Why NOT SUSY (s-particle)?

The ORIGINAL (before adding any lifesaving patchworks with religious prayers) SUSY has been ruled out by the 2016 LHC data. A while back, most of M-string theorists were still insisting that the failure of SUSY will have zero implication on the validity of M-string theory.

Yet, on September 15, 2016, Quanta Magazine published an article: The Strange Second Life of String Theory, which states,

{String theory has so far failed to live up to its promise as a way to unite gravity and quantum mechanics.

At the same time, it has blossomed into one of the most useful sets of tools in science. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160915-string-theorys-strange-second-life/ }.


However, {why not SUSY (s-particle)?}

Unless this question is answered THEORETICALLY (not just by any CURRENT test data), we cannot truly rule out the SUSY.


In order to answer this question theoretically, I should first ask a different question, {Why SUSY?}


Section one: Why SUSY?

There are two good motivations, one {why not?}, one {why shouldn’t?} and most importantly {what else?}


First, two great motivations:

One, Standard Model is 100% unambiguously incomplete, {not encompassing gravity, dark energy/dark mass, cosmology constant, naturalness issues, etc.}

Two, quantum mechanics and General Relativity are totally incompatible.

That is, SUSY can be the crack filling answer for these issues.


Second, {why not?}

Standard model is totally successful on describing the ‘particle world’ by using a base of {gauge symmetry + Poincare group}. Then, a simple (one step) extension of this base to Super Poincare (SUSY) not only is mathematically valid but is also the most logically sound step for a stop cracks design to mend the incompleteness of SM. If nature does not make this choice, why not?


Third, {why shouldn’t?}

The fermions and bosons are totally different in SM. But, why? There can be two answers.

One, the difference between fermions and bosons is INTENSIONAL and fundamental. Then, there must be a mechanism to produce that difference. But, no such mechanism was and still is on the horizon in the mainstream physics.

Two, the difference between fermions and bosons is superficial, not fundamental. Then, there should have a mechanism to smooth out that superficial difference. And, SUSY does this job perfectly.

If SUSY is already a good (great) answer for the question, why shouldn’t it be?


Fourth, {what else?}

In the mainstream physics, SUSY is {the only game in town}.


Section two: a brief history

The CALLING for SUSY is for a SM cracks filling measure. With this calling, SUSY should appear at weak-scale; that is, SUSY particles are supposed to be discovered over 20 years ago (at LEP).

When that failed, the SUSY devotees moved their goal post to higher energy and swear for its inevitable discovery at Tevatron.

When that failed, they swear again for its appearances at LHC run 1.

After that failed again, they moved the goal post to the LHC run 2.

Of course, they failed on that too.

Now, they are moving the goal post all the way to China, putting their fantasy wish on the not yet build ‘Great Collider’.

This ‘goal post moving show’ not only becomes a big joke for science but is the greatest SHAME for physics.


Section three: why NOT SUSY, one:

Can SUSY move the goal post to higher energy indefinitely? The answer is a big NO.

Simply, SUSY is totally (100%) useless for fulfilling its ORIGINAL calling, filling the cracks of Standard Model.

One simple (very simple) crack is the naturalness/fine tuning issue.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.


The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): the slightest change on electron and/or proton masses will change this number dramatically.

Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %):


These issues can be written out with 4 simple hashtags, as below.






Yet, SUSY of any kind (with it hundreds of varieties) cannot QUANTITATIVELY derive those (four) numbers. That is, SUSY is wrong and useless at the beginning. Even if nature implemented SUSY of any kind at very high energy, it is still not the answer for the current questions.


Section four: why NOT SUSY, two:

Yes, there is an ‘ELSE’. Those four ‘#how2’ are PRECISELY calculated (derived), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/


Section five: why NOT SUSY, three:

Some detailed PHYSICS discussions about {why no SUSY} are available below:

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html ,

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-master-key-cuts-out-susy-the-undead/ ,



Finally: the second life of M-string theory

As SUSY is the SOUL of M-string theory {except bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric}, how can M-string theory survive as a PHYSICS theory while SUSY is dead?

