is it you can find the mass of the pion online but you couldn't work out the different between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement? Or is it because that would require actual effort and understanding, not just reading numbers off a chart?
Why the theoretical curve has changing width? See my explanation and figure in my book
It's called experimental error, you don't need to 'explain it in your book'. Unlike cranks, physicists realise there's errors in their measurements or only so much accuracy their readings can go to and this results in 'error bars' in diagrams. Any good scientist knows to include error bars in their results. I share an office with someone who models QCD using supercomputers and his results always show error bars because that's what a good scientist does. The fact you didn't even cotton onto this shiows how clueless you are about how science works.
/edit
FFS, your link even has the differential equation which governs the running of the strong force in it! It's on the black board in one of the pictures! Well done, the answer to your question needed you to know how to solve a differential equation and have basic comprehension skills and you failed. Your parents must be so proud.
/edit
FFS, your link even has the differential equation which governs the running of the strong force in it! It's on the black board in one of the pictures! Well done, the answer to your question needed you to know how to solve a differential equation and have basic comprehension skills and you failed. Your parents must be so proud.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You keep saying how you've predicted the right values of the pion mass etc but what you actually mean is that you've got the same results as the people who publish particle data tables, but how did they arise at their values? They took their raw data, particle tracks, magnetic field strengths, electric fields etc and they used their model, the Standard Model to extract what the SM says the mass of the pion must be given the data. It's entirely possible, in theory, that the pion doesn't exist at all, it's simply an artifact of us misinterpreting collider data.
You completely do not understand difference between experiment and theory. There are the very well known definitions of physical quantities and the very well known laws of conservation. They must be obligatory in each theory. Experimentalists apply these definitions and these laws to obtain experimental data.
Now about the theories
For example, someone can claim that relativistic mass does not depend on velocity and formulates theory consistent with experimental data. But such theory MUST CONTAIN MUCH MORE PARAMETERS THAN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!!!! It means that the SR is closer to ultimate theory. Someone can claim that baryons are built of quarks and gluons whereas I claim that all objects greater than neutrino are built of the binary systems of neutrinos and that inside baryons is core and orbits. My model CONTAINS MUCH LESS PARAMETERS THAN THE SM so my model is closer to ultimate theory.
Do you understand now the difference between experiments and theories and between better and worse theories?
In your post, I do not see answer to my question so once more:
What will be measured value for the “running” coupling constant for colliding nucleons for energy equal to about 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390.
I claim that the curve has very rich internal structure i.e. that for strictly determined energies we should obtain two different values leading to the natural width of the curve. It means that the “width” depends on two effects, not only on errors in measurements. Do you understand the difference?
You completely do not understand difference between experiment and theory. There are the very well known definitions of physical quantities and the very well known laws of conservation. They must be obligatory in each theory. Experimentalists apply these definitions and these laws to obtain experimental data.
Now about the theories
For example, someone can claim that relativistic mass does not depend on velocity and formulates theory consistent with experimental data. But such theory MUST CONTAIN MUCH MORE PARAMETERS THAN THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY!!!!! It means that the SR is closer to ultimate theory. Someone can claim that baryons are built of quarks and gluons whereas I claim that all objects greater than neutrino are built of the binary systems of neutrinos and that inside baryons is core and orbits. My model CONTAINS MUCH LESS PARAMETERS THAN THE SM so my model is closer to ultimate theory.
Do you understand now the difference between experiments and theories and between better and worse theories?
In your post, I do not see answer to my question so once more:
What will be measured value for the “running” coupling constant for colliding nucleons for energy equal to about 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390.
QUOTE
It's called experimental error, you don't need to 'explain it in your book'.
I claim that the curve has very rich internal structure i.e. that for strictly determined energies we should obtain two different values leading to the natural width of the curve. It means that the “width” depends on two effects, not only on errors in measurements. Do you understand the difference?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 13 2009, 11:41 AM)
In your post, I do not see answer to my question so once more:
What will be measured value for the “running” coupling constant for colliding nucleons for energy equal to about 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390.
You obviously didn't read my post then since I told you that if you've bothered to find out the differenrial equations which govern the running couplings as is actually in the link you provided to the Nobel prize website you'd have been able to work out that with an always negative beta function that asymptotically free means the theory decoupled. Do you know what decouples means? It means they don't couple. Now I know English isn't your first language but come on, I specifically said 'decouples', I specifically said it goes to ZERO and I made a big thing about the fact that despite the governing differential equation being in a link you provided you didn't see it, because you know NOTHING about QCD.
Do you think noone sees this? Do you think that people read my post, see my replies to your questions, then read your post where you lie "You didn't answer my question" and magically they believe you? It's there in black and white, I specifically addressed your question about the strong coupling at infinite energy.
And you continue to fail to grasp how you haven't matched raw experimental data, you've actually matched data as interpreted by the Standard Model.
Of course it's no skin off my nose, if you wish to continue ignoring the very obvious self contradiction in your work which instantly makes all your work wrong and you want to spend more years spamming forums, spamming physicist email addresses, lying about mainstream science so obviously anyone whose read Wikipedia will know you're an idiot. At the end of the day it takes me 5 minutes to type posts like this and then I go back to doing work which will get published and get me a PhD. You spend all your time wasting effort. Enjoy!
What will be measured value for the “running” coupling constant for colliding nucleons for energy equal to about 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390.
You obviously didn't read my post then since I told you that if you've bothered to find out the differenrial equations which govern the running couplings as is actually in the link you provided to the Nobel prize website you'd have been able to work out that with an always negative beta function that asymptotically free means the theory decoupled. Do you know what decouples means? It means they don't couple. Now I know English isn't your first language but come on, I specifically said 'decouples', I specifically said it goes to ZERO and I made a big thing about the fact that despite the governing differential equation being in a link you provided you didn't see it, because you know NOTHING about QCD.
Do you think noone sees this? Do you think that people read my post, see my replies to your questions, then read your post where you lie "You didn't answer my question" and magically they believe you? It's there in black and white, I specifically addressed your question about the strong coupling at infinite energy.
And you continue to fail to grasp how you haven't matched raw experimental data, you've actually matched data as interpreted by the Standard Model.
Of course it's no skin off my nose, if you wish to continue ignoring the very obvious self contradiction in your work which instantly makes all your work wrong and you want to spend more years spamming forums, spamming physicist email addresses, lying about mainstream science so obviously anyone whose read Wikipedia will know you're an idiot. At the end of the day it takes me 5 minutes to type posts like this and then I go back to doing work which will get published and get me a PhD. You spend all your time wasting effort. Enjoy!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You obviously didn't read my post then since I told you that if you've bothered to find out the differenrial equations which govern the running couplings as is actually in the link you provided to the Nobel prize website you'd have been able to work out that with an always negative beta function that asymptotically free means the theory decoupled. Do you know what decouples means? It means they don't couple. Now I know English isn't your first language but come on, I specifically said 'decouples', I specifically said it goes to ZERO and I made a big thing about the fact that despite the governing differential equation being in a link you provided you didn't see it, because you know NOTHING about QCD.
Your post is idiotic. I provoked you to write that the QCD is asymptotically free. In my opinion, future experiments will show that it is not true. Future experiments will show that:
1.
There is asymptote for higher energies (0.11390) i.e. theory is not asymptotically free. You try to swindle so once more: What value predicts the SM for about 7 TeV? Zero?
2.
The asymptote ends for about 18 TeV because for such relativistic mass of colliding nucleon the energy of nucleon decays to smaller parts.
We do not need differential equations to obtain the running couplings. The SM needs such equations to obtain the theoretical results consistent with experimental data for energies lower than 200 GeV. I calculated the running couplings without differential equations. They are consistent with experimental data (see the calculations and figures). Within my theory, (there are only 7 parameters, not at least 20 as in the SM), the all calculations are VERY SIMPLE AND OBTAINED RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA. There are a few hundred such theoretical results. We need differential equations to describe motions and interactions of particles. They are useless to obtain values of the running couplings just after collision because for short time almost total relativistic energy of nucleon transforms into the baryonic cores-anticores pairs - it is the liquid-like plasma.
I know more about the QCD than you know because I know where this theory is inconsistent with experimental data (for mean square charge for protons is 0.25e^2, not 0.33e^2 as in the QCD) and will be inconsistent with experimental data (theory of hadrons is not asymptotically free). I say once more that the SM is the science fiction. Future experiments will prove it.
Your post is idiotic. I provoked you to write that the QCD is asymptotically free. In my opinion, future experiments will show that it is not true. Future experiments will show that:
1.
There is asymptote for higher energies (0.11390) i.e. theory is not asymptotically free. You try to swindle so once more: What value predicts the SM for about 7 TeV? Zero?
2.
The asymptote ends for about 18 TeV because for such relativistic mass of colliding nucleon the energy of nucleon decays to smaller parts.
We do not need differential equations to obtain the running couplings. The SM needs such equations to obtain the theoretical results consistent with experimental data for energies lower than 200 GeV. I calculated the running couplings without differential equations. They are consistent with experimental data (see the calculations and figures). Within my theory, (there are only 7 parameters, not at least 20 as in the SM), the all calculations are VERY SIMPLE AND OBTAINED RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA. There are a few hundred such theoretical results. We need differential equations to describe motions and interactions of particles. They are useless to obtain values of the running couplings just after collision because for short time almost total relativistic energy of nucleon transforms into the baryonic cores-anticores pairs - it is the liquid-like plasma.
I know more about the QCD than you know because I know where this theory is inconsistent with experimental data (for mean square charge for protons is 0.25e^2, not 0.33e^2 as in the QCD) and will be inconsistent with experimental data (theory of hadrons is not asymptotically free). I say once more that the SM is the science fiction. Future experiments will prove it.
1) 0.11390 is not an energy, so it is poor communication to write "higher energies (0.11390)"
2) "Zero?" No. α_s(7 TeV)= 0.07347±0.00079 So not only has it gone down and the error gone down, but the percentage error has gone down relative to lower-energy scales.
3) "the energy of nucleon decays to smaller parts" Assumes facts which are not in evidence (anywhere).
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-qcd.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-re...s-constants.pdf
http://www-theory.lbl.gov/~ianh/alpha/alpha.html
α_s(m_Z)= 0.1176±0.0020
α_s(0.001 TeV)= 0.4996±0.0580
α_s(0.002 TeV)= 0.2994±0.0150
α_s(0.005 TeV)= 0.2099±0.0070
α_s(0.01 TeV)= 0.1761±0.0048
α_s(0.02 TeV)= 0.1520±0.0035
α_s(0.05 TeV)= 0.1288±0.0025
α_s(0.1 TeV)= 0.1156±0.0020
α_s(0.2 TeV)= 0.1047±0.0016
α_s(0.5 TeV)= 0.09434±0.00130
α_s(1 TeV)= 0.08778±0.00113
α_s(2 TeV)= 0.08208±0.00099
α_s(3 TeV)= 0.07908±0.00092
α_s(4 TeV)= 0.07708±0.00087
α_s(5 TeV)= 0.07560±0.00084
α_s(6 TeV)= 0.07443±0.00081
α_s(7 TeV)= 0.07347±0.00079
α_s(8 TeV)= 0.07266±0.00077
α_s(9 TeV)= 0.07196±0.00076
α_s(10 TeV)= 0.07134±0.00074
α_s(14 TeV)= 0.06945±0.00071
2) "Zero?" No. α_s(7 TeV)= 0.07347±0.00079 So not only has it gone down and the error gone down, but the percentage error has gone down relative to lower-energy scales.
3) "the energy of nucleon decays to smaller parts" Assumes facts which are not in evidence (anywhere).
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-rev-qcd.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2009/reviews/rpp2009-re...s-constants.pdf
http://www-theory.lbl.gov/~ianh/alpha/alpha.html
α_s(m_Z)= 0.1176±0.0020
α_s(0.001 TeV)= 0.4996±0.0580
α_s(0.002 TeV)= 0.2994±0.0150
α_s(0.005 TeV)= 0.2099±0.0070
α_s(0.01 TeV)= 0.1761±0.0048
α_s(0.02 TeV)= 0.1520±0.0035
α_s(0.05 TeV)= 0.1288±0.0025
α_s(0.1 TeV)= 0.1156±0.0020
α_s(0.2 TeV)= 0.1047±0.0016
α_s(0.5 TeV)= 0.09434±0.00130
α_s(1 TeV)= 0.08778±0.00113
α_s(2 TeV)= 0.08208±0.00099
α_s(3 TeV)= 0.07908±0.00092
α_s(4 TeV)= 0.07708±0.00087
α_s(5 TeV)= 0.07560±0.00084
α_s(6 TeV)= 0.07443±0.00081
α_s(7 TeV)= 0.07347±0.00079
α_s(8 TeV)= 0.07266±0.00077
α_s(9 TeV)= 0.07196±0.00076
α_s(10 TeV)= 0.07134±0.00074
α_s(14 TeV)= 0.06945±0.00071
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
Your post is idiotic.
So my post is 'idiotic' because you lied? Nice one.
So my post is 'idiotic' because you lied? Nice one.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
There is asymptote for higher energies (0.11390) i.e. theory is not asymptotically free. You try to swindle so once more: What value predicts the SM for about 7 TeV? Zero?
How am I 'swindling'? I've specifically answered your question about the asymptotic limit of the strong force coupling. I even put it in bold. ZERO. Is that clear enough?
As for at 7TeV, can't you work it out? You've got the expression for the beta function of QCD. If you have done any quantum field theory you should know how to use that expression to compute the value of the strong force coupling at any energy scale you wish.
As for at 7TeV, can't you work it out? You've got the expression for the beta function of QCD. If you have done any quantum field theory you should know how to use that expression to compute the value of the strong force coupling at any energy scale you wish.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
We do not need differential equations to obtain the running couplings.
You do realise that if something changes smoothly, say coupling C with energy E, then the rate of change in terms of energy of the coupling is dC/dE ? Constant coupling means dC/dE = 0 and so forth.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
The SM needs such equations to obtain the theoretical results consistent with experimental data for energies lower than 200 GeV
The SM doesn't 'need' them, it naturally produces them. You don't have to put them in by hand, you derive them from the mathematics of quantum field theory.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
I calculated the running couplings without differential equations. They are consistent with experimental data (see the calculations and figures). Within my theory, (there are only 7 parameters, not at least 20 as in the SM), the all calculations are VERY SIMPLE AND OBTAINED RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
I see you're still sufficiently ignorant you haven't grasped what I've been saying to you.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
I know more about the QCD than you know
Bahahahahahaha!!!!!
You know more than me yet you can't compute any differential cross sections, you spent years whining about how asymptotic freedom and confinement are the same when they aren't, you can't recognise the QCD beta function even when you link to it and you don't know how to compute running couplings. You really are delusional, aren't you?
You know more than me yet you can't compute any differential cross sections, you spent years whining about how asymptotic freedom and confinement are the same when they aren't, you can't recognise the QCD beta function even when you link to it and you don't know how to compute running couplings. You really are delusional, aren't you?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
I know where this theory is inconsistent with experimental data
Except it isn't. And if you had ever bothered to find the raw experimental data you'd realise that, but you don't grasp the difference between raw data and the particle data group results, which are raw data interpreted by the Standard Model.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 22 2009, 07:45 PM)
Future experiments will prove it.
It's always just over the next hill, isn't it? How many years you been whining about the SM? How many physicists have you emailed? How come you've got nowhere? Because you're an epic failure.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
How am I 'swindling'? I've specifically answered your question about the asymptotic limit of the strong force coupling. I even put it in bold. ZERO. Is that clear enough?
AlphaNumeric, now it is clear enough. Before you only suggested the value. Now we will wait for new experimental data. Will you have a courage to say that ‘quarkers’ swindled since 1997 (in this year I described the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime - among other things I described the internal structure of the cores of baryons associated with the strong and weak interactions), when there will appear evidences that for energy about 7 TeV there is asymptote for 0.11390?
AlphaNumeric, now it is clear enough. Before you only suggested the value. Now we will wait for new experimental data. Will you have a courage to say that ‘quarkers’ swindled since 1997 (in this year I described the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime - among other things I described the internal structure of the cores of baryons associated with the strong and weak interactions), when there will appear evidences that for energy about 7 TeV there is asymptote for 0.11390?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
As for at 7TeV, can't you work it out? You've got the expression for the beta function of QCD. If you have done any quantum field theory you should know how to use that expression to compute the value of the strong force coupling at any energy scale you wish.
I computed the value of the strong force coupling at any energy scale of the colliding nucleons.
BTW, what is physical meaning of the QCD scale (217 MeV +25, -23)? Why the calculations are only for the bottom quark? In my theory, the scale has different meaning and is obligatory always.
I computed the value of the strong force coupling at any energy scale of the colliding nucleons.
