New Cosmology (discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

In 1996 I foresaw the new state of matter discovered in 2005 by Wolfgang Ketterle from MIT. This state I described in my scientific book "THE ULTIMATE THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE". The book is now registered in International Journal of Theotetical Physics. Contents a nd general idea of it you can find on www.cosmology-particles.pl
Below you can find the PREFACE to this book. If you are interested in some details please send your question.
PREFACE
In the Ketterle group experiment with the whirling atomic fermion clouds in very low temperature appears the real nature of microcosm (i.e. the superfluidity in the background of the Universe) and this experiment confirms that our conception of that is incorrect. My theory foresees such structures in the cores of the nucleons and the neutrino. In this ultimate theory of the Universe vortices (i.e. whirling toruses) are omnipresent. The surface of neutrino is built of toruses whirling analogically as a tropical cyclone and axes of them are placed perpendicular to the surface of neutrino (the surface of the core of nucleon is built of the neutrinos) the same as in the Ketterle experiment. These axes overlap with the force lines of the weak charge of neutrino. On the surface of the neutrino (also on the surface on nucleon) there is duplicated identical layer (from toruses the background of the Universe is built of) but distances between toruses are minimal longer (it is virtual particle) and such surface is unstable then expands (see chapter Types of Interactions). In my opinion this Ketterle group experiment is most important in last decades and my theory gives possibility to prove it.
There does not exist the quark-gluon plasma then the Standard Model is incorrect. My new theory of the structure of hadrons was completed in 1985.
From experimental data it results that the massive superquasars existed since the beginning of the Big Bang then the Cosmological Standard Model is incorrect. My new theory of the Big Bang and evolution of the Universe and the other elementary particles was completed in 1997.
There does not exist answer to question: what does accelerate the expansion of our World?
Why the ratio of the real energy of the vacuum to the energy of the vacuum which we observe is equal to about 10^120 (from my theory it results that this ratio is equal to 0.6 • 10^119)?
The coupling constant of the weak interactions of electron is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions. The QED does not take it into account but gives good results. Is the QED incorrect? My new QED was completed in 2001.
We have many of various theories but we have not a homogeneous wordy description containing explanation of the basic physical terms such as the space-time (what is structure of the space-time?), mass, spin, charge, weak charge of neutrino, structure of photon (Einstein considered this problem), etc. There will not be a progress if we do not tie these things. Since the quarks had been introduced (41 years ago) we have not got any progress.
To explain the structure of gravitational field and the structure of weak charge of neutrino we need two particles smaller than the neutrino. These two particles are moving with velocities higher than the light velocity in vacuum and existence of the quantum theory and the Aspect's experiment prove it. These two particles I call the eterion and the higgson. In my theory the background of the infinite Universe is filled with eterions, higgsons and neutrinos. All objects larger than the neutrino are built of the neutrinos. There do not exist the gravitons and gravitational waves. This model gives possibility to explain all mysteries of the particles, nuclei, atoms and the Universe.
All theories connected with the elementary structures which have occurred since 1947-1948 (i.e. the theories based on the vibrating superstrings in the hyperspace, the quarks, the inflation, the perturbation theory with the renormalization, and the spinors with the 720o turns) are incorrect.
To describe the structure and behaviour of the neutrino we need, in the relativistic version, the 26 degrees of freedom. To describe the structure and behaviour of the higgson (i.e. the solid torus) we need, in the relativistic version, the 10 degrees of freedom, and of the eterion the 8 degrees of freedom. Such is the genesis of the Ramanujan modular functions applied in the superstring theory. There does not exist simpler version of the ultimate theory of the Universe but that presented in this book.
Regards
Sylwester Kornowski

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I'm Just Gonna Say, "WOW!!!"

Many Times, have First Posters made Extrordinary Claims, Using Copy-Written Material ...

However, they Very Seldom, Use their Own, Copy-Written Material!

So, Any Way you Could Boil that Post Down, Just a Bit, So People Other than, yourself and Maybe, Our Very Own, Eta C, Will Be Able, to Understand it?

