General Outline Of The Ultimate Theory, On base of bare tachyons

General Outline of the Ultimate Theory
See my theory on www.cosmology-particles.pl/files/TheUniverse.pdf

Why is needed new theory?
New theory is needed because on base of the asymptotic freedom the “…..Quark-gluon plasma was expected to behave like a gas, but the data shows a more liquid-like substance…..”.

Spacetime it is ideal gas composed of structureless bare tachyons having linear and rotational kinetic energies - mean energies of all free and bound tachyons cannot change with time.
Possible phase transitions of the spacetime are described by the new dimensionless constant
K=0.79•10^10:
-into stable identical tachyonic strings,
-into neutrinos built of strings (the elementary photons they are the binary systems of neutrinos - m=6.6•10^-67 kg; wave packets are composed of the elementary photons),
-into cores of baryons built of photons and neutrinos (outside the cores is obligatory the Titius-Bode law for strong interactions - on 'orbits' are the relativistic pions only in the S states),
-into objects before the big bangs suited to life which I will call the superuniverses.

Neutrinos, cores of baryons (also electrons composed of polarized elementary photons), and superuniverses they look as torus with mass in center of it. Surfaces of the tori look similarly as the Ketterle surface for Fermi gas discovered in 2005.
My gluons (m=67.544 MeV) and the Universe (m=1.8•10^51 kg) are/was created inside torus. Mesons are built of my gluons.
The big bang of the Universe composed of neutron black holes was caused by the Superuniverse-neutrino transition/collapse.

Possible phase transitions of spacetime result from saturation of interactions of the tachyons (they result from viscosity of the tachyons).

Interactions:
Gravity results from internal helicity of the tachyonic strings.
Weak interactions are associated with the masses in centers of tori of electrons and cores of baryons.
Electromagnetic interactions are carried by photons.
Strong interactions are carried by my gluons.

The Titius-Bode law for strong interactions (A/B=1.38980) results from symmetrical decays of virtual eta bosons (m=540 MeV) inside area of strong interactions. The range of strong interactions results from range of the symmetrical decays and the life-time of my gluons.

To formulate the quantum mechanics is needed virtual field composed of virtual photons - it means that the QM appears on higher level of nature. Fruitful quantum gravity never will be formulated.

Presented theory leads to the best results. I calculated a few hundred results consistent with all experimental data.

S K

nice schooling ....... I love the intelligent but are you willing to see in a different view? That is the question.

Simply address the properties of em such as resonance (lamb) and entanglement..... with the scope the em in all her illustrious 'f' and energy stands as em ..... Of simply that light is the energy upon mass.

The current problem is 2 fold, first 'c' is incorrect, t<0 at the exchange.... and second ... by walking the planck there is no method of recognizing 'l' increasing the power of 2 same 'f' systems .... time takes the hit... actually showing that entropy is not directional by law...

What this will show is that gravity itself is entangled energy between structures.

Simply take a peak at the BE condensate or simply by walking through Casimir van der waals with the new idea upon your thought...... walk it through to find this true....

Enjoy

I wrote many times that energy (which is associated with motions) must be carried by some substance i.e. at least by inertial mass i.e. at least by bare volumes filled with a structureless substance. Einstein said that there should be an internal structure of photon (my theory leads to conclusion that photon is composed of elementary photons i.e. of binary systems of neutrinos having different weak charges what causes that elementary photon it is DIPOLE – see my theory of neutrinos; spin of my elementary photon is defined only for not rotating elementary photon; for frequency of photon not equal to zero there can be defined only total angular momentum and it is consistent with the quantum mechanics). And it is true because elementary photon has spin and length of wave which changes because of the Doppler shift. It means that elementary photon must have mass and the inertial mass of photon must be equal to the gravitational mass of it. Because the ‘c’ it is the natural speed of photon in spacetime associated with bodies so elementary photon has only one value of mass and cannot have a relativistic mass. Mass of elementary photon is extremely small (6.6 . 10^-67 kg). It causes that in the theory of electromagnetism we may neglect this mass – the extremely small mass of elementary photon causes that the theory of electromagnetism based on the massless photons is correct. But we cannot neglect the mass of the not rotating VIRTUAL PHOTONS (i.e. sunk in the background of the Universe and in the background of the infinite multiverse) because without the mass of virtual photon field we cannot explain origin of the dark energy!!!!!! There are not in existence other –inos and s-particles predicted by the supergravity (my theory leads to conclusion that the supergravity is incorrect) so on base of such particles we cannot solve the problems associated with the dark energy. My theory leads to conclusion that the dark energy i.e. the mass of the virtual field composed of the not rotating elementary photons was created in the Superuniverse-neutrino transition – see my theory.

Why I claim that we must totally rebuild the particle physics and inflationary models?