BTW, what is physical meaning of the QCD scale (217 MeV +25, -23)? Why the calculations are only for the bottom quark? In my theory, the scale has different meaning and is obligatory always.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You do realise that if something changes smoothly, say coupling C with energy E, then the rate of change in terms of energy of the coupling is dC/dE ? Constant coupling means dC/dE = 0 and so forth.
You wrote the obvious truth about the beta function. I claim that for energies about 7TeV there is asymptote i.e. dC/dE = 0 whereas the C=0.11390. You claim that for energies about 7 TeV the dC/dE is negative whereas the C=0. My theory leads to conclusion that the strong force coupling changes not smoothly with energy E. There appear separated segments – see the figure in my book, page 72.
You wrote the obvious truth about the beta function. I claim that for energies about 7TeV there is asymptote i.e. dC/dE = 0 whereas the C=0.11390. You claim that for energies about 7 TeV the dC/dE is negative whereas the C=0. My theory leads to conclusion that the strong force coupling changes not smoothly with energy E. There appear separated segments – see the figure in my book, page 72.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You know more than me yet you can't compute any differential cross sections, you spent years whining about how asymptotic freedom and confinement are the same when they aren't, you can't recognise the QCD beta function even when you link to it and you don't know how to compute running couplings. You really are delusional, aren't you?
I calculated many differential cross sections, for example, the beta function for colliding nucleons. I wrote many times that within my theory we can calculate any differential cross sections but sometimes it is very time consuming.
I calculated many differential cross sections, for example, the beta function for colliding nucleons. I wrote many times that within my theory we can calculate any differential cross sections but sometimes it is very time consuming.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Except it isn't. And if you had ever bothered to find the raw experimental data you'd realise that, but you don't grasp the difference between raw data and the particle data group results, which are raw data interpreted by the Standard Model.
Interpretations are very important. My theory shows that many interpretations in the mainstream theories are incorrect. Most important are the calculations leading to experimental data and NUMBER OF APPLIED PARAMETERS. My theory contains least parameters and all the 7 parameters have physical meaning.
Interpretations are very important. My theory shows that many interpretations in the mainstream theories are incorrect. Most important are the calculations leading to experimental data and NUMBER OF APPLIED PARAMETERS. My theory contains least parameters and all the 7 parameters have physical meaning.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
It's always just over the next hill, isn't it? How many years you been whining about the SM? How many physicists have you emailed? How come you've got nowhere? Because you're an epic failure.
Do you think that you wrote an absolute truth? The lunatic quarks never will lead to the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons (and vice versa). In my theory, such calculations are associated with the T-B law for the strong interactions and ARE VERY SIMPLE AND EXACT. ‘Quarkers’ compromise themselves. For me it is the absolute truth. We must wait for thinking physicists and new experiments.
Do you think that you wrote an absolute truth? The lunatic quarks never will lead to the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons (and vice versa). In my theory, such calculations are associated with the T-B law for the strong interactions and ARE VERY SIMPLE AND EXACT. ‘Quarkers’ compromise themselves. For me it is the absolute truth. We must wait for thinking physicists and new experiments.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
AlphaNumeric, now it is clear enough. Before you only suggested the value.
No, I clearly stated it, because I told you how to calculate it. Further more, its clear from the name 'asymptotic freedom' and even the link you yourself provided. I can't be blamed for your inability to read things you link to.
No, I clearly stated it, because I told you how to calculate it. Further more, its clear from the name 'asymptotic freedom' and even the link you yourself provided. I can't be blamed for your inability to read things you link to.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
Will you have a courage to say that ‘quarkers’ swindled since 1997 (in this year I described the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime - among other things I described the internal structure of the cores of baryons associated with the strong and weak interactions), when there will appear evidences that for energy about 7 TeV there is asymptote for 0.11390?
If evidence appears that the numbers Rpenner as posted are not true, physicists will admit it. They get more money and more work when they admit they were wrong than when everything turns out to be right. That doesn't mean your work is right, I've already pointed out its fatal flaw.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
BTW, what is physical meaning of the QCD scale (217 MeV +25, -23)? Why the calculations are only for the bottom quark?
It's odd how you seem to know so little, yet you proclaim yourself more knowledgeable than myself and you make so many claims about QCD. Tell me, what have you ever actually read about QCD? What books or papers?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
You claim that for energies about 7 TeV the dC/dE is negative whereas the C=0.
No, I don't claim that. Excellent misunderstanding. Asymptotic freedom means C->0 as E->infinity. At any finite value of E you have C>0. 'Asymptotic' is a common mathematical term, you should know it if you aren't a big fat liar about your education.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
I calculated many differential cross sections, for example, the beta function for colliding nucleons. I wrote many times that within my theory we can calculate any differential cross sections but sometimes it is very time consuming.
Except you don't define the beta function 'for colliding nucleons'. The beta function is not a differential cross section, it's something you compute once you know a bunch of differential cross sections. Thanks for providing yet another example of how you try to BS people into thinking you understand things you clearly do not. You once again show you're a fraud.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
Do you think that you wrote an absolute truth?
No, I don't view our current understanding of physics as 'an absolute truth'. And don't you see the hypocrisy of that accusation? You decry how confident people studying QCD are in their work while all the time proclaiming your work 'The Ultimate Theory'. You believe your work is perfect while complaining about the blind arrogance of QCD people, who you claim view their work as truth.
Let's see... on the naive side.. almost every physicist ever since QCD came out.
On the other side... Sylwester Kornowski... his sock puppet (no, I don't mean the internet kind... I mean the sock kind) and his You Tube videos.
I'm ok with being naive I guess.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Jul 23 2009, 01:52 PM)
We must wait for thinking physicists and new experiments.
Always just around the corner, isn't it? I bet you'll be where you are now in 10, 20, 40 years.
I bet you'll be where you are now in 10, 20, 40 years.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
No, I don't claim that. Excellent misunderstanding. Asymptotic freedom means C->0 as E->infinity. At any finite value of E you have C>0. 'Asymptotic' is a common mathematical term, you should know it if you aren't a big fat liar about your education.
So once more, what should be value of the C for 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390. Do you see that in your posts are only invectives, not answers to my questions?
Once more, the quark-gluon theory is most stupid theory formulated in history of science, not only in history of physics. Only very naïve people can believe that the idiotic assumptions in the QCD are correct. The baryons must have atom-like structure. The nucleons cannot decay due to the strong interactions because relativistic pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions produced by the cores of baryons – it has radius about 1.4 fm. In hyperons and baryonic resonances, the pions are above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. Such simple model leads to exact masses, magnetic moments, lifetimes and so on. Range of the strong interactions depends on the internal structure of the cores of baryons.
Within the QCD, we even cannot postulate exact masses of the up and down quarks. Once more, future experimental data will show that POINT quarks cannot behave in idiotic manner i.e. POINT particles cannot attract stronger and stronger when distance between them increases. In such idiotic manner does not behave any observed point mass (i.e. distance is much greater than size of point particle). What is internal structure of the gluons causing that they behave in different way than all other particles? Nature is not stupid!!!!! Nature behaves still the same because whole nature appeared due to the phase transitions of the ETERNAL Newtonian spacetime. I try not charge ‘quarkers’ with an offence but their behaviour looks as communistic propaganda because we can obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data without the idiotic assumptions in the quark-gluon theory. Once more, the QCD is science fiction. The QCD is for ignoramus, for dunce.
So once more, what should be value of the C for 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390. Do you see that in your posts are only invectives, not answers to my questions?
Once more, the quark-gluon theory is most stupid theory formulated in history of science, not only in history of physics. Only very naïve people can believe that the idiotic assumptions in the QCD are correct. The baryons must have atom-like structure. The nucleons cannot decay due to the strong interactions because relativistic pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions produced by the cores of baryons – it has radius about 1.4 fm. In hyperons and baryonic resonances, the pions are above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. Such simple model leads to exact masses, magnetic moments, lifetimes and so on. Range of the strong interactions depends on the internal structure of the cores of baryons.
Within the QCD, we even cannot postulate exact masses of the up and down quarks. Once more, future experimental data will show that POINT quarks cannot behave in idiotic manner i.e. POINT particles cannot attract stronger and stronger when distance between them increases. In such idiotic manner does not behave any observed point mass (i.e. distance is much greater than size of point particle). What is internal structure of the gluons causing that they behave in different way than all other particles? Nature is not stupid!!!!! Nature behaves still the same because whole nature appeared due to the phase transitions of the ETERNAL Newtonian spacetime. I try not charge ‘quarkers’ with an offence but their behaviour looks as communistic propaganda because we can obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data without the idiotic assumptions in the quark-gluon theory. Once more, the QCD is science fiction. The QCD is for ignoramus, for dunce.
QUOTE
Only very naïve people can believe that the idiotic assumptions in the QCD are correct.
Let's see... on the naive side.. almost every physicist ever since QCD came out.
On the other side... Sylwester Kornowski... his sock puppet (no, I don't mean the internet kind... I mean the sock kind) and his You Tube videos.
I'm ok with being naive I guess.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM)
So once more, what should be value of the C for 7 TeV? I claim that it will be about 0.11390. Do you see that in your posts are only invectives, not answers to my questions?
Rpenner provided the answers and you should be able to work out the results for yourself, as I've said many times. If you so desperately want the answer, why don't you solve the first order differential equation?!
Rpenner provided the answers and you should be able to work out the results for yourself, as I've said many times. If you so desperately want the answer, why don't you solve the first order differential equation?!
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM)
Once more, the quark-gluon theory is most stupid theory formulated in history of science, not only in history of physics.
Yeah, it's not like it's accurately predicted a bunch of physics or anything....
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM)
The baryons must have atom-like structure. The nucleons cannot decay due to the strong interactions because relativistic pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions produced by the cores of baryons – it has radius about 1.4 fm. In hyperons and baryonic resonances, the pions are above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. Such simple model leads to exact masses, magnetic moments, lifetimes and so on. Range of the strong interactions depends on the internal structure of the cores of baryons.
Save the propoganda, noone here is buying it.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM)
Within the QCD, we even cannot postulate exact masses of the up and down quarks.
A lie. You can extract the up and down quark masses but it involves doing non-perturbative calculations which are a nightmare to do on anything other than a supercomputer and even then you have to make quite a few simplifications, hence why we have quite large error bars on those two particle masses, compared to such quarks as the top and bottom.
You don't bother to find out the truth and you simply make things up, trying to fool people who obviously know a great deal more about actual physics than you. It's a demonstration of how desperate you are.
You don't bother to find out the truth and you simply make things up, trying to fool people who obviously know a great deal more about actual physics than you. It's a demonstration of how desperate you are.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 4 2009, 03:32 PM)
Once more, future experimental data will show that POINT quarks cannot behave in idiotic manner i.e. POINT particles cannot attract stronger and stronger when distance between them increases. In such idiotic manner does not behave any observed point mass (i.e. distance is much greater than size of point particle). What is internal structure of the gluons causing that they behave in different way than all other particles? Nature is not stupid!!!!! Nature behaves still the same because whole nature appeared due to the phase transitions of the ETERNAL Newtonian spacetime. I try not charge ‘quarkers’ with an offence but their behaviour looks as communistic propaganda because we can obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data without the idiotic assumptions in the quark-gluon theory. Once more, the QCD is science fiction. The QCD is for ignoramus, for dunce
The fact that mainstream physics is beyond your grasp doesn't make it wrong. It just means you're a little on the thick side compared to some of us. My heart bleeds, it really does.....
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Rpenner provided the answers and you should be able to work out the results for yourself, as I've said many times. If you so desperately want the answer, why don't you solve the first order differential equation?!
Are you a coward? All on this Forum can see that you are afraid that the prediction for the running coupling within the QCD for colliding nucleons having energy about 7 TeV will be inconsistent with experimental data. I claim that the asymptotic freedom is science fiction because for energies higher than about 200GeV of colliding nucleons there is asymptote for value 0.11390. So once more: what value predicts the QCD!!!!!!!!
Are you a coward? All on this Forum can see that you are afraid that the prediction for the running coupling within the QCD for colliding nucleons having energy about 7 TeV will be inconsistent with experimental data. I claim that the asymptotic freedom is science fiction because for energies higher than about 200GeV of colliding nucleons there is asymptote for value 0.11390. So once more: what value predicts the QCD!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Save the propoganda, noone here is buying it.
In my theory, from 6 parameters associated with the Newtonian spacetime and 1 parameter associated with the Einstein spacetime I calculated among other things the 4 physical constants (G, h-bar, c and e), mass of electron (!!!!!!), and a few hundred physical quantities consistent with experimental data (see my theory). The only 7 parameters have following values:
Mean size of tachyons: 0.9514211•10^ -64 m
Mean speed of tachyons: 2.386344•10^97 m/s
Mean spin speed on equator of tachyons: 1.725741•10^70 m/s
Mean inertial mass of tachyon: 3.752673•10^ -107 kg
Dynamic viscosity of tachyons resulting from smoothness of their surfaces: 1.875165•10^138 kg/(m•s)
Inertial mass density of the Newtonian spacetime: 2.645834•10^ -15 kg/m^3
Mass density of the Einstein spacetime: 1.10220•10^28 kg/m^3
You can see in my theory how from these only 7 parameters (not at least 20 as in the SM or hundreds as in the Heim’s theory) I calculated a few hundred physical quantities CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA. You can see how I solved the unsolved basic problems within the SM, for example, origin of mass of muon, what causes that mass of electron is what it is, and so on.
Once more: Quarkers block my everlasting theory since 1985. It looks as communistic propaganda. There was the end of the politic communism and there will be the end of communism in the particle physics.
In my theory, from 6 parameters associated with the Newtonian spacetime and 1 parameter associated with the Einstein spacetime I calculated among other things the 4 physical constants (G, h-bar, c and e), mass of electron (!!!!!!), and a few hundred physical quantities consistent with experimental data (see my theory). The only 7 parameters have following values:
Mean size of tachyons: 0.9514211•10^ -64 m
Mean speed of tachyons: 2.386344•10^97 m/s
Mean spin speed on equator of tachyons: 1.725741•10^70 m/s
Mean inertial mass of tachyon: 3.752673•10^ -107 kg
Dynamic viscosity of tachyons resulting from smoothness of their surfaces: 1.875165•10^138 kg/(m•s)
Inertial mass density of the Newtonian spacetime: 2.645834•10^ -15 kg/m^3
Mass density of the Einstein spacetime: 1.10220•10^28 kg/m^3
You can see in my theory how from these only 7 parameters (not at least 20 as in the SM or hundreds as in the Heim’s theory) I calculated a few hundred physical quantities CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA. You can see how I solved the unsolved basic problems within the SM, for example, origin of mass of muon, what causes that mass of electron is what it is, and so on.
Once more: Quarkers block my everlasting theory since 1985. It looks as communistic propaganda. There was the end of the politic communism and there will be the end of communism in the particle physics.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
A lie. You can extract the up and down quark masses but it involves doing non-perturbative calculations which are a nightmare to do on anything other than a supercomputer and even then you have to make quite a few simplifications, hence why we have quite large error bars on those two particle masses, compared to such quarks as the top and bottom.
My theory does not need a supercomputer leading astray as in the SM because my theory is the true story about nature. Science fiction needs supercomputers and even applying supercomputers, we obtain results inconsistent with experimental data. For example, how masses and fractional charges of up and down quarks lead to the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons? Can you see that the SM has fundamental problems? You can see that applying my 7 parameters, in simply way I calculated these physical quantities.
My theory does not need a supercomputer leading astray as in the SM because my theory is the true story about nature. Science fiction needs supercomputers and even applying supercomputers, we obtain results inconsistent with experimental data. For example, how masses and fractional charges of up and down quarks lead to the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons? Can you see that the SM has fundamental problems? You can see that applying my 7 parameters, in simply way I calculated these physical quantities.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
The fact that mainstream physics is beyond your grasp doesn't make it wrong. It just means you're a little on the thick side compared to some of us. My heart bleeds, it really does.....
Some day the communism in the particle physics will end and it will be an end of your scientific career.
So once more: What is value of the running coupling for colliding nucleons for energy about 7 TeV? I claim that it should be about 0.114.
Some day the communism in the particle physics will end and it will be an end of your scientific career.
So once more: What is value of the running coupling for colliding nucleons for energy about 7 TeV? I claim that it should be about 0.114.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
Are you a coward? All on this Forum can see that you are afraid that the prediction for the running coupling within the QCD for colliding nucleons having energy about 7 TeV will be inconsistent with experimental data. I claim that the asymptotic freedom is science fiction because for energies higher than about 200GeV of colliding nucleons there is asymptote for value 0.11390. So once more: what value predicts the QCD!!!!!!!!