[Wolverine]

Bad Astronomy: The Book exists to discuss Phil Plait's book. This topic should be in Against the Mainstream. Moved.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

It is mature decision that I used my own copy-written material. If it will be necessarilly I throw the whole book open to the public. It is only one methode to prove that the all theories connected with the elementary structures which have occured since 1947-1948 are incorrect and there is many evidences that this statement is true.

[swansont]

In 1996 I foresaw the new state of matter discovered in 2005 by Wolfgang Ketterle from MIT.

Ketterle's experiments demonstrated the existence of a superfluid gas, but it's not like the state was unthought-of before that. The researchers didn't exactly tumble over the new state by accident, they were looking for it, as it had been predicted by theory for some time.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Ketterle's experiments demonstrated the existence of a superfluid gas, but it's not like the state was unthought-of before that. The researchers didn't exactly tumble over the new state by accident, they were looking for it, as it had been predicted by theory for some time.

I predicted such state in 1996 in my book ISBN 83-901005-0-9. Of course you have right but I predicted such state in the neutrinos, in the nucleon and in the structure just before the Big Bang i.e. in the elementary structures of microcosm (not in superfluid gas). In the PREFACE I wrote:
“In the Ketterle group experiment with the whirling atomic fermion clouds in very low temperature appears the real nature of microcosm (i.e. the superfluidity in the background of the Universe) and this experiment confirms that our conception of that is incorrect. My theory foresees such structures in the cores of the nucleons and the neutrino….. In my opinion this Ketterle group experiment is most important in last decades and my theory gives possibility to prove it.”

[Eta C]

Well, at first glance, it appears that Mr. Kornowski is convolving two recent experiemtns by Dr. Ketterle. First a bit of background, Ketterle shared the 2001 Nobel in physics for being one of the first to create a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC). Bosons, (particles with integer spin) are not restricted by the Pauli exclusion principle (which applies to half-spin fermions such as electrons) and a large number of them, when sufficiently cooled, can all share the same quantum state.

Ketterle has continued to probe the properties of BEC's. One question is if they are superfluids like Helium-4. One piece of evidence for this would be if they could sustain quantized vortices as He-4 does. Ketterle did some work on this in 2000, as reported in this Physics Today article from August 2000. Using what they termed "optical spoons" they were able to "stir" a BEC in a magnetic trap and confirm the quantized vortex behavior.

What seems to have gotten Mr. Kornowski excited is an article from the 13 May 2005 issue of Physical Review Letters titled Formation Dynamics of a Fermion Pair Condensate. (Link is to abstract you need a subscription or pay to read the article). Pairs of fermions can link up to form a boson-like conglomerate. One example of this are electrons forming Cooper pairs in a superconductor.

I've printed out the paper and will report back on it shortly. However, on first glance I doubt the connection between it and Mr. Kornowski's idea. I'll do a more detailed critique later (the day job calls) but one question I would like him to answer is what mechanism or force binds two neutrinos (which are fermions) into a pair such as the one discussed in the paper. Also, Mr. Kornowski, it would be useful if you provided the references to the source documents as well as your own publications.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Well, at first glance, it appears that Mr. Kornowski is convolving two recent experiemtns by Dr. Ketterle. First a bit of background, Ketterle shared the 2001 Nobel in physics for being one of the first to create a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC). Bosons, (particles with integer spin) are not restricted by the Pauli exclusion principle (which applies to half-spin fermions such as electrons) and a large number of them, when sufficiently cooled, can all share the same quantum state.

Ketterle has continued to probe the properties of BEC's. One question is if they are superfluids like Helium-4. One piece of evidence for this would be if they could sustain quantized vortices as He-4 does. Ketterle did some work on this in 2000, as reported in this Physics Today article from August 2000. Using what they termed "optical spoons" they were able to "stir" a BEC in a magnetic trap and confirm the quantized vortex behavior.

What seems to have gotten Mr. Kornowski excited is an article from the 13 May 2005 issue of Physical Review Letters titled Formation Dynamics of a Fermion Pair Condensate. (Link is to abstract you need a subscription or pay to read the article). Pairs of fermions can link up to form a boson-like conglomerate. One example of this are electrons forming Cooper pairs in a superconductor.