First: We do not see, and never will see, the early Universe containing uniformly distributed first stars – it should be if the inflationary models are correct. In the early Universe we see the protogalaxies, not uniformly distributed first stars – it is the observational fact. It means that the protogalaxies were created before the big bang.

Second: I predict that the Higgs boson never will be discovered – to such conclusion leads my theory. Many physicists say that if it is true then particle physics will have to be totally rebuilt. And there is the first evidence that particle physics is incorrect because on base of the asymptotic freedom the “…..Quark-gluon plasma was expected to behave like a gas, but the data shows a more liquid-like substance…..”. In my opinion soon there will be more such evidences (LHC in CERN starts in May 2008).

Recapitulation
The dark energy it is mass of the virtual field composed of the not rotating elementary photons. In my opinion we never will solve the dark energy problem if we do not assume that elementary photon has extremely small mass. Virtual field composed of the not rotating elementary photons fills infinite volume but the collapse just before the big bang created area of higher mass density of such field. This area is expanding and today has radius about 21 billion light-years whereas the area filled with baryonic matter has radius about 13 billion light-years – see my theory.
The dark mass is composed of the Fe+Ni and Si lumps. Such lumps were created at beginning of the big bang. It means that today temperature of these lumps is equal to the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (the CMB). It causes that detection of this matter is very, very difficult – see my theory.

Once more: No one particle predicted by the supergravity will be detected in the future experiments. If it is true (I know that it is – I have 100% of certainty that it is true) then we must find another solution of the dark energy problem.

I should add why speed of elementary photon practically cannot change.
My spacetime it is ideal gas composed of the structureless bare tachyons. It means that probability to find place of spacetime where energy density of it differs even very little of the mean energy density of it is very, very low. The 'c' it is the natural speed of the elementary photons in spacetime. But we know that spacetime near black holes is strongly stretched. So why speed of elementary photon near black hole is not higher than the 'c'. It is because mass of black hole curve only very small part of spacetime. This curved part of spacetime it is enough to curve trajectory of elementary photon, but it is not enough to change speed of elementary photon. By means of other words: The curved part of spacetime, even near black holes, it is only very, very small part of the whole spacetime. Even near black holes whole spacetime is composed of the flat part and curved part. Only trajectories of not numerous tachyons are curved (curved because of the internal helicity of strings the particles are built of). Of course in very, very dense field composed of my strings, elementary photons should move with speeds higher than the 'c' but probability to find such place in our Universe is equal to zero.
Photon is composed of almost independently moving elementary photons so photons have the same speed as the elementary photons. Elementary photon it is binary system of neutrinos interacting weakly. This weakness of interactions causes that two neutrinos in an elementary photon also are moving almost independently - it means that also speed of FREE neutrinos practically should be equal to the 'c'.

Such is origin of the Einstein's postulate c=constant.

Dark Energy is simply the affects of entangled mass, by the energy upon the structures.

This is easy to see in the Bose Einstein Condensate….. If you bring mass to rest, any energy shares the entangled state and affect to ‘c’… Postulate: gravity is entangled mass by the energy imposed.

Hence; superfluity; no gravity!

Never liked what virial did to physics…. No such thing as dark m/e……

Angular momentum is the error of walking the planck when addressing energy as this form to address ‘l’ amplitude is what retains the entropic direction….

Point particles do not exist less than H….. everything else simply energy isolating momentum upon a dipole. And when addressed to include the environment the scaling establishes a wavelength irregardless to frequency. Hence…power is based from the 2 versus simply the ‘f’….

You are real close.

I understand you have a model... and any good thinker has pet projects but let's first address items at the base that can have experimental evidence...

These items like Black Holes, dark energy etc.... are all based on imposing base units to energy by Virial Theorem... and that is error ONE.

We know that energy is quite important in comparison to the gr constant....

What I would like to do is start at step one, by addressing energy itself and then go from there....

Does this interest you?

Observational facts lead to conclusion that even around massive bodies spacetime is flat i.e. sum of angles in triangle is 180 degrees. On other hand we know that spacetime, near massive bodies, curves trajectories of photons i.e. spacetime is curved – it is also the observational fact. How is it possible? In my opinion explanation is as follows: Spacetime near massive body is composed of flat part of spacetime and the curved one and the flat part dominates! It means that spacetime is granulated because continuous spacetime cannot be resolved into the flat and curved parts.

But we know that Noether theorem acts in continuous spacetime. How to reconcile these two contrary conclusions? In my opinion explanation is as follows: For particles interacting longer than the Planck time (about 10^-43 s) the granulated spacetime should look as continuous spacetime i.e. during the time of interaction the granules should appear many, many times in each point of spacetime. It is possible only if the granules are moving with superluminal speeds i.e. the granules are the tachyons – and it is the initial condition in my theory.

