don’t you realize how ridiculous you are? You are like a bunch of moles pretending to give prizes to bearers of light. Why don’t you come up to the surface and experience the light first hand. Why don’t you read the new physical theory of the Universal Law to understand the nature of Energy and All-That-Is. Why all these stupid prizes for proven blindness… Stop it before we shall stop this insanity with our ascension when the fools will be called fools and will become an object of ridicule to the whole humanity.
With best regards
Dr. Georgi Stankov
You drive a bus through my third eye right now. Pain schmain!!!
I’m sure you saw the Nobel Prize in Physics. Uh oh! Does something have mass? Maybe they should ask you.
With love and light
Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee
6 October 2015
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2015 to
Takaaki Kajita Super-Kamiokande Collaboration
University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
Arthur B. McDonald Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Collaboration
Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
“for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass”
Metamorphosis in the particle world
Meanwhile, the research group in Canada led by Arthur B. McDonald could demonstrate that the neutrinos from the Sun were not disappearing on their way to Earth. Instead they were captured with a different identity when arriving to the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.
A neutrino puzzle that physicists had wrestled with for decades had been resolved. Compared to theoretical calculations of the number of neutrinos, up to two thirds of the neutrinos were missing in measurements performed on Earth. Now, the two experiments discovered that the neutrinos had changed identities.
The discovery led to the far-reaching conclusion that neutrinos, which for a long time were considered massless (?), must have some mass, however small.
For particle physics this was a historic discovery. Its Standard Model of the innermost workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be massless, the new observations had clearly showed that the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe.
The discovery rewarded with this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics have yielded crucial insights into the all but hidden world of neutrinos. After photons, the particles of light, neutrinos are the most numerous in the entire cosmos. The Earth is constantly bombarded by them.
Many neutrinos are created in reactions between cosmic radiation and the Earth’s atmosphere. Others are produced in nuclear reactions inside the Sun. Thousands of billions of neutrinos are streaming through our bodies each second. Hardly anything can stop them passing; neutrinos are nature’s most elusive elementary particles.
Now the experiments continue and intense activity is underway worldwide in order to capture neutrinos and examine their properties. New discoveries about their deepest secrets are expected to change our current understanding of the history, structure and future fate of the universe.
6. Example: How to Calculate the Mass of Neutrinos?
Georgi Stankov, October 1998
Volume II on Physics, chapter 7.4, page 327
Note: I am sorry but I am not able to present all the mathematical symbols in the equations on this internet publication as I do not have the technical means. I will try to substitute them with equivalent terms, so that the validity of the equations and their results is unchanged from the original book. (George)
As physics cannot explain the quantity mass, it has produced a number of paradoxical statements that will merit the attention of future scientists as valuable documents on the intellectual confusion of this empirical discipline during the twentieth century. One of them is the dispute over whether neutrinos have a rest mass or not. This has led to the conduct of some expensive experiments (note 196).
In addition, it is generally believed that the destiny of the standard model of modern cosmology is closely linked with this question: the existence of neutrinos with rest mass would inevitably lead to the rejection of this model.
In section 9. (Volume II) we refute the standard model on the basis of the Universal Law. This example anticipates the results of the new cosmology. It is a leitmotif of the present volume that mass does not exist as a real physical property. It is an abstract quantity defined within mathematics and thus an object of thought. In terms of mathematics, mass is a relationship of the space-time (energy) of real systems. The actual reference system of space-time is the basic photon. All other systems are compared to it according to the principle of circular argument, which is an application of the principle of last equivalence for the parts.
This is the epistemological basis of the new axiomatics that also holds for neutrinos. According to it, neutrinos have a mass (energy relationship) because all systems have an energy. As all real systems are open, that is, they interact with other systems, their space-time can be measured (compared).
The great problem of neutrinos’ research is to detect an interaction of neutrinos with other particles of matter and measure it precisely – such interactions are quite rare and require specific conditions. However, as all systems are open and interrelated (space-time is a prestabilized harmony), we can easily calculate the mass of neutrinos from quantum processes that involve these particles.
We shall propose a simple method of calculating the mass of neutrinos from a beta decay. This phenomenon involves the elementary particles of matter and is quite common. As their energy can be precisely determined, we can, for instance, calculate the mass (energy relationship) of neutrinos from the space-time of the proton and the neutron.
Before we shall discuss the method, we shall present a concise survey on the history of the discovery of neutrinos, as it is pathognomonic of modern physics. The discovery of neutrinos is closely linked to the closed character of space-time, which manifests itself as a conservation of energy. This property of space-time is covered by the axiom of conservation of action potentials. It is important to observe that, although the conservation of energy is now unanimously accepted, there is still no theory that explains the conservation of energy from a cognitive point of view: “The theory of conservation of energy was based entirely on experimental observation. There existed no fundamental physical theory that predicted the conservation of total energy. Nor, in fact, does such a theory or equation exists now.“ (197).