I've printed out the paper and will report back on it shortly. However, on first glance I doubt the connection between it and Mr. Kornowski's idea. I'll do a more detailed critique later (the day job calls) but one question I would like him to answer is what mechanism or force binds two neutrinos (which are fermions) into a pair such as the one discussed in the paper. Also, Mr. Kornowski, it would be useful if you provided the references to the source documents as well as your own publications.

In my book there is chapter titled ”Types of Interactions”. I can send you free e-copy of my book (PDF file). In my model the neutrino has the internal helicity and the weak charge (positive or negative-the Ketterle surface gives such possibilities). Interaction of two neutrinos of different states of the weak charge is dual to the electromagnetic interaction of the pair electron-positron, but there exist also other interactions: for example dual with the weak interaction of two nucleons or resulting from Bernoulli’s theorem.
The surfaces similar to the Ketterle surface it is only one element of the ultimate theory. Outside of the core of nucleon (built of the neutrinos) there is obligatory the Titius-Bode law and the ratio A/B is the same as for the solar system! The quarks do not exist because it is obvious that it is simpler to assume that inside nucleon there exist exchanges of elementary charge between the components of the nucleon than to believe in existence of quarks having the fractional charges-the result of experiment is the same!!!!

My theory was registered for example on August 10, 1989 in The Physical Review, number SG4107D, title: “The Titius-Bode law and structure of baryons”, on June 6, 1997 in The IJTP, numbers MS 970606 and MS 970606.1, titles “General Theory of Cosmological Singularities” and “Structure and Interactions of Particles”. My book “General Theory of Singularities” was published in 1998 by TAJGETA” ISBN 83-901005-8-4 and is attainable in the Jagiellonian University Library (also the next editions). Now my book is registered in The IJTP. Of course I was the first in formulating this theory.

A propos Wolfgang Pauli-it is some fragment of my book:
“In history of civilisation the ultimate theory seemed to be found many times...
but really present dream of the ultimate theory commenced in 1958 with Pauli and Heisenberg. On the radio interview Heisenberg said that they i.e. Pauli and himself were able to explain the masses of various elementary particles. That had terribly irritated Pauli who in his letter, published in the book Thirty Years That Shook Physics by Gamow, drew a blank square and put down the comment ”This is to show the world, that I can paint like Titian. Only technical details are missing.”. So the first picture of the ultimate theory was reduced to a blank square.”

[Gullible Jones]

Dude... Superfluidity is old, old, old news. Superfluid helium has been around for a while, and BECs for almost as long.

[Nereid]

And, excuse my extreme ignorance, what has this got to do with astronomy?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Dude... Superfluidity is old, old, old news. Superfluid helium has been around for a while, and BECs for almost as long.

Of course you have right. The superfluidity was discovered in 1937 but nobody in 1996 or before did not foresee surfaces built of vortices and did not apply them in the microcosm and macrocosm structures i.e. to the neutrinos, nucleons and to the structure which existed just before the Big Bang (the last structure which I call the Superworld I foresaw in 1997). Such conception is original also today. The Ketterle group discovered in experiment surfaces built of vortices in 2005 in very could fermion ATOMIC clouds but nobody propose appliance of it to the neutrinos, nucleons and to the beginning of our World.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

And, excuse my extreme ignorance, what has this got to do with astronomy?

My book it is 84 pages (size A4) and about 50% it is cosmology and about 50% it is particle physics and QED. It is obvious that the Cosmological Standard Model and the Inflationary Models are incorrect because on the beginning of the Big Bang there existed the superquasars and there was not time to form such structures from the tiny ripples. In my model our World hatched from structure built of neutrons which had surface analogical as the Ketterle surface. After the Big Collapse of this structure there was the Big Bang of our World. In my model the phenomena which take place in the nucleon also took place in the structure just before the Big Bang but density of energy was much much much higher. My theory for example describes the evolution of the Universe as a whole, there are chapters “Visible and dark matter, dark energy, and quasars. Why does the estimation of the age of our World contain error?” and “Cosmogony of the solar system and cosmology of the massive spiral galaxies”
I HAVE PROPOSAL FOR ADMINISTRATOR OF YOUR WEB. The coming discussion will be more essential if administrator throws my e-book open to the public. There is the descriptive part and my theory is very simple mathematically. We know that only theories simple mathematically are correct. Calculated the physical properties have great accuracy, for example the calculated mass of the proton is equal to 938.28MeV, the neutron 939.55MeV-the authors of the other theories may only to dream of it.