For the third or fourth time READ RPENNERS POST WHERE HE LISTS THE VALUES!. Is there some reason you're ignoring this post? I repeatedly pointed you to it. Why can't you actually read anything anyone says?
For the third or fourth time READ RPENNERS POST WHERE HE LISTS THE VALUES!. Is there some reason you're ignoring this post? I repeatedly pointed you to it. Why can't you actually read anything anyone says?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
You can see in my theory how from these only 7 parameters (not at least 20 as in the SM or hundreds as in the Heim’s theory) I calculated a few hundred physical quantities CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
Except your work isn't consistent with 'experimental data' if your work says the SM is utterly wrong. Reread posts in this thread where I explain why.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
My theory does not need a supercomputer leading astray as in the SM because my theory is the true story about nature.
Except you've never looked at any raw experimental data ever so your claim it's the true story of nature is like a blind man saying he's certain the sky is green, he neither knows what green is nor does he have any first hand experience of it.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
Science fiction needs supercomputers
All aeroplanes are designed using supercomputers running computational fluid dynamics. Supercomputers also model large weather systems, galaxy formation and protein folding. To claim supercomputers aren't needed in science is to be ignorant of science.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
and even applying supercomputers, we obtain results inconsistent with experimental data.
A flat out lie. You don't know any QCD and you refuse to educate yourself, yet you make claims about things you deliberately avoid knowing anything about!?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
For example, how masses and fractional charges of up and down quarks lead to the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons?
Why don't you learn some QCD and find out? The problem with your question is that you will refuse to accept any short explaination, claiming I'm refusing to give details because I'm 'a coward', yet if I pointed you to a paper or a textbook where such things are derived you'd refuse to accept it because you don't understand it and you don't want to accept you're wrong.
Computing hadron masses from the QCD lagrangian is extremely difficult due to the afore-mentioned non-perturbative effects which exist at low energy QCD but work has been done. Also, you can use the AdS/CFT correspondence to see that hadron masses are, for the cases of those built from the light quarks, mostly due to gluon self energies, there's more energy in the gluon field than there is in the rest mass of the quarks themselves.
Tell me, why do you ask questions before making any effort to find the answers for yourself? Why do you deliberately avoid looking in books or in journals? Why do you, instead, simply make up what you think QCD says? Are you scared you might realise just how much time you've wasted on your nonsense?
Computing hadron masses from the QCD lagrangian is extremely difficult due to the afore-mentioned non-perturbative effects which exist at low energy QCD but work has been done. Also, you can use the AdS/CFT correspondence to see that hadron masses are, for the cases of those built from the light quarks, mostly due to gluon self energies, there's more energy in the gluon field than there is in the rest mass of the quarks themselves.
Tell me, why do you ask questions before making any effort to find the answers for yourself? Why do you deliberately avoid looking in books or in journals? Why do you, instead, simply make up what you think QCD says? Are you scared you might realise just how much time you've wasted on your nonsense?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
Can you see that the SM has fundamental problems?
I don't deny the SM is not a fundamental theory, nor a particularly elegant one but it works for a huge range of phenomena and unlike you the people who developed (and continue to) it actually grasp how to compare experiments to theory.
Here's another question : How do you think the Particle Data Group find the mass of the pion? Please explain how you think they obtain the results they publish?
Here's another question : How do you think the Particle Data Group find the mass of the pion? Please explain how you think they obtain the results they publish?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 10 2009, 04:04 PM)
Some day the communism in the particle physics will end and it will be an end of your scientific career.
If the SM was falsified tomorrow it wouldn't end the careers of people working in the SM, it would boost them because there'd be the scientific version of 'The Gold Rush', as everyone tries to come up with a new theory to explain the phenomena the SM could not. The fact you think that to physicists falsifying the SM means the end of their jobs proves just how clueless they are.
Now please answer my questions.
Now please answer my questions.
Sylwester Kornowski
The fact that you don't understand this is the biggest clue that you have no clue.
If I could invalidate any of the current scientific theories like SM or QCD or any of the sort, I would do it RIGHT NOW. Not only would I not be shunned, I would be celebrated, emulated and envied. That is how science works. In fact, this is how most fields of achievement work.
However... it would need to be correct or.. no cigar.
That is why your theory is being ignored by the actual scientists. It's not because of a collusion.. it's because your theory is not even close.
Get it?
QUOTE
If the SM was falsified tomorrow it wouldn't end the careers of people working in the SM, it would boost them because there'd be the scientific version of 'The Gold Rush', as everyone tries to come up with a new theory to explain the phenomena the SM could not. The fact you think that to physicists falsifying the SM means the end of their jobs proves just how clueless they are.
The fact that you don't understand this is the biggest clue that you have no clue.
If I could invalidate any of the current scientific theories like SM or QCD or any of the sort, I would do it RIGHT NOW. Not only would I not be shunned, I would be celebrated, emulated and envied. That is how science works. In fact, this is how most fields of achievement work.
However... it would need to be correct or.. no cigar.
That is why your theory is being ignored by the actual scientists. It's not because of a collusion.. it's because your theory is not even close.
Get it?
By Sylwester's logic all the people who were working in physics departments in 1900 were fired in 1905 because Einstein come up with relativistic mechanics, compared to Newtonian ones. And then again in 1915 when general relativity surpassed Newtonian gravity. And then again in the 20s when quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian mechanics in the world of the very small.
Were there mass dismissals? Of course not. Yes, 'the old guard' were perhaps a little slow in their uptake of new ideas but that happens in any area of thought, people like what they know and know what they like. And around 1900 it was believed by some we were on the cusp of 'explaining everything', that no new big surprises lay in store for physicists. Now we outright want them.
The physicists (and indeed any scientist or thinker or inventor etc) whose names go down in history are those who break the status quo. Schrodinger, Einstein. Dirac, Feynman, Hawking, Eddington. Sure, if you're in the physics community you'll know a lot more but the ones whose names have permeated through into the general conciousness of society are due to their dismissal of the status quo. That is not to say that adding to the status quo is not wanted, sometimes you can make a good model great but it's an historical fact that patching and adding on to preexisting theories will only go so far because a quantum leap is required.
Sywlester, as Rob says, if you asked any physicist if they'd like to have their name attached to the theory which surpasses relativity or quantum mechanics they'd say yes. The problem for you is that physicists have criteria for assessing the validity of a possible 'next big thing', such as actual experiments and self consistency and your work fails. There is no global 'physicist communist conspiracy', some physicists are down right cut throat when it comes to pushing new work over other peoples', the simple fact is your work is crap.
Were there mass dismissals? Of course not. Yes, 'the old guard' were perhaps a little slow in their uptake of new ideas but that happens in any area of thought, people like what they know and know what they like. And around 1900 it was believed by some we were on the cusp of 'explaining everything', that no new big surprises lay in store for physicists. Now we outright want them.
The physicists (and indeed any scientist or thinker or inventor etc) whose names go down in history are those who break the status quo. Schrodinger, Einstein. Dirac, Feynman, Hawking, Eddington. Sure, if you're in the physics community you'll know a lot more but the ones whose names have permeated through into the general conciousness of society are due to their dismissal of the status quo. That is not to say that adding to the status quo is not wanted, sometimes you can make a good model great but it's an historical fact that patching and adding on to preexisting theories will only go so far because a quantum leap is required.
Sywlester, as Rob says, if you asked any physicist if they'd like to have their name attached to the theory which surpasses relativity or quantum mechanics they'd say yes. The problem for you is that physicists have criteria for assessing the validity of a possible 'next big thing', such as actual experiments and self consistency and your work fails. There is no global 'physicist communist conspiracy', some physicists are down right cut throat when it comes to pushing new work over other peoples', the simple fact is your work is crap.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
For the third or fourth time READ RPENNERS POST WHERE HE LISTS THE VALUES!. Is there some reason you're ignoring this post? I repeatedly pointed you to it. Why can't you actually read anything anyone says?
Why do you not want to write that you claim that for energy 7 TeV it will be about 0.073? Do you accept this result? I claim that it will be about 0.114. We see that there is big difference. It means that such measurement can show which theory is correct i.e. the QCD (0.073) or my everlasting theory (0.114).
Why do you not want to write that you claim that for energy 7 TeV it will be about 0.073? Do you accept this result? I claim that it will be about 0.114. We see that there is big difference. It means that such measurement can show which theory is correct i.e. the QCD (0.073) or my everlasting theory (0.114).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Except your work isn't consistent with 'experimental data' if your work says the SM is utterly wrong. Reread posts in this thread where I explain why.
I write once more that the quark-gluon theory is the most stupid theory because of following assumptions:
1.
Due the fantastic properties of gluons (read: idiotic) the quarks attract themselves stronger and stronger when distance between them increases. Whole nature contradicts such behaviour of the POINT objects!!!!! Of course, the running coupling decreases for higher energies but this effect is associated with behaviour of the carriers of strong forces and with ORIGIN OF SPIN, not with the fantastic properties of gluons.
2.
That there are possible the real fractional electric charges of quarks. It is next most stupid assumptions because we never find phenomena responsible for such selection rule leading to the fractional charges. Why not 4e/3, 5e/3 or e/2, and so on? Of course, experimental data lead to fractional electric charges but they are the mean charges resulting from EXCHANGES of the elementary charge!!!!!!
3.
Next most stupid assumption is that the baryons have not an atom-like structure. It causes that within the QCD we cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks.
4.
The deconfinement is the next most stupid idea resulting from next fantastic properties of gluons. What is internal structure of the gluons leading to the fantastic properties? In my theory, in the collisions of nucleons are produced new cores of baryons – it leads to the liquid-like plasma observed in experiments.
And so on…. Once more: The quark-gluon theory is for idiots. They completely do not understand that the fantastic properties must result from POSSIBLE physical phenomena. The QCD says nothing about such phenomena. Authors of the QCD swindle whole World covering up this FUNDAMENTAL fact.
I write once more that the quark-gluon theory is the most stupid theory because of following assumptions:
1.
Due the fantastic properties of gluons (read: idiotic) the quarks attract themselves stronger and stronger when distance between them increases. Whole nature contradicts such behaviour of the POINT objects!!!!! Of course, the running coupling decreases for higher energies but this effect is associated with behaviour of the carriers of strong forces and with ORIGIN OF SPIN, not with the fantastic properties of gluons.
2.
That there are possible the real fractional electric charges of quarks. It is next most stupid assumptions because we never find phenomena responsible for such selection rule leading to the fractional charges. Why not 4e/3, 5e/3 or e/2, and so on? Of course, experimental data lead to fractional electric charges but they are the mean charges resulting from EXCHANGES of the elementary charge!!!!!!
3.
Next most stupid assumption is that the baryons have not an atom-like structure. It causes that within the QCD we cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks.
4.
The deconfinement is the next most stupid idea resulting from next fantastic properties of gluons. What is internal structure of the gluons leading to the fantastic properties? In my theory, in the collisions of nucleons are produced new cores of baryons – it leads to the liquid-like plasma observed in experiments.
And so on…. Once more: The quark-gluon theory is for idiots. They completely do not understand that the fantastic properties must result from POSSIBLE physical phenomena. The QCD says nothing about such phenomena. Authors of the QCD swindle whole World covering up this FUNDAMENTAL fact.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Except you've never looked at any raw experimental data ever so your claim it's the true story of nature is like a blind man saying he's certain the sky is green, he neither knows what green is nor does he have any first hand experience of it.
And it is language of communist. You wrote untrue because my ultimate theory contains the least amount of parameters (7), leads from the Newtonian spacetime to the a few hundred theoretical results CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
And it is language of communist. You wrote untrue because my ultimate theory contains the least amount of parameters (7), leads from the Newtonian spacetime to the a few hundred theoretical results CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
A flat out lie. You don't know any QCD and you refuse to educate yourself, yet you make claims about things you deliberately avoid knowing anything about!?
You completely do not understand the QCD. You try do not see the all WEAK POINTS in this theory, you completely do not understand that the fantastic properties of the gluons and quarks explain nothing, that such properties cause that not explained problems transform into much more new not explained problems. Once more: what phenomena lead to the fantastic/idiotic properties of gluons and quarks? What quantize the masses and charges of quarks, why the gluons lead to the asymptotic freedom, and so on?
You completely do not understand the QCD. You try do not see the all WEAK POINTS in this theory, you completely do not understand that the fantastic properties of the gluons and quarks explain nothing, that such properties cause that not explained problems transform into much more new not explained problems. Once more: what phenomena lead to the fantastic/idiotic properties of gluons and quarks? What quantize the masses and charges of quarks, why the gluons lead to the asymptotic freedom, and so on?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I don't deny the SM is not a fundamental theory, nor a particularly elegant one but it works for a huge range of phenomena and unlike you the people who developed (and continue to) it actually grasp how to compare experiments to theory.
Here's another question : How do you think the Particle Data Group find the mass of the pion? Please explain how you think they obtain the results they publish?
I wrote it many times. There are the laws of conservation. There are the trajectories. There are the equations describing how behave, for example, the electric charges in magnetic field. My theory (the possible phenomena derived from the Newtonian spacetime) leads to THESE equations TOO. I calculated the masses of pions from the POSSIBLE PHASE TRANSITIONS OF THE NEWTONIAN SPACETIME. Obtained results are consistent with experimental data – see my very simple theory. This theory is SIMPLE because it is true history of nature.
Here's another question : How do you think the Particle Data Group find the mass of the pion? Please explain how you think they obtain the results they publish?
I wrote it many times. There are the laws of conservation. There are the trajectories. There are the equations describing how behave, for example, the electric charges in magnetic field. My theory (the possible phenomena derived from the Newtonian spacetime) leads to THESE equations TOO. I calculated the masses of pions from the POSSIBLE PHASE TRANSITIONS OF THE NEWTONIAN SPACETIME. Obtained results are consistent with experimental data – see my very simple theory. This theory is SIMPLE because it is true history of nature.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
If the SM was falsified tomorrow it wouldn't end the careers of people working in the SM, it would boost them because there'd be the scientific version of 'The Gold Rush', as everyone tries to come up with a new theory to explain the phenomena the SM could not. The fact you think that to physicists falsifying the SM means the end of their jobs proves just how clueless they are.
Now please answer my questions.
I write only a few words:
Revolution of the Nicolaus Copernicus theory
Revolution of the Max Planck constant
My theory based on the 4 phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions will start revolution in physics and cosmology. The political communism lasted 74 years. The Copernicus theory was lying under a curse for 219 years. The ‘wavers’ fight for years against the quantum physics. Now quarkers block my theory (only 7 parameters; nature derived from the most fundamental spacetime i.e. from the Newtonian spacetime; a few hundred results consistent with experimental data; I showed where the SM is inconsistent with experimental data) – it is typical behaviour in communism. But who knows what it will be in future? Swindle forever is not possible.
In politic, when political promises are not realised then electorate remove their authors.
Now please answer my questions.
I write only a few words:
Revolution of the Nicolaus Copernicus theory
Revolution of the Max Planck constant
My theory based on the 4 phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions will start revolution in physics and cosmology. The political communism lasted 74 years. The Copernicus theory was lying under a curse for 219 years. The ‘wavers’ fight for years against the quantum physics. Now quarkers block my theory (only 7 parameters; nature derived from the most fundamental spacetime i.e. from the Newtonian spacetime; a few hundred results consistent with experimental data; I showed where the SM is inconsistent with experimental data) – it is typical behaviour in communism. But who knows what it will be in future? Swindle forever is not possible.
In politic, when political promises are not realised then electorate remove their authors.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
Why do you not want to write that you claim that for energy 7 TeV it will be about 0.073?
What? If I didn't agree with Rpenner's post why would I tell you to read it? Besides, I'm hardly sitting on the fence here, am I? I have clearly stated I think QCD is much better than your nonsense and that I agree with it's prediction of asymptotic freedom.
It's possible Rpenner's posted value might be wrong, if something such as supersymmetry exists at below the 7TeV you specify. If it does then you'd need to include SUSY particle contributions to your calculation of the beta function of QCD but the method is exactly the same, we'd just be accounting for previously unknown particles.
What? If I didn't agree with Rpenner's post why would I tell you to read it? Besides, I'm hardly sitting on the fence here, am I? I have clearly stated I think QCD is much better than your nonsense and that I agree with it's prediction of asymptotic freedom.
It's possible Rpenner's posted value might be wrong, if something such as supersymmetry exists at below the 7TeV you specify. If it does then you'd need to include SUSY particle contributions to your calculation of the beta function of QCD but the method is exactly the same, we'd just be accounting for previously unknown particles.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
or my everlasting theory (0.114).
I like how you whine physicists are too cock sure of themselves then you claim you've got the exact description of all of nature, without having looked at any raw experimental data.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
Due the fantastic properties of gluons (read: idiotic) the quarks attract themselves stronger and stronger when distance between them increases.
