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

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?

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

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

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.

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 have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

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.”

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.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

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.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

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.

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.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

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!!!

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.