Origin, there are the MINOS-experiment data and the observational facts concerning the supernova SN 1987A AS WELL. I described them within the same model. Then, my theory shows that there is no alternative for the superluminal neutrinos. Only wrongly planned experiment can lead to conclusion that neutrinos from weak decays inside strong field are not superluminal.
Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'
- Thread starter Sylwester Kornowski
- Start date
The MINOS team has said there are hardware and systematic errors that render the data unreliable for the speed of the neutrinos. The 1987A supernova data is explained without the need for super luminal neutrinos.
So I take from your response that if the OPERA experiment shows that the neutrions do not have super luminal velocities that will call into doubt your theory. Thank you for the clarification.
The central neutrino speed obtained in the MINOS experiment is superluminal and it is consistent with my result (1.00005c) whereas the models of the supernova SN 1987A do not explain why we do not observe a remnant/neutron-star after its explosion. My model explains this effect. This means that my model of SN 1987A is better than the mainstream models. My model shows that the fronts of neutrino and photon beams were emitted simultaneously.
My theoretical results concerning the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are more precise than the experimental data.
My theoretical results concerning the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are more precise than the experimental data.
Yeah, why let the experimental data muddy up the theory. Well I'm looking forward to the experiment in May.
See you then.
Except no one actually measured a superluminal speed, a single experiment did and on further investigation it was found to be at fault.
Besides, you're making an argument from authority. If we're supposed to assume large quantities of scientists couldn't all be wrong then surely we should accept the Standard Model, right? Except you say we shouldn't.
Funny how "Believe this result, lots of people do!" is something you try to use when it's convenient and deride when it isn't.
Sylwester, your claims have taken an arrow to the knee. If you had any sense you'd sulk back to the corner of the internet you've been for the last few months and stay there.
AlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense and defend the hypocrisy.
If all is O.K. so, for example, why do not we see a remnant/neutron-star in the place of explosion of the supernova SN 1987A? It should be because the SN 1987A had mass much greater than the Type Ia supernova. For such persons as you explanation of this unsolved problem is not important because the solution leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Just hypocrisy.
AlphaNumeric, I do not want to discuss with you because such discussion is useless. Your mind is locked for new ideas.
Most important in my theory (i.e. in the lacking part of the ultimate theory) is that the Everlasting Theory is more fundamental theory than the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) but the GR leads to my Everlasting Theory i.e. to the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Einstein energy-momentum equation) and to the tori which appear due to the phase transitions of the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the GR). The Kasner solution leads to the Quantum Gravity as well and I described it within the Everlasting Theory.
The GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics (the QP). It follows from the Everlasting Theory and it was postulated by Roger Penrose. The QP must be reformulated (I showed in my theory how the reformulated Standard Model must look) to eliminate the singularities and infinities. Just there must be the tori which follow from the Kasner solution.
I wrote the ultimate equation which ties masses of sources of ALL TYPES OF INTERACTIONS. (see formula (280), page 128). There are six different interactions: the fundamental between the tachyons, the entanglement which leads to the constancy of the speed of light c and the four known interactions i.e. gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong.
Recapitulation
1.
The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and is more fundamental than GR. This theory follows from the GR and Kasner solution.
2.
The GR is more fundamental theory than the QP. The Kasner solution (the tori) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, Reformulated Standard Model and the reformulated string/M theory.
3.
The Everlasting Theory and the GR are the correct theories whereas the mainstream string/M theory and Standard Model (the SM) must be reformulated. There are not in existence the flexible closed strings and the singularities. The bare particles are not the point particles. This causes that the SM is incorrect in the low-energy regime.
4.
There are the six different types of interactions. The entanglement is very important because leads to the constancy of the speed of light.
If all is O.K. so, for example, why do not we see a remnant/neutron-star in the place of explosion of the supernova SN 1987A? It should be because the SN 1987A had mass much greater than the Type Ia supernova. For such persons as you explanation of this unsolved problem is not important because the solution leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Just hypocrisy.
AlphaNumeric, I do not want to discuss with you because such discussion is useless. Your mind is locked for new ideas.
Most important in my theory (i.e. in the lacking part of the ultimate theory) is that the Everlasting Theory is more fundamental theory than the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) but the GR leads to my Everlasting Theory i.e. to the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Einstein energy-momentum equation) and to the tori which appear due to the phase transitions of the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the GR). The Kasner solution leads to the Quantum Gravity as well and I described it within the Everlasting Theory.
The GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics (the QP). It follows from the Everlasting Theory and it was postulated by Roger Penrose. The QP must be reformulated (I showed in my theory how the reformulated Standard Model must look) to eliminate the singularities and infinities. Just there must be the tori which follow from the Kasner solution.
I wrote the ultimate equation which ties masses of sources of ALL TYPES OF INTERACTIONS. (see formula (280), page 128). There are six different interactions: the fundamental between the tachyons, the entanglement which leads to the constancy of the speed of light c and the four known interactions i.e. gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong.
Recapitulation
1.
The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and is more fundamental than GR. This theory follows from the GR and Kasner solution.
2.
The GR is more fundamental theory than the QP. The Kasner solution (the tori) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, Reformulated Standard Model and the reformulated string/M theory.
3.
The Everlasting Theory and the GR are the correct theories whereas the mainstream string/M theory and Standard Model (the SM) must be reformulated. There are not in existence the flexible closed strings and the singularities. The bare particles are not the point particles. This causes that the SM is incorrect in the low-energy regime.
4.
There are the six different types of interactions. The entanglement is very important because leads to the constancy of the speed of light.
Does anyone else notice how Sylwester prefers to simply spew out another list of "Here's what my claims are...." when presented with something relevant but which he has no retort for? Why it's almost like he's trying to deflect.
AlphaNumeric, you should read much more, for example, the great physicist Roger Penrose books about General Relativity (and Quantum Gravity as well) and Quantum Physics. He claims that Einstein Theory of Gravity is correct whereas we must modify the Quantum Physics. There are the convincing arguments! My Everlasting Theory leads to the same conclusion. Moreover, I derived within my theory the basic equations applied in the QP.
The today most important two sentences in the particle physics and cosmology are as follows. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the General Theory of Relativity (i.e. the numbers 0, 1/3, 2/3 and 1 which lead to my tori describing the charges i.e. gravitational-cosmological charge, weak, electromagnetic and strong) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics and reformulated string/M theory. The last two mainstream theories are partially incorrect so we must modify them and my theory describes the needed changes.
AlphaNumeric, what will you write when the repeated OPERA experiment will show that the neutrinos indeed are superluminal? Will be there the apologies?
Now my electronic book is placed in two places. You should read the extended version before you will write the next posts. I solved within the Everlasting Theory the next tens unsolved problems in the mainstream theories.
The today most important two sentences in the particle physics and cosmology are as follows. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the General Theory of Relativity (i.e. the numbers 0, 1/3, 2/3 and 1 which lead to my tori describing the charges i.e. gravitational-cosmological charge, weak, electromagnetic and strong) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics and reformulated string/M theory. The last two mainstream theories are partially incorrect so we must modify them and my theory describes the needed changes.
AlphaNumeric, what will you write when the repeated OPERA experiment will show that the neutrinos indeed are superluminal? Will be there the apologies?
Now my electronic book is placed in two places. You should read the extended version before you will write the next posts. I solved within the Everlasting Theory the next tens unsolved problems in the mainstream theories.
I'm absolutely certain I have a much more extensive library of science material than you.
I don't deny that we're going to have to take a sledgehammer to current models in order to get quantum gravity. Penrose has plenty of views about how to do that, not all of which I agree with (his conciousness ideas I don't find particularly palatable) but you can't just use the argument "Someone says the current model is wrong. My claims disagree with the current model. Therefore my claims are worth looking at". Saying "God did it" disagrees with the scientific point of view but it's not taken seriously in scientific circles.
Sylwester, you seem to have a problem in thinking that if you repeat yourself enough you'll be believed. For example, you know I'm familiar with areas of string and M theory, on a working level, and we've even 'discussed' it. I've explained how your claims do not reformulate or have anything to do with string theory. Now you might be able to deceive others who don't know much physics but it isn't going to work with me, As such your repeated assertion of things you've failed to justify when I've previously challenged you on them shows you aren't able to provide support for them, you can only repeat yourself again and again.
Maybe I'll go into denial, like you are now. All experiments before OPERA said neutrinos are subluminal. OPERA suggested the opposite and you jumped on it, doing your usual thing of producing some menial algebra which agrees with results to a suspicious level. Now that it's transpired the results involved a systematic error at the very least the amount of superluminal violation will change. At worst it'll fall back in line with everything else and neutrinos haven't been seen to go faster than light. You're currently in denial. You'll jump on anything you think can support you but when something which counters your claims comes along you make excuses.
