tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62564553012742537842018-03-05T13:49:15.406-08:00Theory of Everythinggunnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13179633909603186513noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6256455301274253784.post-47389999622773434392015-02-02T02:55:00.001-08:002017-12-11T23:58:13.503-08:00<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5B5OpTv8duQ/VM9Xj8bTUVI/AAAAAAAAALc/edIj_QeY3Mk/s1600/corkkk3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5B5OpTv8duQ/VM9Xj8bTUVI/AAAAAAAAALc/edIj_QeY3Mk/s1600/corkkk3.png" width="202" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0051v6.pdf">http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0051vB.pdf</a></div><br />Large Hadron Collider (LHC) worked since 10 September 2008 till 14 February 2013.<br />Tevatron worked since 1 December 1970, till 30 September 2011. Enormous resources<br />were spent, but any essentially new results wasn’t received. Neither superpartners, nor<br />additional dimensions, neither gravitons, nor black holes. neither dark matter, nor dark<br />energy etc., etc. weren’t found. As for the Higgs, the assertion that the boson found in the<br />125 - 126 GeV, is this particle, is highly doubtful –<br />The Higgs field permeates the vacuum of space, which means the mass of the boson and<br />the stability of the vacuum are closely intertwined. Theory predicted that if the Higgs boson<br />is heavier than about 129 GeV, the universe should be on safe footing. The much celebrated<br />particle has a mass of about 126 GeV - light enough to raise fears of instability. Higgs boson<br />could have destroyed the cosmos shortly after it was born, causing the universe to collapse<br />just after the Big Bang. The experiments that detected the Higgs boson revealed it had a<br />mass of 125 billion electron-volts, or more than 130 times the mass of the proton. However,<br />this discovery led to a mystery at that mass, the Higgs boson should have destroyed the<br />universe just after the Big Bang. This is because Higgs particles attract each other at high<br />energies. For this to happen, the energies must be extraordinarily high, ”at least a million<br />times higher than the LHC can reach,<br />Right after the Big Bang, however, there was easily enough energy to make Higgs<br />bosons attract each other. This could have led the early universe to contract instead of<br />expand, snuffing it out shortly after its birth. The Standard Model of particle physics, which<br />scientists use to explain elementary particles and their interactions, has so far not provided<br />an answer to why the universe did not collapse following the Big Bang,<br />All well-known elementary bosons (photons, W and Z bosons, gluons) are gauge. Apparently,<br />the found by LHC 125-126 particle represents some hadron multiplet.<br />On the other hand already in 2006 - 2007 the logic analysis of these subjects described in<br />[1], [2] has shown that all physical events are interpreted by well-known particles (leptons,<br />quarks, and gauge bosons).<br />That is within last several decades many theoretical physicists investigated what isn’t<br />present in the Nature. It is the Superstrings Theory, the Higgs theory, the Dark Energy and<br />the Dark Matter hypotheses, etc.<br />”Final Book” contains development and continuation of ideas of these books.<br />Chapter 1 gives convenient updating of the Gentzen Natural Logic [3], a logic explanation<br />of space-time relations, and logical foundations of the Probability Theory. The reader<br />who isn’t interested in these topics, can pass this part and begin readings with Chapter 2.<br />Chapter 2 receives notions and statements of Quantum Theory from properties of probvabilities of physical events.<br />In Chapter 3 Electroweak Theory, Quarks-Gluon Theory and Gravity Theory are explained<br />from these properties.<br />For understanding of the maintenance of this book elementary knowledge in the field<br />of linear algebra and the mathematical analysis is sufficient.<br />In this edition of this book I added the subsections ”Dimension of physical space” and<br />”Chrome of Baryons”, and the comment to results of work the LHC.<br /><br />Contents Introduction v 1 Time, space, and probability 1 1.1. Classical propositional logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Recorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.3. Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.4. Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.5. Relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.6. Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1.6.1. Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1.6.2. B-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 1.6.3. Independent tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 1.6.4. The logic probability function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 1.6.5. Conditional probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1.6.6. Classical probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 1.6.7. Probability and logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 2 Quants 57 2.1. Physical events and equation of moving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2.2. Double-Slit Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2.3. Lepton Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 2.4. Masses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 2.5. One-Mass State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 2.6. Creating and Annihilation Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 2.7. Particles and Antiparticles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 3 Fields 103 3.1. Electroweak Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 3.1.1. The Bi-mass State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 3.1.2. Neutrino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 3.1.3. Electroweak Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 3.1.4. Dimension of physical space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 3.2. Quarks and Gluons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 3.3. Asymptotic Freedom, Confinement, Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 3.3.1. Dark Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159<br />iv Introduction 3.3.2. Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 3.3.3. Baryon Chrome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Conclusion 181 Epilogue 185 References 187 Index 191<br /><br />Conclusion<br />Fundamental Theoretical Physics contains sequences of theories, each of which is explained<br />of previous ones by rules of the classical logic. For example, optics is absorbed by theory of<br />electromagnetism, classical mechanics - by special theory of relativity and quantum theory,<br />the theory of electromagnetism and weak interactions - by theory of electroweak interactions<br />of Sheldon Glashow and so on. That means that basic notions and statements of every<br />subsequent theory are more logical than basic notions and axioms of the preceding one.<br />When these basic elements of the theory become absolutely logical, i.e. when they<br />become notions and rules of classical logic, theoretical physics will come to an end, it will<br />rather be logic than physics.<br />—————————————————-<br />Any subjects, connected with an information is called informational objects. For example,<br />it can be a physics device, or computer disks and gramophone records, or people,<br />carrying memory on events of their lifes, or trees, on cuts which annual rings tell on past<br />climatic and ecological changes, or stones with imprints of long ago extincted plants and<br />bestials, or minerals, telling on geological cataclysms, or celestial bodies, carrying an information<br />on a remote distant past Universe, etc., etc.<br />It is clearly that an information, received from such information object, can be expressed<br />by a text which made of sentences.<br />A set of sentences, expressing an information of some informational object, is called<br />recorder of this object (p.15).<br />Obviously, the following conditions are satisfied:<br />I. A recorder does not kept logically hereafter refers to the classical propositional logic<br />inconsistent sentence.<br />II. If a recorder contains some sentence then one contains all propositional consequences<br />of that sentence.<br />+III. If recorder a contains sentence ”recorder b contains sentence A” then recorder a<br />contains sentence A.<br />For example, if recorder a contains sentence ”recorder b contains sentence ”Big Theorem<br />is proved” ” then recorder a contains sentence ”Big Theorem is proved”.<br />Some recorders systems form structures like clocks. The following results come from<br />the logical properties of a set of recorders (p.16)<br />First, all such clocks have the same direction, i.e. if an event expressed by sentence A<br />precedes an event expressed by sentence B according to one of such clocks then the same<br />for others as well (p.18).<br />Secondly, time, according to this clock, is irreversible, i.e. there’s no recorde which canreceive information about an event that has happened until this event really happens. Thus,<br />nobody can come back in past or receive information from future (p.32).<br />Thirdly, a set of recorders are naturally embedded into a metrical space, i.e. all four<br />axioms of metrical space are received from logical properties of the set of recorders (p.23).<br />Fourthly, if this metrical space is Euclidean, then the corresponding ”space and time”<br />of recorders obeys to transformations of the complete Poincare group. In this case Special<br />Theory of Relativity follows the logical properties of information. If this metric space is not<br />Euclidean then suitable non-linear geometry may be built on this space. And an appropriate<br />version of the General Relativity Theory can be implemented in that space-time (pp.29–48).<br />Therefore, basic properties of time - unidirectionality and irreversibility, metrical properties<br />of space and principles of the theory of relativity derive from logical properties of<br />the set of recorders. Thus, if you have some set of objects, dealing with information, then<br />”time” and ”space” are inevitable. And it doesn’t matter whether this set is included in our<br />world or some other worlds, which don’t have a space-time structure initially.<br />Such ”Time–Space” is called ”Informational Time–Space”.<br />Because we receive our time with our informational system then all other our times’<br />notions (thermodynamical time, cosmological time, psychological time, quantum time etc.)<br />should be defined by that Informational Time.<br />————————————————-<br />As it is well known, classical propositional logic can be formulated on the basis of the<br />properties of Boolean function. If the range of this function will be extended to the interval<br />[0, 1] of the real number axes then we shall obtain the function which has all properties<br />of the function of probability. Logical analogue of Law of Large Numbers in form of<br />Bernoulli is derived for this function. So, probability theory is a generalization of classical<br />propositional logic and, therefore, it is also propositional logic (pp.48–56).<br />—————————————————-<br />I consider the events, each of which can bound to a certain point in space-time. Such<br />events are called dot events[45]. Combinations (sums, products, supplements) of such<br />events are events, called physical events.