The fact you don't understand confinement doesn't mean it's 'idiotic'. A rubber band increases its inward pull as you stretch it. The flux tubes generated by confinement do much the same way, you have to put more and more energy into creating more and more gluons, as you need more and more to shield the confined charge of the quarks.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
nature contradicts such behaviour of the POINT objects!!!!!
How would you know, you've never looked at raw experimental data.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
Of course, the running coupling decreases for higher energies but this effect is associated with behaviour of the carriers of strong forces and with ORIGIN OF SPIN, not with the fantastic properties of gluons.
So why don't the photon or weak bosons show asymptotic freedom? Further more, you just contradicted yourself, by implying the effect isn't due to the properties of gluons but the carriers of the strong force. They are one and the same.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
That there are possible the real fractional electric charges of quarks. It is next most stupid assumptions because we never find phenomena responsible for such selection rule leading to the fractional charges. Why not 4e/3, 5e/3 or e/2, and so on? Of course, experimental data lead to fractional electric charges but they are the mean charges resulting from EXCHANGES of the elementary charge!!!!!!
You still fail to grasp this?! It's a matter of convention! We just take 1 unit of charge to be that of the electron, since it was the first charged particle ever discovered. If we'd seen quarks before electrons we'd say they has integer charge q and the electron has charge 3q. Your complaint is akin to saying "Any distance which isn't an integer number of metres is wrong! Half a metre cannot exist!!"
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
Next most stupid assumption is that the baryons have not an atom-like structure. It causes that within the QCD we cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks
Deep inelastic scattering falsified the atom-like structure concept of baryons. And you are wrong when you say that the up and down quark masses can't be calculated, I have already corrected you on that. They are very light, much less than the Lambda_QCD scale and so you must use non-perturbative methods to extract their values, which is difficult. But not impossible.
Why do you continue to tell the same lies to me, even after (in this very thread!) I've corrected you on it. I know for a fact that you can extract quark masses from QCD, I know people who do it for a living, I work with them. So why do you tell such lies? What are you afraid of, which drives you to lie so much?
Why do you continue to tell the same lies to me, even after (in this very thread!) I've corrected you on it. I know for a fact that you can extract quark masses from QCD, I know people who do it for a living, I work with them. So why do you tell such lies? What are you afraid of, which drives you to lie so much?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
The deconfinement is the next most stupid idea resulting from next fantastic properties of gluons. What is internal structure of the gluons leading to the fantastic properties? In my theory, in the collisions of nucleons are produced new cores of baryons – it leads to the liquid-like plasma observed in experiments.
Deconfinement has been seen at RHIC.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
And so on…. Once more: The quark-gluon theory is for idiots. They completely do not understand that the fantastic properties must result from POSSIBLE physical phenomena. The QCD says nothing about such phenomena. Authors of the QCD swindle whole World covering up this FUNDAMENTAL fact.
Just because you don't understand QCD doesn't mean others don't. The people who first came up with QCD have largely retired, there's a new generation of people who understand QCD and if it were wrong would say so. You dream up conspiracies to explain your failures.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
And it is language of communist. You wrote untrue because my ultimate theory contains the least amount of parameters (7), leads from the Newtonian spacetime to the a few hundred theoretical results CONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA.
How is that 'the language of a communist'? And again, I said RAW experimental data. Your 'consistent with experimental data' means 'raw experimental data interpreted using the Standard Model'.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
You completely do not understand the QCD
I obviously understand it infinitely more than you.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
I wrote it many times. There are the laws of conservation. There are the trajectories. There are the equations describing how behave, for example, the electric charges in magnetic field. My theory (the possible phenomena derived from the Newtonian spacetime) leads to THESE equations TOO. I calculated the masses of pions from the POSSIBLE PHASE TRANSITIONS OF THE NEWTONIAN SPACETIME. Obtained results are consistent with experimental data – see my very simple theory. This theory is SIMPLE because it is true history of nature.
So you've actually used the particle track outputs from CERN and other colliders? Funny how your work doesn't have any in there.
And only a fool says "My theory is perfect, it covers everything in the entire universe", because you think you've seen all the phenomena in the entire universe.
And only a fool says "My theory is perfect, it covers everything in the entire universe", because you think you've seen all the phenomena in the entire universe.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 11 2009, 03:53 PM)
it is typical behaviour in communism.
Learn a new insult. Just because Russia buggered up your country doesn't mean 'communist!" is an apt insult.
And you ignored my question :
Tell me, why do you ask questions before making any effort to find the answers for yourself? Why do you deliberately avoid looking in books or in journals? Why do you, instead, simply make up what you think QCD says? Are you scared you might realise just how much time you've wasted on your nonsense?
Any didn't you answer? Afraid to admit you've never bothered to learn anything about something you're so vocal about? Afraid to admit you have no interest in open minded scientific methodology?
And you ignored my question :
Tell me, why do you ask questions before making any effort to find the answers for yourself? Why do you deliberately avoid looking in books or in journals? Why do you, instead, simply make up what you think QCD says? Are you scared you might realise just how much time you've wasted on your nonsense?
Any didn't you answer? Afraid to admit you've never bothered to learn anything about something you're so vocal about? Afraid to admit you have no interest in open minded scientific methodology?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
It's possible Rpenner's posted value might be wrong, if something such as supersymmetry exists at below the 7TeV you specify. If it does then you'd need to include SUSY particle contributions to your calculation of the beta function of QCD but the method is exactly the same, we'd just be accounting for previously unknown particles.
Now all can see the hypocrisy of advocates of the quark-gluon theory. They think as follows. If experimental data will be consistent with my result (about 0.114 for 7 TeV) then for them it does not mean that my theory is correct whereas the quark-gluon theory is incorrect. For them it is due to supersymmetry even if they will not find adequate new particle i.e. new –inos or new s-particles. I claim that new particles associated with the supersymmetry never will found. So once more: AlphaNumeric, what you will say about my theory when experimental data will show that for 7TeV is 0.114 and that the new –inos and s-particles and the Higgs bosons are not in existence? Do you will claim still that the most stupid quark-gluon theory is correct and that my theory is incorrect?
Now all can see the hypocrisy of advocates of the quark-gluon theory. They think as follows. If experimental data will be consistent with my result (about 0.114 for 7 TeV) then for them it does not mean that my theory is correct whereas the quark-gluon theory is incorrect. For them it is due to supersymmetry even if they will not find adequate new particle i.e. new –inos or new s-particles. I claim that new particles associated with the supersymmetry never will found. So once more: AlphaNumeric, what you will say about my theory when experimental data will show that for 7TeV is 0.114 and that the new –inos and s-particles and the Higgs bosons are not in existence? Do you will claim still that the most stupid quark-gluon theory is correct and that my theory is incorrect?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
The fact you don't understand confinement doesn't mean it's 'idiotic'. A rubber band increases its inward pull as you stretch it. The flux tubes generated by confinement do much the same way, you have to put more and more energy into creating more and more gluons, as you need more and more to shield the confined charge of the quarks.
You still do not understand that you must describe physically and mathematically the internal structure of gluons leading to such behaviour of gluons. You and others do not understand that on lower and lower levels of nature there are less and less possible phenomena. For example, in the Newtonian spacetime are possible only two phenomena i.e. the direct collisions of tachyons and creations of the closed strings having the same radius (about 10^-45 m). In the Einstein spacetime are possible more phenomena, inside atoms much more, and so on. Pure energy as gluons or photons CANNOT BEHAVE AS RUBBER BAND. So once more: Can you describe internal structure of gluons leading to such fantastic/idiotic behaviour?
You still do not understand that you must describe physically and mathematically the internal structure of gluons leading to such behaviour of gluons. You and others do not understand that on lower and lower levels of nature there are less and less possible phenomena. For example, in the Newtonian spacetime are possible only two phenomena i.e. the direct collisions of tachyons and creations of the closed strings having the same radius (about 10^-45 m). In the Einstein spacetime are possible more phenomena, inside atoms much more, and so on. Pure energy as gluons or photons CANNOT BEHAVE AS RUBBER BAND. So once more: Can you describe internal structure of gluons leading to such fantastic/idiotic behaviour?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
How would you know, you've never looked at raw experimental data.
Only communist can write such sentence.
Only communist can write such sentence.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
So why don't the photon or weak bosons show asymptotic freedom? Further more, you just contradicted yourself, by implying the effect isn't due to the properties of gluons but the carriers of the strong force. They are one and the same.
First, components of baryons do not show asymptotic freedom, they show asymptotic compression of the massive cores of baryons leading to the liquid-like plasma. There is asymptote for value 0.11390, not the zero as in the asymptotic freedom. How the Newtonian spacetime leads to the asymptotic compression and to the experimental data I described in my book. See:
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl
Why the stable objects arising due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime must have the half-integral spin? (see pages 13-16)
Why there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin when a particle is accelerated? (see pages 32-33)
Inside torus of the cores of baryons are produced my virtual gluons (i.e. vortices) having MASS 67.5444 MeV when baryons are in the rest. From the uncertainty principle we have for virtual vortices
Mass-of-virtual-vortex*Lifetime-of-this-vortex(it is the spin period)=h-bar
When we accelerate a baryon then spin speed of the vortex in core of baryon decreases (see pages 32-33). It means that lifetime of the virtual vortex increases i.e. MASS OF THE VIRTUAL VORTEX (my gluon) DECREASES. It means that running coupling decreases when energy of colliding nucleons increases. It does not decreases to zero because from the relativistic mass of colliding nucleons are produced NEW CORES OF BARYONS. It means that in the liquid-like plasma is produced more the virtual vortices. It causes that there appears the asymptote for value equal to 0.11390 (see pages 71-73).
First, components of baryons do not show asymptotic freedom, they show asymptotic compression of the massive cores of baryons leading to the liquid-like plasma. There is asymptote for value 0.11390, not the zero as in the asymptotic freedom. How the Newtonian spacetime leads to the asymptotic compression and to the experimental data I described in my book. See:
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl
Why the stable objects arising due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime must have the half-integral spin? (see pages 13-16)
Why there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin when a particle is accelerated? (see pages 32-33)
Inside torus of the cores of baryons are produced my virtual gluons (i.e. vortices) having MASS 67.5444 MeV when baryons are in the rest. From the uncertainty principle we have for virtual vortices
Mass-of-virtual-vortex*Lifetime-of-this-vortex(it is the spin period)=h-bar
When we accelerate a baryon then spin speed of the vortex in core of baryon decreases (see pages 32-33). It means that lifetime of the virtual vortex increases i.e. MASS OF THE VIRTUAL VORTEX (my gluon) DECREASES. It means that running coupling decreases when energy of colliding nucleons increases. It does not decreases to zero because from the relativistic mass of colliding nucleons are produced NEW CORES OF BARYONS. It means that in the liquid-like plasma is produced more the virtual vortices. It causes that there appears the asymptote for value equal to 0.11390 (see pages 71-73).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You still fail to grasp this?! It's a matter of convention! We just take 1 unit of charge to be that of the electron, since it was the first charged particle ever discovered. If we'd seen quarks before electrons we'd say they has integer charge q and the electron has charge 3q. Your complaint is akin to saying "Any distance which isn't an integer number of metres is wrong! Half a metre cannot exist!!"
It’s not a matter of convention!!!!!!!!!!
The mass, electric charge and spin of electron are associated with THE PROPERTIES OF EINSTEIN SPACETIME. We never find selection rules associated with this spacetime leading to the fractional electric charges of quarks. In the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes is no place for the fractional electric charges i.e. there are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to the needed selection rules.
It’s not a matter of convention!!!!!!!!!!
The mass, electric charge and spin of electron are associated with THE PROPERTIES OF EINSTEIN SPACETIME. We never find selection rules associated with this spacetime leading to the fractional electric charges of quarks. In the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes is no place for the fractional electric charges i.e. there are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to the needed selection rules.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Deep inelastic scattering falsified the atom-like structure concept of baryons. And you are wrong when you say that the up and down quark masses can't be calculated, I have already corrected you on that. They are very light, much less than the Lambda_QCD scale and so you must use non-perturbative methods to extract their values, which is difficult. But not impossible.
Deep inelastic scattering do not falsified the atom-like structure of baryons! See my theory. Why such structure leads to results consistent with experimental data?
You can believe me, we never calculate exact masses of the up and down quarks even using non-perturbative methods because properties of the Einstein spacetime do not lead to quarks and gluons.
Deep inelastic scattering do not falsified the atom-like structure of baryons! See my theory. Why such structure leads to results consistent with experimental data?
You can believe me, we never calculate exact masses of the up and down quarks even using non-perturbative methods because properties of the Einstein spacetime do not lead to quarks and gluons.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Deconfinement has been seen at RHIC.
It is wrong INTERPRETATION. There has been seen the asymptotic compression of the cores of baryons.
It is wrong INTERPRETATION. There has been seen the asymptotic compression of the cores of baryons.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Just because you don't understand QCD doesn't mean others don't. The people who first came up with QCD have largely retired, there's a new generation of people who understand QCD and if it were wrong would say so. You dream up conspiracies to explain your failures.
What is internal structure of gluons?
Why the QCD scale (about 217 MeV) is only for the bottom quark?
What properties of the Einstein spacetime lead to the selection rules for the masses and fractional electric charges of quarks?
Can you see that the quark-gluon theory is idiotic?
Can you answer my FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS?
What is internal structure of gluons?
Why the QCD scale (about 217 MeV) is only for the bottom quark?
What properties of the Einstein spacetime lead to the selection rules for the masses and fractional electric charges of quarks?
Can you see that the quark-gluon theory is idiotic?
Can you answer my FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS?
I have a quastion
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Now all can see the hypocrisy of advocates of the quark-gluon theory. They think as follows. If experimental data will be consistent with my result (about 0.114 for 7 TeV) then for them it does not mean that my theory is correct whereas the quark-gluon theory is incorrect. For them it is due to supersymmetry even if they will not find adequate new particle i.e. new –inos or new s-particles. I claim that new particles associated with the supersymmetry never will found. So once more: AlphaNumeric, what you will say about my theory when experimental data will show that for 7TeV is 0.114 and that the new –inos and s-particles and the Higgs bosons are not in existence?
You didn't even bother to try to understand what I said, did you?
The value of the strong coupling at any particular energy scale significantly depends on the particles whose rest masses are below that energy scale and partly depends on the particles which are more massive than that energy scale (due to loop contributions which decouple if they are much much more massive). As such, it is conceivable that if something like supersymmetry exists at an energy scale below the 7TeV you mention then those particles will play an important and non-ignorable effect in the running of the strong coupling and this would mean that the number Rpenner has given is not correct. Such things as symmetry breakings (ie electroweak and supersymmetric) also play important roles and given we are not certain as to the particulars of those yet, Rpenner's value might be wrong.
However, if we see no extra particles, ie no supersymmetry, and the strong coupling runs to a value which is not equal to that which Rpenner has posted then yes, something will be wrong with the SM.
You didn't even bother to try to understand what I said, did you?
The value of the strong coupling at any particular energy scale significantly depends on the particles whose rest masses are below that energy scale and partly depends on the particles which are more massive than that energy scale (due to loop contributions which decouple if they are much much more massive). As such, it is conceivable that if something like supersymmetry exists at an energy scale below the 7TeV you mention then those particles will play an important and non-ignorable effect in the running of the strong coupling and this would mean that the number Rpenner has given is not correct. Such things as symmetry breakings (ie electroweak and supersymmetric) also play important roles and given we are not certain as to the particulars of those yet, Rpenner's value might be wrong.
However, if we see no extra particles, ie no supersymmetry, and the strong coupling runs to a value which is not equal to that which Rpenner has posted then yes, something will be wrong with the SM.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Do you will claim still that the most stupid quark-gluon theory is correct and that my theory is incorrect?
I claim that the Standard Model is an excellent effective theory for particle physics up to at least 100GeV, and it accurately describes the low energy behaviour of the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. I do not claim it's 'correct' in the sense that it covers any and all phenomena at any energy, I don't believe that, but I do believe it's very good at describing all the particle physics thus far observed. And I believe.... sorry, I know it's better than your nonsense.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
You still do not understand that you must describe physically and mathematically the internal structure of gluons leading to such behaviour of gluons. You and others do not understand that on lower and lower levels of nature there are less and less possible phenomena. For example, in the Newtonian spacetime are possible only two phenomena i.e. the direct collisions of tachyons and creations of the closed strings having the same radius (about 10^-45 m). In the Einstein spacetime are possible more phenomena, inside atoms much more, and so on.
Pointless propoganda. Why do you bother?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Pure energy as gluons or photons CANNOT BEHAVE AS RUBBER BAND. So once more: Can you describe internal structure of gluons leading to such fantastic/idiotic behaviour?