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/the-era-of-hope-or-total-bullcrap/


Of course, CONGRATULATION on its rebirth as hammer life, but the greatest condolence for the DEATH of M-string physics.


The era of hope or total bullcrap

The 2016 data (from LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.) has very much ruled out the dominant paradigms of the theoretical physics of the past half a century: the {SUSY, WIMPs, sterile neutrino, extra-large dimensions, etc.}.

Science is supposed to be a truth-searching machine. But, in the past 45 years, physics (especially the theoretical physics) has been dominated by the M-string theory and its derivatives, SUSY, extra-large dimensions, etc.

This dominance is motivated and supported by the following issues.

One, the super successful of the Standard Model and its obvious incompleteness.

Two, the discovery of dark mass and dark energy.

Three, the discovery of a positive Cosmology Constant.

Four, the totally incompatibility between Quantum principle and General Relativity, while both of them are totally empirically valid  (without a single failure on their predictions).

Five, the hierarchy issue.

Six, the naturalness issue.


Section one: the naturalness and fine-tuning issues

In physics, naturalness is defined as the dimensionless ratios between free parameters or physical constants appearing in a physical theory should take values “of order 1”. That is, a natural theory would have parameter ratios with values like 2.34 rather than 234000 or 0.000234.

This ‘naturalness’ criterion is obviously not discovered in nature but is a human cooked-up desire. This desire came from the failure that the mainstream physics model must hand-put in many parameters in its equations; that is, the desire to avoid the ‘fine-tuning’ any of those parameters.


The ‘naturalness’ and ‘fine-tuning’ are thus closely related but can still form some subgroups.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.


The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): there is no way of calculating this value in the mainstream physics.

Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %): again, there is no way of calculating these numbers in the mainstream physics.


These are facts. In summary, the ‘naturalness’ issue is all about the following four issues.






Section two: SUSY, fulfilling the ‘naturalness-desire

With all the known incompleteness {no gravity, no dark energy, no dark mass, no Cosmology Constant, Hierarchy issue, etc.} of Standard Model, it is totally successful in its own domain, without a single failure. Standard Model is based on ‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’. So extending {‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’} to Super Poincare (SUSY) is mathematically valid. And, it can well be the play dough needed to fill up the cracks of the Standard Model. Why should nature not take such a simple step, especially while SM is very much incomplete? This simple question can easily turn SUSY into a religion.

In addition to some minor successes, SUSY was vindicated by Super String theory. The original String theory is all about the bosonic string. After ‘adapting’ SUSY kid, Super String theory becomes capable of addressing the fermionic string. If Super String theory is correct, how can SUSY not be?


Section three: the revolutions and great successes of the Super String theory

The claimed successes:

One, all the known string theories included a massless spin-two particle that obeyed the correct Ward identities to be a graviton. That is, string theory can be the candidate of quantum gravity, a TOE.

Two, only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity.

Three, super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

Four, the maximum spacetime dimension in which one can formulate a consistent supersymmetric theory is eleven.

Five, Calabi–Yau manifolds are the compactifications that preserve a realistic amount of supersymmetry.

Six, the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton. The hole in the Calabi-Yau space represents the family of particles, 3 holes, 3 generations.

That is, {Super string theory, SUSY and Calabi–Yau manifolds} are mutually vindicating one another.


The first revolution:

The confirmation that the 10 dimensional theory is the only valid theory, with superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. Two dualities (S and T) were discovered.

S-duality: a relationship which says that a collection of strongly interacting particles in one theory can, in some cases, be viewed as a collection of weakly interacting particles in a completely different theory

T-duality: a string propagating around a circle of radius R is equivalent to a string propagating around a circle of radius 1/R in the sense that all observable quantities in one description are identified with quantities in the dual description


The second revolution:

D-branes were discovered to represent the higher-dimensional objects.

The compactification of extra dimensions must use Calabi–Yau manifold.

Then, AdS/CFT correspondence was discovered:

First, to relate string theory to another type of physical theory, such as a quantum field theory.

Second, to relate 11-dimension supergravity to 10-dimension superstring.