Tell me, what will you do if OPERA confirms it was an error and they saw neutrinos go slower than light? Will you admit you're wrong? Will you say "Oh neutrinos can go faster than light, we just haven't seen any yet!". If, by some change, the systematic error means that neutrinos actually went so fast they went faster than your claimed upper limit then I'm in no doubt you'll find some convoluted way to alter your results, just like you altered your results when I explained running couplings and the difference between asymptotic freedom and confinement to you a few years ago.
You've been saying this for years and you're still stuck on forums being laughed at. Are you still going to be here in 10 years, still making claims you can't justify? I've explained to you how your work is inconsistent. Until you understand that and address it you're wasting your time but I suppose it's your time to waste. The scientific community will move on, and has moved on, without you.
The OPERA experiment has some issues. They modeled the GPS component of the experiment incorrectly and then they found a loose wire? Most [as in all but one I know about] new ideas expressed in public science forums are useless.
Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685
The entanglement shows that there are the superluminal objects. The Everlasting Theory explains the origin of the entanglement.
It is fact that there are the two issues in the OPERA experiment but the today status is as follows: the neutrinos emitted by baryons can be superluminal.
Why I feel sure that the superluminal neutrinos are in existence as well? The Everlasting Theory shows that the generalized Kasner solution, that leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime (i.e. to the larger and larger tori), is THE TANGENT POINT for all basic theories i.e. the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics, reformulated string/M theory, reformulated Standard Model and so on. The superluminal neutrinos follow from the internal structure of the baryons so of the torus inside the core of baryons as well. Can you see the cohesion of such description of nature? Moreover, there is the entanglement. Moreover, we can obtain within one coherent model all CENTRAL VALUES obtained for the superluminal neutrinos in different experiments (MINOS, OPERA, SN 1987A).
It is fact that there are the two issues in the OPERA experiment but the today status is as follows: the neutrinos emitted by baryons can be superluminal.
Why I feel sure that the superluminal neutrinos are in existence as well? The Everlasting Theory shows that the generalized Kasner solution, that leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime (i.e. to the larger and larger tori), is THE TANGENT POINT for all basic theories i.e. the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics, reformulated string/M theory, reformulated Standard Model and so on. The superluminal neutrinos follow from the internal structure of the baryons so of the torus inside the core of baryons as well. Can you see the cohesion of such description of nature? Moreover, there is the entanglement. Moreover, we can obtain within one coherent model all CENTRAL VALUES obtained for the superluminal neutrinos in different experiments (MINOS, OPERA, SN 1987A).
You completely ignored my post about the OPERA experiment. Maybe because it doesn't fit your world view. I tried to find something about your theory but it seems I would have to buy it. I wanted to see what you mean by reformulating QM? If it's a quantum theory then it would have to have a 1/1 correlation. If it's another attempt to make QM deterministic then ....... Bad luck for being so irrelevant.
Brucep, you can find my e-book (it is FREE) in viXra archive and on my website. Both links you can find in this Forum. I cannot write many times the same links because it is forbidden on this Forum.
In my e-book I explained why we must modify the Quantum Physics and within my Everlasting Theory I described the modified theory. Such modification eliminates the singularities and infinities. The modification follows from the entanglement which leads to the origin of the reduction of the state vectors. In contrary to the Schrodinger equation such reduction is nondeterministic i.e. the reduction is irreversible. The entanglement leads to the common platform for the all basic theories i.e. to the Kasner solution and to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime described within my theory.
Within the modified Quantum Physics we can calculate the masses of all leptons and quarks as well. The modified Quantum Physics shows why the Standard Model is incomplete in the low-energy regime. The lack of the atom-like structure of baryons causes that within the SM we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks i.e. we cannot calculate masses of the nucleons from the initial conditions i.e. from the exact masses of the up and down quarks. Incompleteness of the SM causes that we cannot calculate SPINS of the nucleons from the initial conditions as well.
Most important in the Quantum Physics is ORIGIN of reduction of the state vectors. We can discuss this problem. An observation destroys the entanglement i.e. entropy increases.