I didn't say a single gluon is like a rubber band, I said large numbers of them form structures like a rubber band. It's an analogy. Anmd besides, we know subatomic particles can form structures like rubber bands, because rubber bands are made of atoms!
At least try to read what I said.
At least try to read what I said.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Only communist can write such sentence.
So what RAW experimental data have you looked at? Prove me wrong. Nothing in any work you've linked to has involved you modelling particle tracks, you just try to match the values you read in the Particle Data Group.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
First, components of baryons do not show asymptotic freedom, they show asymptotic compression of the massive cores of baryons leading to the liquid-like plasma. There is asymptote for value 0.11390, not the zero as in the asymptotic freedom. How the Newtonian spacetime leads to the asymptotic compression and to the experimental data I described in my book. See:
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl
Why the stable objects arising due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime must have the half-integral spin? (see pages 13-16)
Why there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin when a particle is accelerated? (see pages 32-33)
Inside torus of the cores of baryons are produced my virtual gluons (i.e. vortices) having MASS 67.5444 MeV when baryons are in the rest. From the uncertainty principle we have for virtual vortices
Mass-of-virtual-vortex*Lifetime-of-this-vortex(it is the spin period)=h-bar
When we accelerate a baryon then spin speed of the vortex in core of baryon decreases (see pages 32-33). It means that lifetime of the virtual vortex increases i.e. MASS OF THE VIRTUAL VORTEX (my gluon) DECREASES. It means that running coupling decreases when energy of colliding nucleons increases. It does not decreases to zero because from the relativistic mass of colliding nucleons are produced NEW CORES OF BARYONS. It means that in the liquid-like plasma is produced more the virtual vortices. It causes that there appears the asymptote for value equal to 0.11390 (see pages 71-73).
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl
Why the stable objects arising due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime must have the half-integral spin? (see pages 13-16)
Why there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin when a particle is accelerated? (see pages 32-33)
Inside torus of the cores of baryons are produced my virtual gluons (i.e. vortices) having MASS 67.5444 MeV when baryons are in the rest. From the uncertainty principle we have for virtual vortices
Mass-of-virtual-vortex*Lifetime-of-this-vortex(it is the spin period)=h-bar
When we accelerate a baryon then spin speed of the vortex in core of baryon decreases (see pages 32-33). It means that lifetime of the virtual vortex increases i.e. MASS OF THE VIRTUAL VORTEX (my gluon) DECREASES. It means that running coupling decreases when energy of colliding nucleons increases. It does not decreases to zero because from the relativistic mass of colliding nucleons are produced NEW CORES OF BARYONS. It means that in the liquid-like plasma is produced more the virtual vortices. It causes that there appears the asymptote for value equal to 0.11390 (see pages 71-73).
Pointless propoganda. Why do you bother?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
t’s not a matter of convention!!!!!!!!!!
The mass, electric charge and spin of electron are associated with THE PROPERTIES OF EINSTEIN SPACETIME. We never find selection rules associated with this spacetime leading to the fractional electric charges of quarks. In the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes is no place for the fractional electric charges i.e. there are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to the needed selection rules.
The mass, electric charge and spin of electron are associated with THE PROPERTIES OF EINSTEIN SPACETIME. We never find selection rules associated with this spacetime leading to the fractional electric charges of quarks. In the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes is no place for the fractional electric charges i.e. there are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to the needed selection rules.
The units we give charges are a matter of convention. For instance, an electron is 1.6 x 10^(-19) Coulombs. Quarks have charges of (up to a sign) 5.3 x 10^(-20) Coulombs and 1.06 x 10^(-19) Coulombs. Where's the problem with that? You whine that for historical reasons we write e = 1.6 x 10^(-19) Coulombs, so quark charges are 2e/3 or e/3. I define a new charge f = 5.3 x 10^(-20) Coulombs. Quarks are of charge f, 2f and electrons are charge 3f. Where's the problem with that?
The relative charge ratio between quarks and electrons is 1:3 or 2:3. So what?
The relative charge ratio between quarks and electrons is 1:3 or 2:3. So what?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Deep inelastic scattering do not falsified the atom-like structure of baryons! See my theory.
Deep inelastic scattering falsifies the atom model, the distribution of charge is not like an atom.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
See my theory. Why such structure leads to results consistent with experimental data?
Because you avoid doing any differential cross sections, ie dynamical scattering processes and just play numerology with masses, as published by the PDG, who use the SM to analyse raw data.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
You can believe me, we never calculate exact masses of the up and down quarks even using non-perturbative methods because properties of the Einstein spacetime do not lead to quarks and gluons.
Nothing in experimental stuff is ever 'exact' but in principle, given enough computing power we could extract the masses of the up and down quarks to as accurate as you like, ie as accurately as we know the electron's mass. Nothing prevents that other than the sheer number of calculations needed, so you're proven wrong.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
It is wrong INTERPRETATION. There has been seen the asymptotic compression of the cores of baryons.
.
.
Except you wouldn't know, you've never seen the raw data.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
Can you answer my FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS?
Your questions are either strawmen or things you'd know if you bothered to try to learn yourself. You avoided answering my question about why you don't bother to learn any QCD before making claims about it? Why do you come here and shout "How does QCD describe......." before bothering to open a book on QCD which would have answered your question? Why do you make up lies about QCD because you're too lazy to open a book on QCD to find the truth? You complain about deliberate conspiracies in physics, yet you engage in keeping yourself deliberately ignorant. It's hypocritical. And it explains why you're an abject failure.
QUOTE (czeslaw+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
I have a quastion
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
Have you heard something new about chromodynamics recently ?
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
Have you heard something new about chromodynamics recently ?
QUOTE (czeslaw+Aug 12 2009, 09:49 AM)
I have a quastion
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
Czeslaw, I read the paper about the 4C model. In my opinion, this model has the same problem as the quark-gluon theory i.e. author cannot describe phenomena leading to selection rules for the masses and electric charges of the new components. Such selection rules should be associated with physical properties of the Einstein spacetime.
I am not a specialist of particle physics but 2 month ago I have met a professor Horodecki who met Murray GellMann some years ago. They spoke about quarks and GellMann said that there are more quarks observed now than predicts his theory. GellMann doubts if the quarks are fundamental at all.
I have met an another professor who is retired now but worked in a nuclear institute in Cracow and he found that every particles and their decays may be calculated by 4 components. These components are not fermions like quaks but just components. May be like information or wave function or something else.
It is interesting that only 4 components create all particles instead of 24 quarks.
There is a link:
http://www.heureka.nd.pl/4C-N.pdf
What do you think about it ?
Czeslaw, I read the paper about the 4C model. In my opinion, this model has the same problem as the quark-gluon theory i.e. author cannot describe phenomena leading to selection rules for the masses and electric charges of the new components. Such selection rules should be associated with physical properties of the Einstein spacetime.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I claim that the Standard Model is an excellent effective theory for particle physics up to at least 100GeV, and it accurately describes the low energy behaviour of the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. I do not claim it's 'correct' in the sense that it covers any and all phenomena at any energy, I don't believe that, but I do believe it's very good at describing all the particle physics thus far observed. And I believe.... sorry, I know it's better than your nonsense.
For you, AlphaNumeric, theory containing at least 20 parameters (the SM) is better than theory containing 7 parameters (my theory). Both theories lead to experimental data. The SM leads to experimental data because contains at least 20-7=13 parameters which nature does not need. It means that within the SM we can describe tremendous number of phenomena not realized by nature. It causes that the SM is ‘an excellent effective theory for particle physics up to at least 100 GeV’ because the at least 13 additional parameters cause that within the SM we can match the theoretical results to experimental data. But, the 13 additional parameters are not enough to predict correctly experimental results for higher energies. I claim that there will appear new parameters to match theoretical results to NEW experimental data. It is childish game.
So once more about my predictions for higher energies:
1.
There is asymptote for the running coupling (0.11390).
2.
The supersymmetry is science fiction. No one new –ino or s-particle described within the supersymmetry we will detect.
3.
The Higgs mechanism is science fiction. No one Higgs boson we will detect.
4.
MANY theoretical results show that the baryons have atom-like structure. I wrote many times about such experiments ( see pages 6-7 in my theory, see http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf )
For you, AlphaNumeric, theory containing at least 20 parameters (the SM) is better than theory containing 7 parameters (my theory). Both theories lead to experimental data. The SM leads to experimental data because contains at least 20-7=13 parameters which nature does not need. It means that within the SM we can describe tremendous number of phenomena not realized by nature. It causes that the SM is ‘an excellent effective theory for particle physics up to at least 100 GeV’ because the at least 13 additional parameters cause that within the SM we can match the theoretical results to experimental data. But, the 13 additional parameters are not enough to predict correctly experimental results for higher energies. I claim that there will appear new parameters to match theoretical results to NEW experimental data. It is childish game.
So once more about my predictions for higher energies:
1.
There is asymptote for the running coupling (0.11390).
2.
The supersymmetry is science fiction. No one new –ino or s-particle described within the supersymmetry we will detect.
3.
The Higgs mechanism is science fiction. No one Higgs boson we will detect.
4.
MANY theoretical results show that the baryons have atom-like structure. I wrote many times about such experiments ( see pages 6-7 in my theory, see http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf )
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I didn't say a single gluon is like a rubber band, I said large numbers of them form structures like a rubber band. It's an analogy. Anmd besides, we know subatomic particles can form structures like rubber bands, because rubber bands are made of atoms!
At least try to read what I said.
You also at least try to read what I said. Atoms have masses whereas gluons are massless. There is not simple analogy. Try to describe internal structure of gluons (pure energies) leading to rubber-band-like structure. How many new parameters do you need to match theoretical results to experimental data?
At least try to read what I said.
You also at least try to read what I said. Atoms have masses whereas gluons are massless. There is not simple analogy. Try to describe internal structure of gluons (pure energies) leading to rubber-band-like structure. How many new parameters do you need to match theoretical results to experimental data?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
The units we give charges are a matter of convention. For instance, an electron is 1.6 x 10^(-19) Coulombs. Quarks have charges of (up to a sign) 5.3 x 10^(-20) Coulombs and 1.06 x 10^(-19) Coulombs. Where's the problem with that? You whine that for historical reasons we write e = 1.6 x 10^(-19) Coulombs, so quark charges are 2e/3 or e/3. I define a new charge f = 5.3 x 10^(-20) Coulombs. Quarks are of charge f, 2f and electrons are charge 3f. Where's the problem with that?
The relative charge ratio between quarks and electrons is 1:3 or 2:3. So what?
AlphaNumeric, you do not understand simple physical problem. Of course, there are the all definitions but relations between the definitions HAVE PHYSICAL MEANING. With the relations are associated the possible phenomena realized by nature. The possible phenomena should be ‘derived’ from physical properties of the Einstein spacetime (the Einstein spacetime I derived from the Newtonian spacetime – it is not important information to answer your question). The mass and electric charge of electron DEPENDS ON THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE EINSTEIN SPACETIME and I described it in my book. You can change the definitions but you cannot change the possible phenomena realised by nature. It means that you must describe phenomena leading to selection rules for the electric charges of electron and quarks. I claim that physical properties of the Einstein spacetime lead only to the selection rule for electric charge and mass of electron. There are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to selection rules for charges and masses of quarks.
You saying that to AN is like a snail telling me I don't understand cars.
hehe... You called your theory "The Everlasting Theory".
That part still makes me chuckle.
The relative charge ratio between quarks and electrons is 1:3 or 2:3. So what?
AlphaNumeric, you do not understand simple physical problem. Of course, there are the all definitions but relations between the definitions HAVE PHYSICAL MEANING. With the relations are associated the possible phenomena realized by nature. The possible phenomena should be ‘derived’ from physical properties of the Einstein spacetime (the Einstein spacetime I derived from the Newtonian spacetime – it is not important information to answer your question). The mass and electric charge of electron DEPENDS ON THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE EINSTEIN SPACETIME and I described it in my book. You can change the definitions but you cannot change the possible phenomena realised by nature. It means that you must describe phenomena leading to selection rules for the electric charges of electron and quarks. I claim that physical properties of the Einstein spacetime lead only to the selection rule for electric charge and mass of electron. There are not in existence PHENOMENA leading to selection rules for charges and masses of quarks.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Deep inelastic scattering falsifies the atom model, the distribution of charge is not like an atom.
You still do not understand what I write. Experimental data lead to the ATOM-like structure of baryons (do you understand the word ‘like’?). Between the core of nucleons and pion in the d=1 state (see the selection rules for pions – for strong field they do not see as bosons – they behave similarly as the electron-electron pair in ground state in atoms) is exchanged elementary charge. It causes that the MEAN charges are FRACTIONAL – it leads to the magnetic moments and mean square charges of nucleons consistent with experimental data. The QCD is wrong because for sample containing 100% of protons I obtained 0.25 whereas the QCD leads to 0.33. I claim that the last result is inconsistent with experimental data.
The new experiments will show how stupid are predictions within the SM for higher energies. All will see that my predictions are correct and it is the reason why I try before knowing NEW EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS to show how stupid is the quark-gluon theory, the supersymmetry and Higgs mechanism.
You still do not understand what I write. Experimental data lead to the ATOM-like structure of baryons (do you understand the word ‘like’?). Between the core of nucleons and pion in the d=1 state (see the selection rules for pions – for strong field they do not see as bosons – they behave similarly as the electron-electron pair in ground state in atoms) is exchanged elementary charge. It causes that the MEAN charges are FRACTIONAL – it leads to the magnetic moments and mean square charges of nucleons consistent with experimental data. The QCD is wrong because for sample containing 100% of protons I obtained 0.25 whereas the QCD leads to 0.33. I claim that the last result is inconsistent with experimental data.
The new experiments will show how stupid are predictions within the SM for higher energies. All will see that my predictions are correct and it is the reason why I try before knowing NEW EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS to show how stupid is the quark-gluon theory, the supersymmetry and Higgs mechanism.
AlphaNumeric, I answered your questions in previous post. I showed that you do not understand problems associated with origin of the electric charges of particles. Below I described the problems not solved within the SM by means of other words.
Values of the magnetic moments of electron and muon lead to conclusion that ELECTRIC CHARGES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MASSES. It is because magnetic moments of these particles are inversely proportional to their masses and depend on spin speeds and radii of the electric charges. We know that mass of muon is about 207 times greater than mass of electron. Then, why electric charges of these particles are the same? What phenomena are responsible for that? Why muon has mass equal to about 105.67 MeV? Why proton and positron have the same electric charge i.e. the same value, not the same structure? It is obvious that distribution of the electric charges in these two particles must be different because they have different masses. How it is possible that STRUCTURES responsible SIMULTANEOUSLY for both mass and electric charge can have different masses but the same electric charge?
AlphaNumeric, if you do not understand these FUNDAMENTAL problems, if you do not know the answers, then, how you want to understand interactions and origin of the electric charge? I solved mentioned above problems and many others applying only 7 parameters. For example, the mass of muon is associated with weak interactions of electron – there arises the black hole in consideration of the WEAK INTERACTIONS (see my book
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf , pages 28-29).
Such black hole can decay due to the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime. The obtained lifetime of muon is consistent with experimental result (see page 30, Eq.(73)).
AlphaNumeric, what says the SM about the mentioned above problems? Of course says nothing. Authors of this theory and others have no idea to answer these questions because about 90% of this theory does not describe nature correctly. Once more: In nature is no place for the quark-gluon theory, for the electroweak theory, for the supersymmetry, for the Higgs mechanism, for the string/M theory containing the flexible strings, and so on.
Values of the magnetic moments of electron and muon lead to conclusion that ELECTRIC CHARGES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MASSES. It is because magnetic moments of these particles are inversely proportional to their masses and depend on spin speeds and radii of the electric charges. We know that mass of muon is about 207 times greater than mass of electron. Then, why electric charges of these particles are the same? What phenomena are responsible for that? Why muon has mass equal to about 105.67 MeV? Why proton and positron have the same electric charge i.e. the same value, not the same structure? It is obvious that distribution of the electric charges in these two particles must be different because they have different masses. How it is possible that STRUCTURES responsible SIMULTANEOUSLY for both mass and electric charge can have different masses but the same electric charge?
AlphaNumeric, if you do not understand these FUNDAMENTAL problems, if you do not know the answers, then, how you want to understand interactions and origin of the electric charge? I solved mentioned above problems and many others applying only 7 parameters. For example, the mass of muon is associated with weak interactions of electron – there arises the black hole in consideration of the WEAK INTERACTIONS (see my book
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf , pages 28-29).
Such black hole can decay due to the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime. The obtained lifetime of muon is consistent with experimental result (see page 30, Eq.(73)).
AlphaNumeric, what says the SM about the mentioned above problems? Of course says nothing. Authors of this theory and others have no idea to answer these questions because about 90% of this theory does not describe nature correctly. Once more: In nature is no place for the quark-gluon theory, for the electroweak theory, for the supersymmetry, for the Higgs mechanism, for the string/M theory containing the flexible strings, and so on.