[Eta C]

The surfaces similar to the Ketterle surface it is only one element of the ultimate theory. Outside of the core of nucleon (built of the neutrinos) there is obligatory the Titius-Bode law and the ratio A/B is the same as for the solar system! The quarks do not exist because it is obvious that it is simpler to assume that inside nucleon there exist exchanges of elementary charge between the components of the nucleon than to believe in existence of quarks having the fractional charges-the result of experiment is the same!!!!

It is evident from the deep inelastic scattering experiments first performed at SLAC in the 70's that there are three point-like constituants inside of nucleons. These didn't necessarily need to be the quarks of Gell-Mann's theory (first proposed in the 60's by the way) but the identification is compelling and further experimental results and the development of the standard model has made the existence of quarks even more likely. So a couple of more questions.

1) Does your idea account for the deep inelastic scattering results?
2) You claim in a later post that your model predicts the proton and neutron masses. How about the other members of the spin 1/2 octet (The sigma and xi states)
3) Then there are the spin 3/2 decuplet states. In particular, if you have success with the nucleons, your model should be able to predict the masses of the four delta particles (Masses around 1200 MeV). The standard model accounts for these as excited states of the proton and nucleon.

My theory was registered for example on August 10, 1989 in The Physical Review, number SG4107D, title: “The Titius-Bode law and structure of baryons”, on June 6, 1997 in The IJTP, numbers MS 970606 and MS 970606.1, titles “General Theory of Cosmological Singularities” and “Structure and Interactions of Particles”. My book “General Theory of Singularities” was published in 1998 by TAJGETA” ISBN 83-901005-8-4 and is attainable in the Jagiellonian University Library (also the next editions). Now my book is registered in The IJTP. Of course I was the first in formulating this theory.

I wasn't able to search the IJTP, but a scan of the Physical Review archives does not turn up the referenced article. In fact there is no August 10 1989 issue of the journal. I realize there is a bit of a language gap here. Are we speaking of the same journal? I'm thinking of the journal published by the American Physical Society. It actually comes in five different series (PhysRev A, B, C, D, and E) as well as Physical Review Letters. If you are referring to a different journal please let us know.

[Celestial Mechanic]

My book it is 84 pages (size A4) and about 50% it is cosmology and about 50% it is particle physics and QED.

I've noticed that you seem to mention your book in just about every post of yours whatever the topic. The moderators of this board take a dim view of spamming and advertising, and also of constant attempts to promote one's ideas regardless of the context of the thread. I'm not a moderator, so this is not a warning, but you may want to consider my advice so that you do not receive a warning from a moderator.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

It is evident from the deep inelastic scattering experiments first performed at SLAC in the 70's that there are three point-like constituants inside of nucleons. These didn't necessarily need to be the quarks of Gell-Mann's theory (first proposed in the 60's by the way) but the identification is compelling and further experimental results and the development of the standard model has made the existence of quarks even more likely. So a couple of more questions.

1) Does your idea account for the deep inelastic scattering results?
2) You claim in a later post that your model predicts the proton and neutron masses. How about the other members of the spin 1/2 octet (The sigma and xi states)
3) Then there are the spin 3/2 decuplet states. In particular, if you have success with the nucleons, your model should be able to predict the masses of the four delta particles (Masses around 1200 MeV). The standard model accounts for these as excited states of the proton and nucleon.


I wasn't able to search the IJTP, but a scan of the Physical Review archives does not turn up the referenced article. In fact there is no August 10 1989 issue of the journal. I realize there is a bit of a language gap here. Are we speaking of the same journal? I'm thinking of the journal published by the American Physical Society. It actually comes in five different series (PhysRev A, B, C, D, and E) as well as Physical Review Letters. If you are referring to a different journal please let us know.

1.Yes it does. I have results on figure-I can send you the PDF file.
2. Below you have some theoretical values calculated within my model which are connected with the particle physics.