In my e-book I explained why we must modify the Quantum Physics and within my Everlasting Theory I described the modified theory. Such modification eliminates the singularities and infinities. The modification follows from the entanglement which leads to the origin of the reduction of the state vectors. In contrary to the Schrodinger equation such reduction is nondeterministic i.e. the reduction is irreversible. The entanglement leads to the common platform for the all basic theories i.e. to the Kasner solution and to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime described within my theory.
Within the modified Quantum Physics we can calculate the masses of all leptons and quarks as well. The modified Quantum Physics shows why the Standard Model is incomplete in the low-energy regime. The lack of the atom-like structure of baryons causes that within the SM we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks i.e. we cannot calculate masses of the nucleons from the initial conditions i.e. from the exact masses of the up and down quarks. Incompleteness of the SM causes that we cannot calculate SPINS of the nucleons from the initial conditions as well.
Most important in the Quantum Physics is ORIGIN of reduction of the state vectors. We can discuss this problem. An observation destroys the entanglement i.e. entropy increases.
Last edited:
In the article we can read that later this month, they will all be undertaking independent measurements.
They should check whether in the repeated experiments neutrinos are indeed from the weak decays inside baryons. My theory shows that only such neutrinos can be superluminal. For example, neutrinos from beta decays are not superluminal (see formula (244), page 106). Superluminal are the neutrinos from weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons inside the baryons.
The mainstream theories predict that there should be the remnant/neutron-star of the supernova SN 1987A explosion. Till today such object is not observed. This leads to conclusion that probably the mainstream theories of the supernova SN 1987A explosion are incorrect. On the other hand, my theory leads to conclusion that there should be not a remnant/neutron-star. This means that today only my theory is consistent with the observational fact. My theory shows that the time distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photons beams follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos and leads to the theoretical result (3 hours) consistent with the observational fact.
My theory within one coherent model leads also to the superluminal central speeds of neutrinos obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments.
Recapitulation
They should check whether the neutrinos are from the weak decays of muons (MINOS) or relativistic pions (OPERA) or W bosons (SN 1987A) INSIDE THE BARYONS i.e. inside the strong fields.
They should check whether in the repeated experiments neutrinos are indeed from the weak decays inside baryons. My theory shows that only such neutrinos can be superluminal. For example, neutrinos from beta decays are not superluminal (see formula (244), page 106). Superluminal are the neutrinos from weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons inside the baryons.
The mainstream theories predict that there should be the remnant/neutron-star of the supernova SN 1987A explosion. Till today such object is not observed. This leads to conclusion that probably the mainstream theories of the supernova SN 1987A explosion are incorrect. On the other hand, my theory leads to conclusion that there should be not a remnant/neutron-star. This means that today only my theory is consistent with the observational fact. My theory shows that the time distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photons beams follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos and leads to the theoretical result (3 hours) consistent with the observational fact.
My theory within one coherent model leads also to the superluminal central speeds of neutrinos obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments.
Recapitulation
They should check whether the neutrinos are from the weak decays of muons (MINOS) or relativistic pions (OPERA) or W bosons (SN 1987A) INSIDE THE BARYONS i.e. inside the strong fields.
But nature needs superluminal particles. Only then the wave functions are the coherent mathematical objects. There must be superluminal speeds and they are. Just correct interpretations.
Looks like the get out clauses have started appearing. Suddenly there's caveats and special cases which mean that Sylwester's work can be consistent with any result from the experiments. Faster than light? Why Sylwester said so! Slower than light? Sylwester said so!
This is just like the whole asymptotic freedom issue you have a number of years ago. You shot your mouth off whining about how the mainstream has it all wrong and you're right, only for it to be clear you're the one who doesn't understand the difference between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement and low and behold, you turn around and say "Oh I've got a model which predicts precisely the right results!". Funny how your 'everlasting theory' got amended when you realised you'd had a massive flaw in your understanding exposed.
Of course amending ones work is all part of science, except rational people don't go around proclaiming their work certainly exact and 'everlasting'.
Speaking as a mathematician by degree and theoretical physicist by doctorate, thus having plenty of relevant knowledge, your statement is false. I know you don't understand quantum field theory or even non-relativistic quantum mechanics but making blanket assertions on such things on a forum you know to be frequented by people like myself is just plain stupid.
You might get away with lying about maths and physics when you talk to friends and family but you aren't going to get away with it here.