QUOTE
AlphaNumeric, if you do not understand these FUNDAMENTAL problems
You saying that to AN is like a snail telling me I don't understand cars.
hehe... You called your theory "The Everlasting Theory".
That part still makes me chuckle.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
For you, AlphaNumeric, theory containing at least 20 parameters (the SM) is better than theory containing 7 parameters (my theory). Both theories lead to experimental data.
No, your theory leads to nothing.
No, your theory leads to nothing.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
The SM leads to experimental data because contains at least 20-7=13 parameters which nature does not need.
I'd say Nature doesn't need any, it is what it is. What you mean to say is that there's a whole slew of internally consistent 'Laws of Nature' which can be parametrised by 7, no more, no less, parameters.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
It means that within the SM we can describe tremendous number of phenomena not realized by nature.
Any theory with free parameters can describe 'alternative laws of nature'. If you put in a different pion rest mass into your 'work' you'd get a different 'Nature'. So that point counts against you too. String theory has none.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
It causes that the SM is ‘an excellent effective theory for particle physics up to at least 100 GeV’ because the at least 13 additional parameters cause that within the SM we can match the theoretical results to experimental data..
That's a flat out lie. If we could only obtain 13 numerical predictions from the SM then you'd be right. But the SM correctly predicts a great many more things. You are either ignorant of the SM or deliberately lying. Either way I don't see why you continue to claim things about the SM to me, when you know I'm familiar with it. You might be able to swindle someone whose not done physics or mathematics but I'm not such a person.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
MANY theoretical results show that the baryons have atom-like structure.
You can make a theoretical result say anything you like, whether Nature is like that or not is another question.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
ou also at least try to read what I said. Atoms have masses whereas gluons are massless. There is not simple analogy. Try to describe internal structure of gluons (pure energies) leading to rubber-band-like structure. How many new parameters do you need to match theoretical results to experimental data?
I didn't say gluons had internal structure. Noone did. The emergence of flux tubes formed by gluons follows from the use of Wilson lines between quarks.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
You still do not understand what I write. Experimental data lead to the ATOM-like structure of baryons (do you understand the word ‘like’?). Between the core of nucleons and pion in the d=1 state (see the selection rules for pions – for strong field they do not see as bosons – they behave similarly as the electron-electron pair in ground state in atoms) is exchanged elementary charge. It causes that the MEAN charges are FRACTIONAL – it leads to the magnetic moments and mean square charges of nucleons consistent with experimental data. The QCD is wrong because for sample containing 100% of protons I obtained 0.25 whereas the QCD leads to 0.33. I claim that the last result is inconsistent with experimental data.
Pointless propaganda. Why do you bother?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
The new experiments will show how stupid are predictions within the SM for higher energies..
It's always the next experiment, isn't it? How many years have you been saying that?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
AlphaNumeric, if you do not understand these FUNDAMENTAL problems, if you do not know the answers, then, how you want to understand interactions and origin of the electric charge? I solved mentioned above problems and many others applying only 7 parameters. For example, the mass of muon is associated with weak interactions of electron – there arises the black hole in consideration of the WEAK INTERACTIONS (see my book
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf , pages 28-29).
Such black hole can decay due to the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime. The obtained lifetime of muon is consistent with experimental result (see page 30, Eq.(73)).
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/ETandSNT.pdf , pages 28-29).
Such black hole can decay due to the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime. The obtained lifetime of muon is consistent with experimental result (see page 30, Eq.(73)).
Pointless propaganda. Why do you bother?
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
AlphaNumeric, what says the SM about the mentioned above problems? Of course says nothing. Authors of this theory and others have no idea to answer these questions because about 90% of this theory does not describe nature correctly
I don't deny there are plenty of answers the SM doesn't provide us with but that doesn't mean the answers it gives to all questions are wrong. You seem to be having trouble with that basic bit of logic. I don't know the capital of Zimbabwe but that doesn't mean I don't know the capital of the UK.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 19 2009, 09:50 PM)
Once more: In nature is no place for the quark-gluon theory, for the electroweak theory, for the supersymmetry, for the Higgs mechanism, for the string/M theory containing the flexible strings, and so on.
Susy and string theory are not part of the SM. Yet another example of you getting your facts wrong because you're dishonest.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
]Any theory with free parameters can describe 'alternative laws of nature'. If you put in a different pion rest mass into your 'work' you'd get a different 'Nature'. So that point counts against you too. String theory has none.
Why I still must teach you the same obvious things?
Can you understand following sequence of sentences?
1.
There is only one Nature.
2.
Theory containing less parameters, and leading to all experimental data is better than the other theories.
3.
Theory containing more parameters than Nature needs can describe also science-fiction phenomena. My theory contains the 7 not free parameters i.e. the 4 physical constants and 3 masses. We can transform this set of parameters into another set of 7 parameters associated with properties of the Newtonian spacetime (6) and the Einstein spacetime (1). My theory does not contain free parameters whereas the string theory leads astray. The string theory can lead to experimental data if authors of it add MANY FREE PARAMETERS (much more than 7).
4.
You can change definitions of parameters but you cannot change phenomena leading from one state of Nature to another one, and so on.
Why I still must teach you the same obvious things?
Can you understand following sequence of sentences?
1.
There is only one Nature.
2.
Theory containing less parameters, and leading to all experimental data is better than the other theories.
3.
Theory containing more parameters than Nature needs can describe also science-fiction phenomena. My theory contains the 7 not free parameters i.e. the 4 physical constants and 3 masses. We can transform this set of parameters into another set of 7 parameters associated with properties of the Newtonian spacetime (6) and the Einstein spacetime (1). My theory does not contain free parameters whereas the string theory leads astray. The string theory can lead to experimental data if authors of it add MANY FREE PARAMETERS (much more than 7).
4.
You can change definitions of parameters but you cannot change phenomena leading from one state of Nature to another one, and so on.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
That's a flat out lie. If we could only obtain 13 numerical predictions from the SM then you'd be right. But the SM correctly predicts a great many more things. You are either ignorant of the SM or deliberately lying. Either way I don't see why you continue to claim things about the SM to me, when you know I'm familiar with it. You might be able to swindle someone whose not done physics or mathematics but I'm not such a person.
I explained this problem many times but you do not read my posts with needed attention. The 7 parameters lead to all experimental data (thousands) because the experimental data are not independent, because elements of Nature are not independent, because phenomena are not independent. It means that applying 7+1=8 parameters you can obtain much more than 8 correct theoretical results i.e. consistent with experimental data.
I explained this problem many times but you do not read my posts with needed attention. The 7 parameters lead to all experimental data (thousands) because the experimental data are not independent, because elements of Nature are not independent, because phenomena are not independent. It means that applying 7+1=8 parameters you can obtain much more than 8 correct theoretical results i.e. consistent with experimental data.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I didn't say gluons had internal structure. Noone did. The emergence of flux tubes formed by gluons follows from the use of Wilson lines between quarks.
It is most idiotic assumption in particle physics. All objects greater than the smallest must have internal structure due to the phase transitions of the smallest objects. Only the smallest objects MUST BE STRUCTURELESS. Only then, we can explain origin of interactions. It means that there must be in existence selection rules associated with the smallest objects (with the Newtonian spacetime) leading to the greater objects – it is in my theory. You and others do not understand this most important absolute truth in physics. It caused that there appeared many idiotic theories in physics and cosmology.
I wrote: 'Once more: In nature is no place for the quark-gluon theory, for the electroweak theory, for the supersymmetry, for the Higgs mechanism, for the string/M theory containing the flexible strings, and so on.'
Your answer is as follows:
It is most idiotic assumption in particle physics. All objects greater than the smallest must have internal structure due to the phase transitions of the smallest objects. Only the smallest objects MUST BE STRUCTURELESS. Only then, we can explain origin of interactions. It means that there must be in existence selection rules associated with the smallest objects (with the Newtonian spacetime) leading to the greater objects – it is in my theory. You and others do not understand this most important absolute truth in physics. It caused that there appeared many idiotic theories in physics and cosmology.
I wrote: 'Once more: In nature is no place for the quark-gluon theory, for the electroweak theory, for the supersymmetry, for the Higgs mechanism, for the string/M theory containing the flexible strings, and so on.'
Your answer is as follows:
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Susy and string theory are not part of the SM. Yet another example of you getting your facts wrong because you're dishonest.
In my sentence is nothing about the SM. You are dishonest or you do not understand what you are reading.
In my sentence is nothing about the SM. You are dishonest or you do not understand what you are reading.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
3.
Theory containing more parameters than Nature needs
And how does One obtain the number of parameters that Nature 'needs'? This is an entirely unknown and perhaps unknowable (unless someone finds a theory with zero parameters) number. You might believe you've got a theory with the minimal possible parameters but you can never prove it, you can never utterly remove the possibility a model with less parameters can be found which predicts the same things. Unless you have no parameters. But you can never prove that theory is perfect either. There is always doubt.
Theory containing more parameters than Nature needs
And how does One obtain the number of parameters that Nature 'needs'? This is an entirely unknown and perhaps unknowable (unless someone finds a theory with zero parameters) number. You might believe you've got a theory with the minimal possible parameters but you can never prove it, you can never utterly remove the possibility a model with less parameters can be found which predicts the same things. Unless you have no parameters. But you can never prove that theory is perfect either. There is always doubt.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
My theory does not contain free parameters whereas the string theory leads astray. The string theory can lead to experimental data if authors of it add MANY FREE PARAMETERS (much more than 7).
All quantities in string theory are obtained by solving dynamical equations. For instance, the strength of couplings obey differential equations, which you solve to find their values. You can't arbitrarily 'add in free parameters' to the theory, you can only simplify your considerations by assuming certain parameters take particular values, as a means to allow you to examine a particular section of the theory.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
The 7 parameters lead to all experimental data (thousands) because the experimental data are not independent, because elements of Nature are not independent, because phenomena are not independent. It means that applying 7+1=8 parameters you can obtain much more than 8 correct theoretical results i.e. consistent with experimental data.
This is simply a lie because you have failed to grasp the very simple fact that the 'experimental data' you keep refering to is not raw experimental data, it is raw experimental data interpreted by current models. If the model changes then the quantities you read in Particle Data Group publications change. And the model which they use is The Standard Model, which you claim is wrong. So the PDG published masses for particles are wrong. So your predicted values are wrong. So your work is wrong. QED.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
Only then, we can explain origin of interactions.
The simple fact that you don't understand how interactions can occur between point particles and fundamental objects doesn't mean the idea is wrong. I don't understand Japanese but I don't think 100+ million people are just speaking gibberish.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
It caused that there appeared many idiotic theories in physics and cosmology.
The fact you so rapidly go to "QCD is for idiots!" and "You're a communist" (you do realise that's hardly considered an insult outside Eastern Europe and the US, right?) whenever someone talks to you about mainstream work would suggest you aren't viewing things in a rational manner so much as trying to convince yourself that you don't need to be able to understand mainstream work because it's wrong. You seem to be trying to convince yourself as much as other people. You, like so many cranks, have a massive chip on your shoulder about the fact some things in physics are just too complicated for you to understand. It happens to everyone, there's always something someone can't understand, physicists learn to live with that. You seem to be unable to accept it. You proclaim you've got 'the ultimate theory' when you don't even compare your work with raw experimental data. It's foolish to claim your work explains everything in the universe, when we are unaware of so much.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 27 2009, 11:05 AM)
In my sentence is nothing about the SM. You are dishonest or you do not understand what you are reading..
You do realise quark-gloun theory (ie QCD), electroweak theory and the Higgs mechanism is the Standard Model, right?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Aug 27 2009, 02:48 PM)
You do realise quark-gloun theory (ie QCD), electroweak theory and the Higgs mechanism is the Standard Model, right?
He doesn't! Pilchard of the day award to you sir!
He doesn't!
Pilchard of the day award to you sir!
What is the reference, please?
Unless it's fishing. And catching...
Unless it's fishing. And catching...
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
And how does One obtain the number of parameters that Nature 'needs'? This is an entirely unknown and perhaps unknowable (unless someone finds a theory with zero parameters) number. You might believe you've got a theory with the minimal possible parameters but you can never prove it, you can never utterly remove the possibility a model with less parameters can be found which predicts the same things. Unless you have no parameters. But you can never prove that theory is perfect either. There is always doubt.
AlphaNumeric, you even do not understand that zero parameters means: no theory, nothing. You are not right that we cannot know how much parameters needs nature. For me is obvious that Nature must start from a spacetime composed of moving STRUCTURELESS objects. If someone is able to calculate experimental data from such spacetime then such theory is ultimate theory. THERE IS THE UPPER LIMIT for number of parameters we can define on base of such spacetime (6). Additional parameters appear ONLY due to spontaneous phase transitions of such spacetime. We know this additional number of parameters if we know the selection rule leading to the possible phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime. But there are in existence only two infinite fields/spacetimes i.e. the Newtonian spacetime (the tachyons) associated with the gravitational fields and the Einstein spacetime associated with the electromagnetic fields and, INDIRECTLY, with the gravitational fields (the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos). It causes that there appears only one (1) additional parameter associated with the Einstein spacetime.
AlphaNumeric, you even do not understand that zero parameters means: no theory, nothing. You are not right that we cannot know how much parameters needs nature. For me is obvious that Nature must start from a spacetime composed of moving STRUCTURELESS objects. If someone is able to calculate experimental data from such spacetime then such theory is ultimate theory. THERE IS THE UPPER LIMIT for number of parameters we can define on base of such spacetime (6). Additional parameters appear ONLY due to spontaneous phase transitions of such spacetime. We know this additional number of parameters if we know the selection rule leading to the possible phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime. But there are in existence only two infinite fields/spacetimes i.e. the Newtonian spacetime (the tachyons) associated with the gravitational fields and the Einstein spacetime associated with the electromagnetic fields and, INDIRECTLY, with the gravitational fields (the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos). It causes that there appears only one (1) additional parameter associated with the Einstein spacetime.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
All quantities in string theory are obtained by solving dynamical equations. For instance, the strength of couplings obey differential equations, which you solve to find their values. You can't arbitrarily 'add in free parameters' to the theory, you can only simplify your considerations by assuming certain parameters take particular values, as a means to allow you to examine a particular section of the theory.
In my theory, I do not apply ‘certain parameters take particular values’. My parameters associated with the spacetimes lead to the four very well known physical constants (h-bar, G, c, e) and to the three very well known masses (the masses of electron and pions). It means that I cannot match theoretical results to experimental data when there will appear experimental result inconsistent with my theory – I claim that it never will happen. I cannot change my theory changing some parts of it. There is no alternative and, in my opinion, it is the power of my theory.
My theory leads to following conclusions inconsistent with the predictions made within the mainstream theories.
1.
For sample containing 100% of protons (it is very easy to obtain such sample), the mean square charge for proton should be 0.25, not 0.33 as predicts the quark-gluon theory. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
2.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for colliding nucleons for value 0.11390. It is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
3.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for electromagnetic interactions for value about 1/125 (or about 1/62.5 when we change definition) whereas the running coupling for weak interactions of nucleons is constant (1/53.41 or 1/26.71 when we change the definition). It means that the intensities of interactions do not converge. If I am right then the Standard Model and the string/M theory are incorrect.
4.
There are not in existence additional –inos and s-particles. If I am right then supersymmetry and supergravity are incorrect.
5.
The internal helicity of my closed string produces the gravitational field. If I am right then the Higgs mechanism is incorrect (there are also not in existence the Higgs bosons) and the Standard Model is incorrect.
Do you now understand the differences between my theory and the mainstream theories? It is very easy to verify which theories are correct but ‘quarkers’ never will admit that the quark-gluon theory is the most stupid theory in history of science. They swindle the whole World since 1985 because they block publication of my theory. Once more: The quark-gluon theory is for ignoramus. They completely do not understand how Nature acts. They do not understand what is important in physics. They do not understand what phenomena can be the absolute truths. Why I live in such deceitful times in the particle physics and cosmology? Why people cannot read the lacking part of ultimate theory in scientific journal? Why scientific community has not a chance to verify my theory? In my opinion, it is scientific banditry.
In my theory, I do not apply ‘certain parameters take particular values’. My parameters associated with the spacetimes lead to the four very well known physical constants (h-bar, G, c, e) and to the three very well known masses (the masses of electron and pions). It means that I cannot match theoretical results to experimental data when there will appear experimental result inconsistent with my theory – I claim that it never will happen. I cannot change my theory changing some parts of it. There is no alternative and, in my opinion, it is the power of my theory.
My theory leads to following conclusions inconsistent with the predictions made within the mainstream theories.
1.