PHYSICAL QUANTITY THEORETICAL
VALUE
Mass of proton 938.28 MeV
Mass of neutron 939.55 MeV
Mass of hyperon lambda 1115.3 MeV
Mass of hyperon sigma+ 1189.6 MeV
Mass of hyperon sigmao 1190.9 MeV
Mass of hyperon sigma- 1196.9 MeV
Mass of hyperon ksio 1316.2 MeV
Mass of hyperon ksi- 1322.2 MeV
Mass of hyperon omega- 1674.4 MeV
Mass of muon 105.70 MeV
Mass of taon 1783 MeV
Mass of kaon K+ 493.65 MeV
Mass of kaon Ko 497.67 MeV
Mass of meson J/psi 3074 MeV
Mass of resonance delta(1232) 1236.8 MeV

Masses of ”carriers of the weak forces” 97.3 GeV
87.3 GeV
Magnetic moment of proton +2.7937 of nuclear magneton
Magnetic moment of neutron -1.9135 of nuclear magneton
Main channels of decay of hyperon lambda 62.6 % p pi-
37.4 % n pio
Main channels of decay of hyperon sigma+ 50.8 % p pio
49.2 % n pi+
External radius of torus of nucleon 0.69746 . 10^-15 m
External radius of torus of electron 3.8661 . 10^-13 m
Radius of nucleon 1.1993 . 10^-15 m
Effective radius of deuteron for stationary state 1.7011 . 10^-15 m
Range of strong interactions 2.7047 . 10^-15 m
Range of weak interactions of proton 8.7107 . 10^-18 m
Range of weak interactions of electron 0.7357 . 10^-18 m
Means of squares of charges of nucleons components 0.29e2
Means of squares of charges of proton components 0.25e2
Means of squares of charges of neutron components 0.33e2
Life-time of proton stable
Life-time of electron stable
Life-time of neutron 929 s
Life-time of muon 2.4 . 10^-6 s
Life-time of taon 1.9 . 10^-12 s
Life-time of hyperons 1.2 . 10^-10 s
Life-time of charm baryon lambdac+(2260) 6.5 . 10^-13 s
Life-time of neutral pion 0.79 . 10^-16 s
Volume energy of nucleus per nucleon -14.95 MeV
Coupling constant for weak interactions of proton 0.018722
Coupling constant for strong-weak interactions of nucleon d=0: 0.994
d=1: 0.763
d=2: 0.640
There are also the results for the electron-also with the high accuracy.

2. It is-see above.

Yes, we speaking of the same journal. I have paper signed by Editor of Physical Review D, name D. Nordstrom.

[Laser Jock]

[snip] My theory was registered for example on August 10, 1989 in The Physical Review, number SG4107D, title: “The Titius-Bode law and structure of baryons”, ...

SG4107D appears to be a manuscript number -- a number that editors give to a submitted manuscript before it goes out for review by referees. Did your paper ever get published? I did a search in all of Physical Review for Kornowski, but found nothing.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I've noticed that you seem to mention your book in just about every post of yours whatever the topic. The moderators of this board take a dim view of spamming and advertising, and also of constant attempts to promote one's ideas regardless of the context of the thread. I'm not a moderator, so this is not a warning, but you may want to consider my advice so that you do not receive a warning from a moderator.

Thank you but it is not true. I placed my idea in two threads but it was connected with my theory. FREE e-COPY of my book is attainable via my web site. I am not selling my book!!!

[Sylwester Kornowski]

SG4107D appears to be a manuscript number -- a number that editors give to a submitted manuscript before it goes out for review by referees. Did your paper ever get published? I did a search in all of Physical Review for Kornowski, but found nothing.