The ubiquitous phenomenon of energy conservation can be explained for the first time in the history of physics with the theory of the Universal Law that begins with the properties of space-time. As all systems of space-time are U-subsets that contain spacetime (energy) as an element, they always manifest the properties of the whole, such as closed character (conservation of energy), continuousness, discreteness and openness. We shall show that these aspects of space-time are central to the discovery of neutrinos and the accompanying discussion.
At the turn of the 19th century, radioactivity of alpha, beta and gamma rays was discovered by Becquerel, Rutherford and others. This triggered the development of Bohr model (chapter 7.1, volume II). The gamma rays emitted during a nuclear decay were found to be monoenergetic. This energy interaction can be presented by a mathematical equation reflecting the principle of last equivalence:
E(gamma)= Ei- Ef ,
where E(gamma) is the energy of the emitted gamma photons, Ei is the initial energy of the radioactive nucleus and Ef is the final energy of the nucleus after radiation. The same result holds true for alpha decay, as alpha rays have also been found to be monoenergetic. However, when a nuclear decay resulted in the emission of beta rays (electrons), it was found that they had a continuous energetic spectrum from zero, i.e., undetectable, to
Emax = Ei – Ef .
For the first time in the history of physics, an energy interaction did not allow the building of an exact mathematical equivalence: E(beta) < or = Emax = Ei – E, respectively, E(final system) < or = E(initial system).
This result triggered a profound theoretical crisis in physics. Unfortunately, it did not lead to the discovery of the Universal Law and the development of a novel axiomatics based on the principles of mathematical formalism, but to a partial solution, which has satisfied the modest mathematical expectations of physicists in this field.
In the new axiomatics we clearly state that space-time is transcendental, so that any physical equivalence which we build, except the last one, is a mathematical approximation defined by abstraction and is based on the application of closed, real numbers. Any real equivalence is, on the contrary, transcendental and of infinite order. This means that any energy exchange involves infinite levels and systems of space-time. Due to our modest technical means, we can only register few levels and particles of space-time. Exactly this knowledge has been transmitted by beta decay.
When this energy exchange was discovered for the first time, it seemed to implicate the creation or annihilation of energy, thus violating the law of conservation of energy. Initially, Bohr and the majority of physicists were inclined to discard the law of conservation of energy on the ground that a general law, which had been founded on experimental results (in fact, this law has never been founded on validated experiments because there are no closed systems of space-time that can be observed with respect to this property of space-time; see also quotation above), should be rejected if a further experiment failed to confirm it.
Pauli, on the contrary, noted correctly that this would mean the discarding of all laws of energy conservation, which had been formulated in classical mechanics, for instance, the conservation of linear and angular momentum. If this should have been the case, it would have triggered the same foundation crisis in physics as the one observed in mathematics at the same time.
In 1930, Pauli suggested in a letter that the problem can be circumvented if the existence of a new particle should be postulated. It should have the following properties:
1) it should have no electric charge, that is, its cross-sectional area should be zero;
2) it should have a high ability to penetrate matter, that is, it should not interact with particles of matter;
3) its mass should be most probably zero, or nearly so, since beta rays with energies nearly equal (approximation) to Emax had been observed (recall that photons are still regarded as particles without charge (area) and mass).
If Bohr stands for the empirical dogma, Pauli stands for the priority of theoretical consciousness over empiricism. The reader may guess who has won at the end. However, this does not alter the fact that Pauli has been essentially wrong with respect to charge. In this case, he merely followed the central physical dogma based on complete agnosticism regarding the geometric nature of this quantity.
To appreciate how radical Pauli’s proposal was, one should bear in mind that at that time only two particles were known – the electron and the proton (see Bohr model, volume II). So to say, Pauli was the first to “invent“ a new particle. Based on the new axiomatics, we are much more radical – we predict the existence of infinite systems and levels of space-time and thus abolish the standard model as reductio ad absurdum.
In 1933, J. Chadwick discovered the existence of neutrons. This encouraged Fermi to call Pauli’s particle “neutrino“, which means in Italian language “little neutral one“. Finally in 1956, the neutrino – in fact, it was an anti-neutrino – was registered in a reactor at Savannah River.
Today, it is generally believed that there are six different kinds of neutrinos: the electron neutrino (e-neutrino), the myon-neutrino and the tauon-neutrino, and their corresponding antiparticles. The simplest beta decay associated with the occurrence of neutrinos is the decay of an unstable neutron n in a proton p and an electron e-:
n-decay = p + e- + anti-e-neutrino (equation 221.)
During this nucleus decay a surplus energy Es = 0.782 MeV is observed. This energy is attributed to the electron-antineutrino(s).