For sample containing 100% of protons (it is very easy to obtain such sample), the mean square charge for proton should be 0.25, not 0.33 as predicts the quark-gluon theory. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
2.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for colliding nucleons for value 0.11390. It is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
3.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for electromagnetic interactions for value about 1/125 (or about 1/62.5 when we change definition) whereas the running coupling for weak interactions of nucleons is constant (1/53.41 or 1/26.71 when we change the definition). It means that the intensities of interactions do not converge. If I am right then the Standard Model and the string/M theory are incorrect.
4.
There are not in existence additional –inos and s-particles. If I am right then supersymmetry and supergravity are incorrect.
5.
The internal helicity of my closed string produces the gravitational field. If I am right then the Higgs mechanism is incorrect (there are also not in existence the Higgs bosons) and the Standard Model is incorrect.
Do you now understand the differences between my theory and the mainstream theories? It is very easy to verify which theories are correct but ‘quarkers’ never will admit that the quark-gluon theory is the most stupid theory in history of science. They swindle the whole World since 1985 because they block publication of my theory. Once more: The quark-gluon theory is for ignoramus. They completely do not understand how Nature acts. They do not understand what is important in physics. They do not understand what phenomena can be the absolute truths. Why I live in such deceitful times in the particle physics and cosmology? Why people cannot read the lacking part of ultimate theory in scientific journal? Why scientific community has not a chance to verify my theory? In my opinion, it is scientific banditry.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You do realise quark-gloun theory (ie QCD), electroweak theory and the Higgs mechanism is the Standard Model, right?
You try to show that you do not understand my sentences. So once more: In my sentence there were not following words: ‘Standard Model’ or ‘SM’. Whereas, there were the elements the SM contains.
You try to show that you do not understand my sentences. So once more: In my sentence there were not following words: ‘Standard Model’ or ‘SM’. Whereas, there were the elements the SM contains.
Other than the fact that your theory is just stupid... I would like you to explain and prove this...
Who is blocking you?
How?
When?
QUOTE
They swindle the whole World since 1985 because they block publication of my theory.
Who is blocking you?
How?
When?
Quite a nutcase, isn't he?
Sylwester, all you do is just mindlessly repeat yourself by posting crap like this :
You have said that before. Rather than just repeating your claims again and again, why don't you actually address some of the issues I raise, such as how you can reconcile your claim the SM is wrong with the fact the 'experimental results' you claim to have successfully predicted are obtained through the use of the SM. It doesn't matter what you claim and how many times you say it if you can't address this issue.
You have said that before. Rather than just repeating your claims again and again, why don't you actually address some of the issues I raise, such as how you can reconcile your claim the SM is wrong with the fact the 'experimental results' you claim to have successfully predicted are obtained through the use of the SM. It doesn't matter what you claim and how many times you say it if you can't address this issue.
They swindle the whole World since 1985 because they block publication of my theory
QUOTE
My theory leads to following conclusions inconsistent with the predictions made within the mainstream theories.
1.
For sample containing 100% of protons (it is very easy to obtain such sample), the mean square charge for proton should be 0.25, not 0.33 as predicts the quark-gluon theory. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
2.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for colliding nucleons for value 0.11390. It is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
3.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for electromagnetic interactions for value about 1/125 (or about 1/62.5 when we change definition) whereas the running coupling for weak interactions of nucleons is constant (1/53.41 or 1/26.71 when we change the definition). It means that the intensities of interactions do not converge. If I am right then the Standard Model and the string/M theory are incorrect.
4.
There are not in existence additional –inos and s-particles. If I am right then supersymmetry and supergravity are incorrect.
5.
The internal helicity of my closed string produces the gravitational field. If I am right then the Higgs mechanism is incorrect (there are also not in existence the Higgs bosons) and the Standard Model is incorrect.
1.
For sample containing 100% of protons (it is very easy to obtain such sample), the mean square charge for proton should be 0.25, not 0.33 as predicts the quark-gluon theory. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
2.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for colliding nucleons for value 0.11390. It is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect.
3.
There is asymptote for the running coupling for electromagnetic interactions for value about 1/125 (or about 1/62.5 when we change definition) whereas the running coupling for weak interactions of nucleons is constant (1/53.41 or 1/26.71 when we change the definition). It means that the intensities of interactions do not converge. If I am right then the Standard Model and the string/M theory are incorrect.
4.
There are not in existence additional –inos and s-particles. If I am right then supersymmetry and supergravity are incorrect.
5.
The internal helicity of my closed string produces the gravitational field. If I am right then the Higgs mechanism is incorrect (there are also not in existence the Higgs bosons) and the Standard Model is incorrect.
You have said that before. Rather than just repeating your claims again and again, why don't you actually address some of the issues I raise, such as how you can reconcile your claim the SM is wrong with the fact the 'experimental results' you claim to have successfully predicted are obtained through the use of the SM. It doesn't matter what you claim and how many times you say it if you can't address this issue.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My theory leads to following conclusions inconsistent with the predictions made within the mainstream theories. 1. For sample containing 100% of protons (it is very easy to obtain such sample), the mean square charge for proton should be 0.25, not 0.33 as predicts the quark-gluon theory. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect. 2. There is asymptote for the running coupling for colliding nucleons for value 0.11390. It is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom. If I am right then the QCD is incorrect. 3. There is asymptote for the running coupling for electromagnetic interactions for value about 1/125 (or about 1/62.5 when we change definition) whereas the running coupling for weak interactions of nucleons is constant (1/53.41 or 1/26.71 when we change the definition). It means that the intensities of interactions do not converge. If I am right then the Standard Model and the string/M theory are incorrect. 4. There are not in existence additional –inos and s-particles. If I am right then supersymmetry and supergravity are incorrect. 5. The internal helicity of my closed string produces the gravitational field. If I am right then the Higgs mechanism is incorrect (there are also not in existence the Higgs bosons) and the Standard Model is incorrect. |
You have said that before. Rather than just repeating your claims again and again, why don't you actually address some of the issues I raise, such as how you can reconcile your claim the SM is wrong with the fact the 'experimental results' you claim to have successfully predicted are obtained through the use of the SM. It doesn't matter what you claim and how many times you say it if you can't address this issue.
They swindle the whole World since 1985 because they block publication of my theory
You can't even answer my questions, so there's no reason for a journal to publish your work. You have unresolved problems with your work and journals would never publish such work.
You complain that quarkers are unable to accept their errors but NEITHER ARE YOU. You never accept any correction, it took months, if not years, to beat into you the fact deconfinement and asymptotic freedom are different phenomena. Cranks always complain scientists think they are infallible yet it's quite the opposite, cranks never accept correction and they refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say. Peer review is constructive criticism, anyone whose got published work will have benefited from negative comments given to them by reviewers. Unfortunately you and your fellow cranks are incapable of learning it would seem.
QUOTE
Why I live in such deceitful times in the particle physics and cosmology? Why people cannot read the lacking part of ultimate theory in scientific journal? Why scientific community has not a chance to verify my theory? In my opinion, it is scientific banditry.
You sound like someone with issues. You have trouble accepting you're not particularly special and you're trying to convince yourself you are by making it your aim to convince people you've described the secrets of the universe. Rational discussion is impossible with you, you simply don't have coherent, level headed posts. You're just like people such as Farsight, desperately trying to avoid accepting you're an insignificant speck just here on Earth, never mind in the universe as a whole. You've been pushing your work about as long as I've been alive and I've accomplished more in science than you.You complain that quarkers are unable to accept their errors but NEITHER ARE YOU. You never accept any correction, it took months, if not years, to beat into you the fact deconfinement and asymptotic freedom are different phenomena. Cranks always complain scientists think they are infallible yet it's quite the opposite, cranks never accept correction and they refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say. Peer review is constructive criticism, anyone whose got published work will have benefited from negative comments given to them by reviewers. Unfortunately you and your fellow cranks are incapable of learning it would seem.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You have said that before. Rather than just repeating your claims again and again, why don't you actually address some of the issues I raise, such as how you can reconcile your claim the SM is wrong with the fact the 'experimental results' you claim to have successfully predicted are obtained through the use of the SM. It doesn't matter what you claim and how many times you say it if you can't address this issue.
AlphaNumeric, it is not true!!!!!!! The SM does not start from structureless objects. The SM says nothing about selection rule leading to the possible phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime. The SM says nothing about origin of the physical constants and mass of electron. The SM says nothing about internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. The SM assumes that there are in existence the pure energies (for example photons) existing independently of fields having mass densities. In my opinion, it is most stupid assumption because pure energy, i.e. only motions, cannot be in existence without carriers having mass. It means that the Einstein spacetime, carrying photons, must have mass density and it MUST BE A GAS-like object. My theory starts from assumptions Nature can REALIZE whereas the SM starts from idiotic assumptions because says nothing about selection rules leading to masses of quarks, neutrinos and carriers of the interactions. The SM says nothing about selection rules leading to the electric charges of electron and quarks, says nothing about selection rules leading to the colours of the quarks, and so on. Can you see that whole beginning of the SM authors of it had taken from ‘ceiling’? My theory starts from possible phenomena in the Newtonian spacetime (it is gas and from experiments we know what phenomena are possible in such matter – see, for example, the phenomena in the Earth atmosphere – most important are the tropical cyclones). My theory leads to the initial conditions applied in the general theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Experimental results leads to these two theories whereas I SHOW WHERE ARE OR WILL BE THE QUARK-GLUON THEORY and THE ELECTROWEAK THEORY INCONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA – see my previous post. It means that only the QCD and EWT are the stupid parts of the SM. Because the SM has TREMENDOUS problem with initial conditions (my theory has not) then it is obvious that my theory should replace the wrong parts of the SM. I claim that scientists never will solve the problems associated with the initial conditions in the SM and the string/M theory will always lead astray.
You cannot write about the SM as a one theory. The SM consists of wrong and right theories. My theory leads only to the good parts of the SM and to the initial conditions applied in the correct theories, the SM consists of.
Once more: Simple selection rule leads to the possible phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime (there appear my inflexible strings (radius is about 10^-45 m), neutrinos, cores of baryons, and objects before big bangs leading to universes suited to life. Outside the cores of baryons (they are the black holes with respect of strong interactions) is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions). It leads to the atom-like structure of baryons. Nucleons cannot decay due to strong interactions because pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. The hyperons decay because the pions are in the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions.
If you, or others, want my book titled ‘The Everlasting Theory and Special Number Theory’, I can send you the PDF copy. On my website
( http://www.cosmology-particles.pl ) there is contact.
In the Special Number Theory I described how the prime numbers suggest that Newtonian spacetime (gas) must transform into my closed strings and next the closed strings into the stable tori. There appears also the Einstein spacetime.
There is 100% of certainty that my theory should replace the string/M theory, the QCD, the EWT, and cosmological theories. Future will show that I am right.
AlphaNumeric, it is not true!!!!!!! The SM does not start from structureless objects. The SM says nothing about selection rule leading to the possible phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime. The SM says nothing about origin of the physical constants and mass of electron. The SM says nothing about internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. The SM assumes that there are in existence the pure energies (for example photons) existing independently of fields having mass densities. In my opinion, it is most stupid assumption because pure energy, i.e. only motions, cannot be in existence without carriers having mass. It means that the Einstein spacetime, carrying photons, must have mass density and it MUST BE A GAS-like object. My theory starts from assumptions Nature can REALIZE whereas the SM starts from idiotic assumptions because says nothing about selection rules leading to masses of quarks, neutrinos and carriers of the interactions. The SM says nothing about selection rules leading to the electric charges of electron and quarks, says nothing about selection rules leading to the colours of the quarks, and so on. Can you see that whole beginning of the SM authors of it had taken from ‘ceiling’? My theory starts from possible phenomena in the Newtonian spacetime (it is gas and from experiments we know what phenomena are possible in such matter – see, for example, the phenomena in the Earth atmosphere – most important are the tropical cyclones). My theory leads to the initial conditions applied in the general theory of relativity and the quantum mechanics. Experimental results leads to these two theories whereas I SHOW WHERE ARE OR WILL BE THE QUARK-GLUON THEORY and THE ELECTROWEAK THEORY INCONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA – see my previous post. It means that only the QCD and EWT are the stupid parts of the SM. Because the SM has TREMENDOUS problem with initial conditions (my theory has not) then it is obvious that my theory should replace the wrong parts of the SM. I claim that scientists never will solve the problems associated with the initial conditions in the SM and the string/M theory will always lead astray.
You cannot write about the SM as a one theory. The SM consists of wrong and right theories. My theory leads only to the good parts of the SM and to the initial conditions applied in the correct theories, the SM consists of.
Once more: Simple selection rule leads to the possible phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime (there appear my inflexible strings (radius is about 10^-45 m), neutrinos, cores of baryons, and objects before big bangs leading to universes suited to life. Outside the cores of baryons (they are the black holes with respect of strong interactions) is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions). It leads to the atom-like structure of baryons. Nucleons cannot decay due to strong interactions because pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. The hyperons decay because the pions are in the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions.
If you, or others, want my book titled ‘The Everlasting Theory and Special Number Theory’, I can send you the PDF copy. On my website
( http://www.cosmology-particles.pl ) there is contact.
In the Special Number Theory I described how the prime numbers suggest that Newtonian spacetime (gas) must transform into my closed strings and next the closed strings into the stable tori. There appears also the Einstein spacetime.
There is 100% of certainty that my theory should replace the string/M theory, the QCD, the EWT, and cosmological theories. Future will show that I am right.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Sep 5 2009, 11:02 AM)
AlphaNumeric, it is not true!!!!!!! The SM does not start from structureless objects. The SM says nothing about selection rule leading to the possible phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime. The SM says nothing about origin of the physical constants and mass of electron. The SM says nothing about internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. The SM assumes that there are in existence the pure energies (for example photons) existing independently of fields having mass densities. In my opinion, it is most stupid assumption because pure energy, i.e. only motions, cannot be in existence without carriers having mass. It means that the Einstein spacetime, carrying photons, must have mass density and it MUST BE A GAS-like object.
Again, nothing of this addresses what I said to you. Clearly I'll have to explain again.
How do you think the rest mass of the pion is calculated? Physicists build a big collider and smash together particles at known energies inside a magnetic field of known strength and they record the 'splash' of particle tracks produced, such as this. How do they work out the mass of the particles which formed those tracks? They say something like "In a magnetic field of strength B the Standard Model says that a particle of charge q, mass m and momentum p will move along a track of curvature C". They know C, B, q and p and so they work out the mass as interpreted by the Standard Model. If you change theory you will get a different prediction, a particle of mass m, momentum p, charge q moving in a magnetic field B will follow the track of curvature K. Therefore a different model will give a different mass for the same experiment. If the track is such that there's no value of m which gives the observed path then the theory is falsified.
All particle data group numbers are worked out in this manner, working out what the mass or charge or spin a particle must have in the Standard Model for it to move in the way seen in a detector. Thus the mass of the pion is obtained by saying "Given the collision of a positron and electron with momenta p and -p in a magnetic field of strength B the track seen in this is obtained in the Standard Model if the produced particle has rest mass M".
If you change how you compute the masses, ie by going from the SM to something else, then you will almost certainly end up with new values for the masses of particles. You claim the SM is nonsense, that quarks and gluons are not really there, but the pion mass is found by using the SM's gluon/quark methods, if quarks and gluons are not really there then the differential cross sections of the SM's description of pion producing processes is wrong, so the value of the pion as given in the Particle Data Group work is wrong. But if they are wrong, you are wrong as you claim to get the same values.
It's Catch 22 for you. If the quarks and gluons exist, you're wrong. If they don't then the real mass of the pion and other particles are different from what we currently consider them to be and you're wrong again.
This reduces your work to worthless.
Again, nothing of this addresses what I said to you. Clearly I'll have to explain again.
How do you think the rest mass of the pion is calculated? Physicists build a big collider and smash together particles at known energies inside a magnetic field of known strength and they record the 'splash' of particle tracks produced, such as this. How do they work out the mass of the particles which formed those tracks? They say something like "In a magnetic field of strength B the Standard Model says that a particle of charge q, mass m and momentum p will move along a track of curvature C". They know C, B, q and p and so they work out the mass as interpreted by the Standard Model. If you change theory you will get a different prediction, a particle of mass m, momentum p, charge q moving in a magnetic field B will follow the track of curvature K. Therefore a different model will give a different mass for the same experiment. If the track is such that there's no value of m which gives the observed path then the theory is falsified.
All particle data group numbers are worked out in this manner, working out what the mass or charge or spin a particle must have in the Standard Model for it to move in the way seen in a detector. Thus the mass of the pion is obtained by saying "Given the collision of a positron and electron with momenta p and -p in a magnetic field of strength B the track seen in this is obtained in the Standard Model if the produced particle has rest mass M".