<br />The probability density of dot events in space-time is invariant under Lorentz transformations.<br />But probability density of such events in space at a certain instant of time is not<br />invariant under these transformations. I consider the dot events for which density of probability<br />in space at some instant of time is the null component of a 3+1-vector function which<br />is transformed by the Lorentz formulas (pp.58–59).<br />I call these probabilities the traceable probabilities.<br />It is known that Dirac’s equation contains four anticommutive complex 4X4 matrices.<br />And this equation is not invariant under electroweak transformations. But it turns out that<br />there is another such matrix anticommutive with all these four matrices. If additional mass<br />term with this matrix will be added to Dirac’s equation then the resulting equation shall<br />be invariant under these transformations I call these five of anticommutive complex 4X4<br />matrices Clifford pentade. There exist only six Clifford pentads I call one of them the light<br />pentad, three - the chromatic pentads, and two - the gustatory pentads.<br />The light pentad contains three matrices corresponding to the coordinates of 3-<br />dimensional space, and two matrices relevant to mass terms - one for the lepton and one for<br />the neutrino of this lepton.<br />Each chromatic pentad also contains three matrices corresponding to three coordinates<br />and two mass matrices - one for top quark and another - for bottom quark.<br />Each gustatory pentad contains one coordinate matrix and two pairs of mass matrices -<br />these pentads are not needed yet (pp.59–60).<br />Each vector of state has its own corresponing element of the Cayley-Dickson algebra<br />(pp.142–145). Properties of a state vector require that this algebra was a normalized division<br />algebra. By the Hurwitz and Frobenius theorems maximal dimension of such algebra is 8.<br />Consequently, a dimension of corresponding complex state vectors is 4, and a dimension<br />of the Clifford set elements is 4x4. Such set contains 5 matrics - among them - 3 diagonal.<br />Hence, a dimension of the dot events space is equal to 3+1.<br />It is proven (pp.65–68, 80–82) that any square-integrable 4x1-matrix function with<br />bounded domain (Planck’s function) obeys some generalization of Dirac’s equation with<br />additional gauge members. This generalization is the sum of products of the coordinate<br />matrices of the light pentad and covariant derivatives of the corresponding coordinates plus<br />product of all the eight mass matrices (two of light and six of chromatic) and the corresponding<br />mass numbers.<br />If this equation does not contain chromatic mass numbers then we obtain Dirac’s equation<br />for leptons with gauge members which are similar to electroweak fields obtained for<br />gauge fieldsW and Z (pp.83–89, 106–139).<br />If this equation does not contain lepton’s and neutrino’s mass terms then we obtain the<br />Dirac’s equation with gauge members similar to eight gluon’s fields (pp.141 –155). And<br />oscillations of chromatic states of this equation bend space-time. This bend gives rise to the<br />effects of redshift, confinement and asymptotic freedom, and Newtonian gravity turns out<br />to be a continuation of subnucleonic forces (pp.155–157).<br />And it turns out that these oscillations bend space-time so that at large distance space<br />expands with acceleration according to Hubble’s law. And these oscillations bend spacetime<br />so that here appears the discrepancy between q uantity of the luminous matter in space<br />structures and the traditional picture of gravitational interaction of stars in these structures<br />(pp.157–162)<br />Thus, concepts and statements of Quantum Theory are concepts and statements of the<br />probability of dot events and their ensembles.<br />Elementary physical particles in vacuum behave as these probabilities. For example, in<br />accordance with doubleslit experiment.<br />Thus, if between event of the creating of a particle and event of the detecting of ones<br />here events do not occur then at this period of time this particle does not exist - here only<br />probability of this particle detecting in some point. But this probability, as we have seen,<br />obeys the equations of quantum theory, and we get the interference. But in a cloud chamber<br />events of condensation form a chain, meaning the trajectory of this particle. In this case the<br />interference disappears. But this trajectory is not continuous - each point of this line has a<br />neighbour point. And the effect of this particle moving arises from the fact that a wave of<br />probability propagates between these points.<br />Consequently, the elementary physical particle represents an ensemble of dot events<br />associated probabilities. And charge, mass, energy, momentum, spins, etc. represent parameters<br />of distribution of these probabilities. It explains all paradoxes of quantum physics.<br />Schrodinger’s cat lives easy without any superposition of states until the microevent awaitedby all occures. And the wave function disappears without any collapse in the moment when<br />an event probability disappears after the event occurs (pp.71–79).<br />Thus, the fundamental essence of nature are not particles and fields, but dot events and<br />connecting them probability.<br />————————————————–<br />Hence, the fundamental theoretical physics is one among of extensions of classical<br />propositional logic.<br /><br /><br /></div>gunnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13179633909603186513noreply@blogger.com0