Normally, it would be sufficient to know the magnitude of this energy to determine the mass of the antineutrino. The problem is that this decay exhibits a continuous distribution of the kinetic energy of the emitted beta-particles (kinetic electrons) from nearly zero to the maximal available energy. For this reason, it is only possible to postulate an upper limit of the energy of antineutrinos.
As these particles do not enter into energy interactions with other particles of matter, there is no possibility of determining their energy and mass in a direct way. These quantities can now be easily calculated from the known data of this beta decay by considering the mass m(p) of the basic photon. We shall only present the general approach and leave the tedious calculation to professional physicists.
The energy distribution of beta rays can be presented as a curve that can be regarded as an aggregated action potential (U-set) of the underlying beta particles which exhibit continuous, but discrete kinetic energies. We can determine the area under the curve, AUC (area integral), and present this quantity in terms of the aggregated charge (area) of the kinetic electrons.
Alternatively, the curve can be described in terms of statistics. It builds a peak that represents the maximum level of the emitted beta energy, that is, the maximum number of emitted electrons (electrons with the most frequent energy Ei). When this energy is compared with the maximal kinetic energy Emax of the emitted electrons, its magnitude is about one third of the latter: Ei= Emax/3.
Observe the same relationship R = Cmax/3 between the universal gas constant R in equation (72) and the molar heat capacity Cm of metals in equation (78) – both quantities are defined as thermodynamic energy.
The maximal energy of beta rays is given in special tables for each decay. Thus we can easily calculate the total distribution energy of beta rays total Ee of any nucleus decay from known data, for instance, as AUC. This total energy can be expressed by the universal equation as a function of the mass of the basic photon m(p):
Total Ee = total m(e)X c(2, square) = m(p) X c(2) X total f(e) (equation 222.)
Equation (222) confirms the universal character of m(p) which is a fundamental constant of the new axiomatics. The aggregated time of the beta rays total f(e) is given in comparison to the time of the electron at rest f(e) = f(c,e) = 1 (Compton frequency).
If we depart from the neutron decay in equation (221), we obtain for the energy and mass of the electron-antineutrinos the following simple equations:
E(antineutrino) = En – (Epr + total Ee). (equation 223.)
m(antineutrino) = m(p) X( f (c,n) – f (c,pr) – total f(e)) (equation 223a.)
The only unknown variable in both equations is the sum (integral) of the frequency distribution total f(e) of the emitted beta particles. This quantity gives the relativistic increase in the energy of the electrons during beta decay in comparison to their rest energy. When such calculations are performed, it may transpire that the antineutrinos exhibit a similar curve of continuous energy distribution as observed for beta rays.
In order to prove the validity of the above equations, we shall use them to calculate the surplus energy Es and its mass (energy relationship) m(s) from neutron beta decay (221): In this case, we have to only substitute the aggregated time of the beta rays total f(e) with the Compton frequency of the electrons, which is the intrinsic time of this particle at rest (see chapter 7.1,, volume II):
m(s) = m(p)X( f(c,n) – f(c,pr) – f(c,e)) =
0.737X10(-50 high) kg X 1.8934X10(20 high) =
= 1.395X10(-30) kg ( equation 224.)
Es = m(s)c(2 high) =
1.395X10(-30) kg X 8.987X10(16) [m2s -2]=
1.253X10(-13) joule = 0.782 MeV ( equation 224a.)
We obtain exactly the surplus energy Es of the neutron decay given in equation (221).
As we see, the only practical problem by the calculation of the neutrinos’ mass is to determine exactly the total energy of the beta rays in any nucleus decay involving neutrinos. This should not be a major problem to modern experimental physics, which is applied mathematics. This is another prospective test for the validity of the new axiomatics and a proof for the obsolescence of fundamental experimental research.
196. In June 1998, it was reported in the mass media that in an experiment performed in Hawai, neutrinos were found to have a mass. This “sensational result“ is a prospective, though superfluous, confirmation of the Universal Law and the new theory which proves that mass is a mathematical quantity – a relationship of the energy of two systems (axiom of reducibility) – so that every particle of space-time has a mass.
197. RA Llewellyn, Discovery of neutrinos, Essay in PA Tipler, p. 218-220. 329.
To the PAT
Dear Sisters and Brothers,
Now is the time of action. Hence I urge all the PAT members to find the addresses of all members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science and all related scientists and institutions, including the winners of this year, and to send them a link of this publication and make them aware of their fundamental blunders that turn true science into a farce. Now is the time for you to come to the fore and make a difference. This will be the prelude to our imminent ascension and appearance as Logos Gods in front of humanity in Geneva at the UN headquarters in the course of this year. Do it Now and create the New Age the way I have shown you these days with my articles and proofs of immediate creation.
George, The Captain of the PAT