If you change how you compute the masses, ie by going from the SM to something else, then you will almost certainly end up with new values for the masses of particles. You claim the SM is nonsense, that quarks and gluons are not really there, but the pion mass is found by using the SM's gluon/quark methods, if quarks and gluons are not really there then the differential cross sections of the SM's description of pion producing processes is wrong, so the value of the pion as given in the Particle Data Group work is wrong. But if they are wrong, you are wrong as you claim to get the same values.
It's Catch 22 for you. If the quarks and gluons exist, you're wrong. If they don't then the real mass of the pion and other particles are different from what we currently consider them to be and you're wrong again.
This reduces your work to worthless.
AlphaNumeric, we see Nature in different way. You still do not see the difference between experiment and theory. The definitions of basic physical quantities as mass and the laws of conservation applied to measure the masses of pions appeared before the quark-gluon theory. I still claim that only some parts of the Standard Model are incorrect, not the whole SM. For example, the general and special theories of relativity and the quantum mechanics are the correct theories because within my theory I proved that GRAVITY leads to the field composed of the non-rotating binary systems (it is the Einstein spacetime) and that in such field are possible the QUANTUM EFFECTS. It means that gravity leads to quantum mechanics due to the possible phase transitions in the Newtonian spacetime. The quark-gluon theory gives results consistent with experimental data (not all) because contains much more parameters than Nature needs. Assume that the initial conditions applied in the Standard Model are correct (my theory leads to conclusion that they are incorrect). Then we should very easy explain origin of the MASS OF MUON. But within the SM it is impossible whereas within my theory I calculated the mass of MUON applying at least 3 times less parameters (7) than the SM contains.
AlphaNumeric, what is origin of mass of muon? It is basic question. Once more: Some parts of the SM are incorrect because within this theory we cannot answer many basic questions even do not associated with the selection rules associated with the initial conditions. My theory leads to conclusion that mass of MUON is associated with WEAK INTERACTIONS OF ELECTRON. There appears weak mass. This mass is the black hole with RESPECT OF THE WEAK INTERACTIONS. Muon decays due to the interactions with the Einstein spacetime. The Einstein spacetime interacts with other objects (for example with MUON) gravitationally and weakly. My theory leads to conclusion that within the QED we cannot neglect the weak interactions because of the value of the coupling constant of weak interactions of real and virtual electrons. The Feynman QED gives results consistent with experimental data due to manipulation of numbers of the diagrams – we had discussed this problem before. Within my theory, I obtained theoretical results such as magnetic moments of electron and muon, 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 consistent with experimental data. My model of internal structure of electron leads to the mass of MUON whereas within the Feynman QED it is impossible.
Once more: Theory within which we cannot explain mass of MUON is at least partially incorrect. All theories in particle physics and cosmology formulated since 1948 need revision.
Recapitulation:
Origin of mass of MUON is a pass to ultimate theory. It is in my theory. Is it in the ‘beautiful’ SM?
[Moderator: Without meaning to step on any ambition that AlphaNumeric might have to answer this post, the poster is suspended 3 days for shouting when better composition skills might have served poster better. I don't know why the question is shouted since by the units I'm using this week, the answer, (muon mass = 1) needs no explanation.]
AlphaNumeric, what is origin of mass of muon? It is basic question. Once more: Some parts of the SM are incorrect because within this theory we cannot answer many basic questions even do not associated with the selection rules associated with the initial conditions. My theory leads to conclusion that mass of MUON is associated with WEAK INTERACTIONS OF ELECTRON. There appears weak mass. This mass is the black hole with RESPECT OF THE WEAK INTERACTIONS. Muon decays due to the interactions with the Einstein spacetime. The Einstein spacetime interacts with other objects (for example with MUON) gravitationally and weakly. My theory leads to conclusion that within the QED we cannot neglect the weak interactions because of the value of the coupling constant of weak interactions of real and virtual electrons. The Feynman QED gives results consistent with experimental data due to manipulation of numbers of the diagrams – we had discussed this problem before. Within my theory, I obtained theoretical results such as magnetic moments of electron and muon, 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 consistent with experimental data. My model of internal structure of electron leads to the mass of MUON whereas within the Feynman QED it is impossible.
Once more: Theory within which we cannot explain mass of MUON is at least partially incorrect. All theories in particle physics and cosmology formulated since 1948 need revision.
Recapitulation:
Origin of mass of MUON is a pass to ultimate theory. It is in my theory. Is it in the ‘beautiful’ SM?
[Moderator: Without meaning to step on any ambition that AlphaNumeric might have to answer this post, the poster is suspended 3 days for shouting when better composition skills might have served poster better. I don't know why the question is shouted since by the units I'm using this week, the answer, (muon mass = 1) needs no explanation.]
Sylwester, you seem incapable of grasping my point.
1. You claim your work couldn't give any different results, it gives Nature.
2. You claim the SM is wrong in the QCD sector.
3. Your work gets the same results as the PDG publish for QCD related particle masses.
4. Points 2 and 3 are contradictory, your work is wrong.
We don't need to discuss the muon, your work is falsified.
1. You claim your work couldn't give any different results, it gives Nature.
2. You claim the SM is wrong in the QCD sector.
3. Your work gets the same results as the PDG publish for QCD related particle masses.
4. Points 2 and 3 are contradictory, your work is wrong.
We don't need to discuss the muon, your work is falsified.
QUOTE (Sylwester Kornowski+Aug 20 2009, 02:31 PM)
It is obvious that distribution of the electric charges in these two particles must be different because they have different masses. How it is possible that STRUCTURES responsible SIMULTANEOUSLY for both mass and electric charge can have different masses but the same electric charge?
Hi Sylwester
I guess You are talking about spinons and halons ( chargons)? Clearly, different parts of electron structure ( or other charged particles ) are responsible for charge and spin. However, rest mass and spin is produced by the same structure, helical twisted closed string which rotates in the velocity of time space, as You I think have mentioned.
Spinons and halons have been observed:
Spinons and holons observed
Hi Sylwester
I guess You are talking about spinons and halons ( chargons)? Clearly, different parts of electron structure ( or other charged particles ) are responsible for charge and spin. However, rest mass and spin is produced by the same structure, helical twisted closed string which rotates in the velocity of time space, as You I think have mentioned.
Spinons and halons have been observed:
QUOTE
The idea behind spin-charge separation is that electrons behave differently when their range of motion is restricted to a single dimension, as opposed to three or even two dimensions. When moving through one dimension, for example, the electrons are lined up head-to-tail, making the repulsive force between their negative electrical charges overridingly dominant. The restricted movement of electrons through one-dimensional material was expected to give rise to collective effects that would be strong enough to break the information flow of spin and charge from a single electron.
Spinons and holons observed
That has nothing to do with the electrons having parts and everything to do with collective effects and the addition of angular momenta.
It certainly has nothing to do with any idea every proposed by Mr. Kornowski.
It certainly has nothing to do with any idea every proposed by Mr. Kornowski.
Hi Sylwester,
You may find this interesting (talking about 7 parameter Universe):
Saniga.On Cremonian Dimensions Qualitatively different from time and space
As space is projective, it needs 7 numbers for 6 dimensions.
And this for introduction in Cremona transfromations of space time into time space:
Saniga.Geometry of time and dimensionality of Space
You may find this interesting (talking about 7 parameter Universe):
Saniga.On Cremonian Dimensions Qualitatively different from time and space
QUOTE
We examine a particular kind of six-dimensional Cremonian universe featuring one dimension of space, three dimensions of time and other two dimensions that can*not* be ranked as either time or space. One of these two, generated by a one-parametric aggregate of (straight-)lines lying on a quadratic cone, is more similar to the spatial dimension. The other, represented by a singly-parametrical set of singular space quartic curves situated on a proper ruled quadric surface, bears more resemblance to time. Yet, the two dimensions differ profoundly from both time and space because, although being macroscopic, they are not accessible to (detectable by) every Cremonian observer. This toy-model thus demonstrates that there might exist extra-dimensions that need not necessarily be compactified to remain unobservable.
As space is projective, it needs 7 numbers for 6 dimensions.
And this for introduction in Cremona transfromations of space time into time space:
Saniga.Geometry of time and dimensionality of Space
QUOTE (Ivars+Sep 8 2009, 07:01 PM)
Hi Sylwester
I guess You are talking about spinons and halons ( chargons)? Clearly, different parts of electron structure ( or other charged particles ) are responsible for charge and spin. However, rest mass and spin is produced by the same structure, helical twisted closed string which rotates in the velocity of time space, as You I think have mentioned.
Spinons and halons have been observed:
Spinons and holons observed
Hi Ivars
It is very interesting information.
We read in the article that observation of electron “spin-charge separation” in a one-dimensional solid is associated with “a vacant positively-charged energy space” i.e. place of dislocation of electron. The hole, produced in space, carriers information on both the spin and the charge. Next, the hole decays into two peaks. Interpretation is that there occur a spinon carrying spin of hole and a holon carrying electric charge of hole.
My interpretation is as follows.
My theory leads to conclusion that neutrinos, electrons, cores of baryons, and the objects before big bangs look similarly as the NGC 4261 galaxy i.e. there is ‘point’ mass in centre of torus. The surface of torus looks similarly to the Ketterle surface for a strongly interacting gas. Electric charge of electron is associated with the torus whereas the spin is associated with torus and point mass. The torus and point mass have the same mass. It means that inertia of spin or spinon is greater than of electric charge or holon. The repulsive electric forces acting on the positively-charged energy spaces cause that the spinons and holons of the holes are separated. Such separation is impossible in electron because the point mass and torus behaves as one object. We see also that in my model only half of the bare mass of electron is associated with electric charge. It causes that spin of electron is two times smaller than angular momentum of it in ground state of atom.
I guess You are talking about spinons and halons ( chargons)? Clearly, different parts of electron structure ( or other charged particles ) are responsible for charge and spin. However, rest mass and spin is produced by the same structure, helical twisted closed string which rotates in the velocity of time space, as You I think have mentioned.
Spinons and halons have been observed:
Spinons and holons observed
Hi Ivars
It is very interesting information.
We read in the article that observation of electron “spin-charge separation” in a one-dimensional solid is associated with “a vacant positively-charged energy space” i.e. place of dislocation of electron. The hole, produced in space, carriers information on both the spin and the charge. Next, the hole decays into two peaks. Interpretation is that there occur a spinon carrying spin of hole and a holon carrying electric charge of hole.
My interpretation is as follows.
My theory leads to conclusion that neutrinos, electrons, cores of baryons, and the objects before big bangs look similarly as the NGC 4261 galaxy i.e. there is ‘point’ mass in centre of torus. The surface of torus looks similarly to the Ketterle surface for a strongly interacting gas. Electric charge of electron is associated with the torus whereas the spin is associated with torus and point mass. The torus and point mass have the same mass. It means that inertia of spin or spinon is greater than of electric charge or holon. The repulsive electric forces acting on the positively-charged energy spaces cause that the spinons and holons of the holes are separated. Such separation is impossible in electron because the point mass and torus behaves as one object. We see also that in my model only half of the bare mass of electron is associated with electric charge. It causes that spin of electron is two times smaller than angular momentum of it in ground state of atom.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
I don't know why the question is shouted since by the units I'm using this week, the answer, (muon mass = 1) needs no explanation.
Rpenner, I partially explained this problem before. This problem is very important to estimate value of theories then I will try to describe this problem more precisely. You can change the definition of mass and other physical quantities but you cannot change the relations between physical quantities of the same type as, for example, between masses. It means that is not important that you want to assume that mass of muon is equal to, for example, 1. Most important is why the electron-like particle as muon has mass about 207 times greater than electron. Muon is the electron-like particle because has the same spin and electric charge as electron and, what is most important, when we multiply the magnetic moment and mass then for electron and muon we obtain almost the same value. For example, nucleons are not the electron-like particles.
What it means?
It means that internal structure of muon must look similarly as that of electron but must have size about 207 times smaller than electron. So once more: Why mass of muon is about 207 times smaller than mass of electron? What phenomena lead to such relation between masses of electron and muon? What are internal structures of electron and muon leading to such relation between these two masses? In the SM assumes that the mass of muon and electron are the parameters. But it is obvious that such assumption results from ignorance because physical quantities of the same type are not independent.
In my theory, I start from 7 parameters associated with the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. I showed how these 7 parameters and properties of these 2 spacetimes (the Einstein spacetime is derived from the Newtonian spacetime) lead to the 4 physical quantities and 3 masses i.e. to mass of electron and to masses of pions. Because the new set of parameters is not fundamental then I described origin of the physical constants and RELATIONS between masses. For example, I explained phenomena leading from mass of electron to mass of muon, how from internal structure of nucleons results that mass of charged pion is about 4.6 MeV greater than mass of neutral pion. It also leads to conclusions that for high energies there is asymptote for the running coupling for the electromagnetic interactions of colliding nucleons. It is equal to about 1/125. There is big difference between my theory and the quark-gluon theory because in my theory are all needed selection rules, are described all needed phenomena leading to these selection rules. I showed how the needed phenomena result from the properties of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. I described all needed relations between physical properties of the same type as, for example, between masses, and so on. All can see that the quark-gluon theory (and partially the SM) is very primitive because of lack of needed selection rules, needed relations between physical properties of the same type, needed phenomena explaining, for example, distance between masses of electron and muon and distances between masses of quarks, too many parameters. And it is the reason why I predict collapse of this and a few other mainstream theories.
I say once more that origin of mass of muon is the pass to ultimate theory. It is in my theory. This origin of mass of muon leads to conclusion that the mainstream theories applied in the particle physics and cosmology need revision.
Rpenner, I partially explained this problem before. This problem is very important to estimate value of theories then I will try to describe this problem more precisely. You can change the definition of mass and other physical quantities but you cannot change the relations between physical quantities of the same type as, for example, between masses. It means that is not important that you want to assume that mass of muon is equal to, for example, 1. Most important is why the electron-like particle as muon has mass about 207 times greater than electron. Muon is the electron-like particle because has the same spin and electric charge as electron and, what is most important, when we multiply the magnetic moment and mass then for electron and muon we obtain almost the same value. For example, nucleons are not the electron-like particles.
What it means?
It means that internal structure of muon must look similarly as that of electron but must have size about 207 times smaller than electron. So once more: Why mass of muon is about 207 times smaller than mass of electron? What phenomena lead to such relation between masses of electron and muon? What are internal structures of electron and muon leading to such relation between these two masses? In the SM assumes that the mass of muon and electron are the parameters. But it is obvious that such assumption results from ignorance because physical quantities of the same type are not independent.
In my theory, I start from 7 parameters associated with the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. I showed how these 7 parameters and properties of these 2 spacetimes (the Einstein spacetime is derived from the Newtonian spacetime) lead to the 4 physical quantities and 3 masses i.e. to mass of electron and to masses of pions. Because the new set of parameters is not fundamental then I described origin of the physical constants and RELATIONS between masses. For example, I explained phenomena leading from mass of electron to mass of muon, how from internal structure of nucleons results that mass of charged pion is about 4.6 MeV greater than mass of neutral pion. It also leads to conclusions that for high energies there is asymptote for the running coupling for the electromagnetic interactions of colliding nucleons. It is equal to about 1/125. There is big difference between my theory and the quark-gluon theory because in my theory are all needed selection rules, are described all needed phenomena leading to these selection rules. I showed how the needed phenomena result from the properties of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. I described all needed relations between physical properties of the same type as, for example, between masses, and so on. All can see that the quark-gluon theory (and partially the SM) is very primitive because of lack of needed selection rules, needed relations between physical properties of the same type, needed phenomena explaining, for example, distance between masses of electron and muon and distances between masses of quarks, too many parameters. And it is the reason why I predict collapse of this and a few other mainstream theories.
I say once more that origin of mass of muon is the pass to ultimate theory. It is in my theory. This origin of mass of muon leads to conclusion that the mainstream theories applied in the particle physics and cosmology need revision.
Please someone correct me if my understanding is wrong.
But it seems to me that what SK is posting is to a physics theory what a movie review is to a movie.
But it seems to me that what SK is posting is to a physics theory what a movie review is to a movie.
QUOTE (Ivars+Sep 9 2009, 06:08 PM)
Hi Sylwester,
You may find this interesting (talking about 7 parameter Universe):
Saniga.On Cremonian Dimensions Qualitatively different from time and space
As space is projective, it needs 7 numbers for 6 dimensions.
And this for introduction in Cremona transfromations of space time into time space:
Saniga.Geometry of time and dimensionality of Space
You may find this interesting (talking about 7 parameter Universe):
Saniga.On Cremonian Dimensions Qualitatively different from time and space
As space is projective, it needs 7 numbers for 6 dimensions.
And this for introduction in Cremona transfromations of space time into time space:
Saniga.Geometry of time and dimensionality of Space