Experimental data also lead to conclusion that gravitational field, i.e. spacetime, has not gravitational mass. It means that the tachyons cannot emit other particles. It leads to conclusion that the tachyons are structureless i.e. they have only inertial mass which manifests itself only in direct collisions of them. It means that interactions of the tachyons are based on viscosity of them.

Now is time to explain how particles curve the flat spacetime composed of the structureless tachyons. From tachyons are created strings having internal helicity. This internal helicity plus viscosity cause that trajectories of some tachyons the flat part of spacetime is composed of, are curved i.e. is created divergent/curved part of the spacetime. Sporadic collisions between divergently moving tachyons and tachyons the flat part of spacetime is composed of create negative pressure in spacetime (spacetime is little stretched) which differs very little from the mean pressure in spacetime.

The ‘c=const.’, i.e. the postulate in the GR and SR, is defined by temperature of the flat part of spacetime.
The GR is defined by the curved part of spacetime.
Local unit of time is defined by mean time between direct collisions of tachyons.
Local unit of length is defined by mean distance between tachyons i.e. in more stretched spacetime time is going slower.

Recapitulation
All experimental data lead to my spacetime i.e. to the ideal gas composed of the structureless/bare tachyons. It is obvious that the tachyons cannot be observed directly because they are the smallest objects in nature.

Have you or others another explanation of the observational fact that spacetime near massive bodies is flat? In my opinion there is no other explanation.

Is this the eclipse you are using as evidence?

So when the moon is between the earth and the sun and they document the observation of stars behind the sun, you believe the light is bending around the sun because the sun’s gravity is bending the space?

Well I say a mirage does the exact same thing. Basically defined as heat coming off the road, bends light….….. pretty basic! Anyone can make this happen with a hot stove or a bic lighter. :>:>

Same with light going through an electric/magnetic field … …. Note Pound/Rebka …. It is the earth magnetic field causing the affect and why when the experiment was moved to another location the variation was cause by magnetosphere anomalies.

Although it may seem like basic sense, is only because it is.

So tell me in any logical frame, do you really think space bends? IN a physical sense, really?

Gravitational lensing was testified many times.

My theory leads to conclusion that the light is bent by gravitational field and that the masses attract themselves because of the gradient of pressure created in spacetime. Spacetime is very, very little stretched even near very massive or very dense objects. It causes that spacetime in the Universe is practically flat. It causes that the ‘c’, i.e. the natural speed of photons and neutrinos in spacetime, is practically constant.

This post has been edited by Sylwester Kornowski on Jan 26 2008, 03:05 PM

And what about the time delay errors?

Strong, weak and micro gravity … each have specific methods to focus the received data …. Clear inconsistencies that share a ‘step back’ must taken immediately to reevaluate.

IN the name of science of course.

So basically you are trying to correct a simple obscurity.

The data from observing far away objects does not begin the development of a thesis since to bring data such as the described gravitational lensing reduces the ability to locate the benchmark errors. i.e.. the complacent fixture to ‘c’ as a constant.

You asked what explanation did I have to describe that phenomena and it was made available in a pretty common sense application.

So rather than return to a contested format (grav lensing) ….. as we could go back and forth all day, please examine the idea mentioned, being it is unique for such a description.

Could energy upon a structure cause light to bend?

The ‘c=const.’, i.e. the postulate in the GR and SR, is defined by temperature of the flat part of spacetime. By means of other words: The ‘c’ it is natural speed of photons in spacetime composed of the tachyons. Because in our Universe the number density of tachyons in stretched spacetime is only a very little lower than the number density of tachyons in flat spacetime so speed of photons is practically constant. The ratio of the difference of the number densities of tachyons in the flat and stretched spaces to the number density of tachyons in flat spacetime cannot be greater than the ratio of the total volume of bound tachyons a body is built of to the total volume of the body. For the sun this ratio is 1.7•10^-83, for typical neutron black hole (mass of it is about 25 times greater than the sun) this ratio is 3•10^-69. These very small values cannot sufficiently change value of the ‘c’ to be measured today. It means that only wrong experiments can suggest that the ‘c’ can change its value.

My theory leads to conclusion that all particles, also photons, are built of the structureless tachyons. It means that the fundamental/simplest interactions it is result of the viscosity of the tachyons. It suggests that trajectories of photons (built of the tachyons) must be bent in curved spacetime because spacetime is also composed of the tachyons having viscosity resulting from smoothness of the surfaces of tachyons. By means of other words: Gradient of negative pressure in gas composed of tachyons bends light.

Recapitulation
Curved/stretched spacetime bends trajectory of photon but cannot sufficiently change value of the 'c' to be measured today.

So you wish to stick with a substrate or medium. No ether dude!

Not interested.

The 'yes' to this question was a good starting place but apparently you are too deep in your own tunnel ....

So I will leave you to your own conversation.

Good day to you