My book “General Theory of Singularities” was published in 1998 by TAJGETA” ISBN 83-901005-8-4 and is attainable in the Jagiellonian University Library (also the next extended versions).
There is vicious circle: the new theories are rejected by authors of incorrect theories or their believers without any explanation. The problem is small if it last short but there is big problem if it last decades. For example the quarks appeared in 1964 then it last 41 years but, as I said before, it is obvious that it is simpler to assume that inside nucleon there exist the exchanges of the elementary charge between the components of the nucleon than to believe in existence of quarks having the fractional charge-the result is the same. And we know that there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma-it is experimental result.
Before discovery of the Ketterle surface I had problems in publishing my papers but now I think it will be in IJTP. It was registered on May 19, 2005 and today there is no decision. It is very difficult to admit that somebody is right.
I can send you free e-copy of my book (PDF file). Give me your e-mail or it is attainable via my web site.

A propos - I know what a photon is.

[tusenfem]

I have tried to order a copy of your book-pdf from your website with several browsers, but none of them seem to work, the send button does not do anything. I would like to have a look at what you propose. (tusenfem@yahoo.com)

[czeslaw]

I have read of Mr.Kornowski book. There is interesting how the particles of the energy and matter interact with the space. It will be much easier to solve problems with gravity and inertia if we take the space as medium created of the etherions.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have tried to order a copy of your book-pdf from your website with several browsers, but none of them seem to work, the send button does not do anything. I would like to have a look at what you propose. (tusenfem@yahoo.com)

I am sending you e-copy of my book.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have read of Mr.Kornowski book. There is interesting how the particles of the energy and matter interact with the space. It will be much easier to solve problems with gravity and inertia if we take the space as medium created of the etherions.

Thank you very much.

[tusenfem]

tnx sylwester, i got the book, i will take a look at it.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have tried to order a copy of your book-pdf from your website with several browsers, but none of them seem to work, the send button does not do anything. I would like to have a look at what you propose.

You are right – the button “send” does not work. I will intervene at administrator of website.

It is information for those who want to receive free e-copy of my book. Under the button “send” there is given the email address and you can click it.
Sorry for inconvenience.

[Thanatos]

Hilarious, Professor Kornowski, you have violated just about every known law of science. Have you heard of Quantum Field Theory? By the way, you have 3 years to copyright your work after first publication. Will help you with that upon request.

[swansont]

By the way, you have 3 years to copyright your work after first publication. Will help you with that upon request.

In the US: "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (from the US Copyright FAQ)

Registering a copyright has some advantages but is not necessary and is a very straightforward process.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Hilarious, Professor Kornowski, you have violated just about every known law of science. Have you heard of Quantum Field Theory? By the way, you have 3 years to copyright your work after first publication. Will help you with that upon request.

Of course I have heard of The Quantum Field Theory. I am physicist. In my book , in the appendices F and I, I defined structure of the ultimate theory i.e. I mentioned these theories which are correct – for example the Einstein theories, Kaluza-Klein theory, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Dirac theories. In the Einstein theories and the Bohr theory there are sometimes wrong interpretations (these problems are described). The superstring theory and QCD are correct only in small part. As I said before all theories connected with the elementary structures which have occurred since 1947-1948 (i.e. the theories based on the vibrating superstrings in the hyperspace, the quarks, the inflation, the perturbation theory with the renormalization, and the spinors with the 720 degrees turns) are incorrect.
For example the QED i.e. the perturbation theory with the renormalization. They are some fragments of my book:
“The theories based on renormalized perturbation theories give good results if we know these results before. This requirement disqualifies such theories because for example the quantum electrodynamics gives us good results of the magnetic moments of the fermions even if we do not take into account the weak interactions and the fluctuations of the background of the Universe which have influence on accuracy of obtained results.
The authors of the renormalized perturbation theories had written ill of their theories themselves, for example Feynman in his book QED called the renormalization a crazy idea and said that the renormalization is an obstacle to prove mathematical cohesion of the quantum electrodynamics. I may say that none of these theories lead to an ultimate theory because applied in them hanky-panky as said Feynman based on subtraction of two infinities never will lead to understanding of the structures of microcosm and macrocosm.”
“Whole this theory is incorrect since even the alfa-order correction assumes that whole the bare mass of the electron is the electromagnetic mass. It is not true since for the electrons the coupling constant of the weak interactions is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions. The renormalization of the electric charge is impossible since the structure of the electric torus must be strictly conserved. The electron is not a point particle since the point particle cannot emit and absorb other particles, for example photons. The electron or the muon may create simultaneously the virtual pairs and the virtual photons which the total energy (i.e. the total energy of the virtual particles sunk in the neutrino background) does not exceed the total energy of the real particle multiplied by 2. Then the real electron can create only electron-positron pairs and virtual photons which are exchanged between the components and between components and the point mass of electron. This theory neglects the polarization of the neurtino space which limits the accuracy of obtained results. There do not exist reasons for the subtraction of two infinities.”
“The coupling constant of the weak interactions of electron is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions. The QED does not take it into account but gives good results. Is the QED incorrect? My new QED was completed in 2001.”
They are some results obtained within my QED:
Magnetic moment of the electron 1.0011596528 +- 0.0000000011
Magnetic moment of the muon 1.00116593
Frequency of the wave emitted in the spin flip of the electron in hydrogen atom 1420.4 MHz
Lamb-Retherford shift 1057.91 MHz
You see that the results which I obtained do agree with the experimental data and this conformance with experimental facts is much better than give the theory of quantum chromodynamics and the electroweak theory and on the same level as the quantum electrodynamics but calculations are much simpler and they DO NOT MAKE NERVES ORDINARY PEOPLE.

Thank for your proposal. Maybe I will use it.

[ChaByu]

I am interested by a free copy of your book. Thanks in advance!

feelfree222@yahoo.ca

here a question does your theory have an explanation about at least one of the following:
why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron,... why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,... why (h) is a constant... and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137)...

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I am interested by a free copy of your book. Thanks in advance!

feelfree222@yahoo.ca

here a question does your theory have an explanation about at least one of the following:
why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron,... why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,... why (h) is a constant... and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137)...

I am sending you e-copy of my book.
It is not simple task to answer to your question on the forum (there is needed large surface to describe these problems) but I will try.
As I said before to explain the structure of gravitational field and the structure of weak charge of neutrino we need two particles smaller than the neutrino. These two particles are moving with velocities higher than the light velocity in vacuum and existence of the quantum theory and the Aspect's experiment prove it. These two particles I call the eterion and the higgson. In my theory the background of the infinite Universe is filled with eterions, higgsons and neutrinos. All objects larger than the neutrino are built of the neutrinos. There do not exist the gravitons and gravitational waves. This model gives possibility to explain all mysteries of the particles, nuclei, atoms and the Universe.
First I describe what is the general idea in my ultimate theory. Below you have fragment of my book.
“If we want to get the Universe as symmetric and stable as we observe then the density of energy in the more elementary spaces (we have five levels of such spaces) must be higher and the mathematical description simpler since a complicated description gives many ways of evolution and leads to a chaos in behaviour of matter. Then there is natural assumption that the mathematical and physical description of the fundamental space must be simplest i.e. we assume that there exists only one type of fundamental particle without the internal structure and that this particle has very high spin velocity and linear velocity. Such conditions had to lead to an ideal granulation of the fundamental space and had to make these granules look like the very flat rings. I call them the eterions of English word “eternity”. The rest must result from the spontaneous phenomena.
Next main assumption is that the nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Before such singularity is created there arise vortexes similar to tropical cyclones. These vortexes, if concentration of energy is enormous, are transforming into rings which surface has a shape of torus i.e. rings have the surface which looks like an air-chamber of a wheel. This air-chamber we can twist around a circle lying inside the air-chamber and also such air-chamber can rotate around linear axis overlapping with the axis of the wheel. It leads to conclusion that that air-chamber can have clockwise or anticlockwise internal helicity. The experimental confirmation of existence of particles having internal helicity are the weak decays in which one direction of decay is distinguished. Torus is the simplest solid object which may have internal helicity. Eterions in fluctuations of high density may create toruses also without internal structure which I call higgsons. The higgsons may have clockwise or anticlockwise internal helicity. Neutrinos are built of these truly elementary particles. All other objects in the Universe are built of neutrinos. So my Universe is the neutrino Universe. The infinite volume filled with eterions, higgsons and neutrinos I call the background of the Universe. The eterions and higgsons are moving with velocities much higher than the light velocity since the smaller particles which have smaller masses have to move with higher velocity. The state of the eterions i.e. of the truly elementary particles of first generation is described by 7 parameters then the ultimate theory must contain 7 parameters. To simplify the calculations in my theory we may replace 7 parameters which characterize the eterions for a set of seven other numbers-parameters taken from the experimental data. What set of 7 parameters I chose? They are: the gravitational constant, the elementary spin, the elementary electric charge, the velocity of light in vacuum and three masses i.e. the mass of the electron and the masses of neutral and charged pions.
My theory of singularities I call also the NH7 theory. ”N” it is first letter of word neutrino. Since the neutrino has the weak charge then it must be built of smaller particles i.e. the higgsons. ”H” it is first letter of word higgson and the higgsons they are the first generation of particles having weight because the eterions interacting with higgson whirling in closed spiral curve the space. The number 7 denotes the number of the parameters.
The elementary torus of larger size is built of the elementary toruses of smaller size. The torus of the neutrino is built of higgsons interacting gravitationally, the torus of the nucleon is built of neutrinos interacting weakly, the torus of the Superworld was built of neutrons interacting strongly.
The circle lying on the surface of torus and having radius equal to the external radius of the torus I call the equator of torus. On the outside of the equators of elementary toruses and the neutron black holes there is obligatory the Titius-Bode law which determines the allowed radii of the circular orbits. The higgson behaves as a black hole with respect of gravitational interactions, the neutrino behaves as a black hole with respect of weak interactions, the nucleon behaves as a black hole with respect of strong interactions, the Superworld had behaved as a black hole with respect of superstrong interactions.
The elementary electrical charge, the elementary weak charge and the elementary spin are defined by the structure of elementary toruses and these physical quantities must be strictly conserved. Then for example renormalization of the elementary electric charge is impossible.
On the other hand in the quark model we have several dozen of elementary particles and if we want to describe the Universe we need somewhere round fifteen to twenty of numbers-parameters.”
1) First your question
In my model the electron it is torus built of neutrinos the background of the Universe is built of (the neutrinos are polarized the same as the vortexes on the Ketterle surface). In centre of the torus there is placed point mass also built of neutrinos (the neutrino black hole – why? The explanation you can find in the book). It looks as the little quasar. As I said in my model the mass of the resting electron it is the parameter. The nucleon it is torus with the point mass (it also looks as little quasar) and relativistic pion which revolves the torus in distance defined by the radius of first orbit in the Titius-Bode law for the nucleons. This first orbit is laying under the Schwarzschild surface for strong interactions then the proton is stable. The neutron can decay weakly because the torus of nucleon is not the black hole for the weak interactions. This model leads to the mass of proton equal to 938.28 MeV.
2) Second question
The muon is built of electron and the electron anti-neutrino and the muon neutrino interacting with the point mass of electron. It causes that the torus has smaller radius and the mass 105.7 MeV. Outside the torus of muon there is not obligatory the Titius-Bode law because there do not exist mesons of mass smaller than the mass of muon (in proton the pions have the masses smaller than the mass of torus with the point mass). Then outside of the electron there can create only the virtual pairs electron-positron (see explanation in the book).
3) Third question
In my model the fundamental particles i.e. the eterions have the half-integral spin. It is obligatory in the whole infinite and eternal Universe. Eternal motion (linear and angular) leads to what we observe. Each larger torus built of smaller toruses must have the same spin. The eterion, the torus built of eterions (i.e. higgson), the torus built of the higgsons (i.e. the torus of neutrino), the torus built of neutrinos (i.e. the torus of nucleon), the supertorus built of neutrons have the half-integral spin because the torus built analogically as the Ketterle surface behaves as the one vortex the surface is built of.
4) Forth question
In my book there is chapter “Evolution of the Universe as a whole; the conception of time; physical constant”. I think it will be sufficient.

[Fortis]

The coupling constant of the weak interactions of electron is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions. The QED does not take it into account but gives good results. Is the QED incorrect?

QED, by itself, is incomplete because it does not include a description of the weak interaction (or for that matter , the strong, and gravity ). People, however, have had a lot of fun using the electroweak theory (which combines QED and the weak interaction) to calculate things such as the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. How does your model fit in with electroweak?