Finally, it unified all different superstring theories into an M-string theory.


{Note: M-string unifies those six string theories in SPIRIT, not in formal formalism (no unified equation).}

Furthermore, the AdS/CFT correspondence leads to the discovery of holographic principle which became the dominant tool for dealing with the ‘black hole’ issue.


The third revolution (Not yet claimed):

The large number of possibilities (about 10 ^ 500) arises from different choices of Calabi–Yau manifolds (together with Monstrous moonshine) and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles leads to the great idea of ‘multiverse’ physics. As this large number is NP complete, no practical (or theoretical) chance of any kind to find the answer {which vacuum corresponds to our (this) universe). That is, ‘multiverse physics’ is now by definition a ‘theology’ which is deemed true regardless of the empirical evidences, as there cannot be any evidence at all (guaranteed by the NP completeness).

This conclusion firmly states that the four tasks below are impossible.





On the question: {How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?}

Answered by Ed Witten: {I really don’t know. It’s very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It’s definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is. See http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html }.


Section four: how can all these go wrong?

M-string theorists do admit a few shortcomings on their own.

One, it does not have a consistent formulation (such as Newton’s law or Einstein’s GR equation) to make contact (describe) this real universe. {Note: in this sense, it is not yet physics, but is claimed as the best HOPE.}

Two, it does not know how to define string theory in a single theory (regardless of the claim of M-string). It does also not know whether there is any principle by which string theory selects its vacuum state. Unlike in quantum field theory, string theory does not have a full non-perturbative definition, so many of the theoretical questions that physicists would like to answer remain out of reach.

Three, the goal of string theory is to find a solution of the theory that reproduces the observed spectrum of elementary particles, with a small cosmological constant, containing dark matter and a plausible mechanism for cosmic inflation. But, this goal is far beyond the horizon at this moment.

Four, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature.

Yet, all these shortcomings are just hiccups for growth pain. When these hiccups are over, then ‘Long Live the M-string’.


Can these hiccups go away?

The general critics has pointed out three fallacies.

One, pseudoscience fallacy: no prediction, emphasized by Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.


Two, self-failing fallacy: failed its stated missions, see Carlo Rovelli’s talk, slide 16.

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.qugm959un


Three, Gordon Kane’ moving sign post fallacy: see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7964

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html


I will add a few obvious fallacies.

One, the Hat-trick fallacy: without adding any additional ingredient, simply stretching a point into a string reaches (creates) the domain of gravity, becoming a TOE. This is a magic, not physics.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/


Two, the mirage fallacy:

One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton.

Only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity, the quantum gravity.

Super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

But, what is graviton? What is quantum gravity? What is SUSY and extra dimension? These ALL are physics mirages NOW.



Three, long live the King fallacy: anything associated with M-string which failed has been and must be cut. SUSY failed, long live the M-string. Extra dimensions failed, long live the M-string.

Except Bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric (see note). Yet, the total failure of SUSY is claimed to be no consequence on M-string.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/



Four, the greatness of math fallacy: the validity of a physics theory was never depending upon the math it was using. Yet, some new math was inspired by and from M-string theory, such as the {Calabi–Yau manifold and Monstrous moonshine}. How can M-string be wrong if its math children are valid?



Five, the squire victory fallacy:  the squire of M-string {Ads/CFT correspondence, holography principle, condensed physics, etc.} are all victorious. How can the squires be victorious while the master knight fails?



Six, hot air fallacy: M-string claims that the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). Where is the list for this {particle/music note} description?


See, G-strings/particles at http://www.prequark.org/


See, G-strings/particles at http://www.prequark.org/


Seven, useful hammer fallacy: although the hammer (M-string) was wrong as the description of nature (should not be worshiped), it is still very useful tool for little chores.

See https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/09/17/did-the-lhc-just-rule-out-string-theory/#comment-86626


However, all the above fallacies will be removed if the M-string can solve the ‘naturalness’ issue by deriving (or calculating) the followings:






Thus, I have offered a prize award of $10,000 for anyone who is able to derive those nature constants, see http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-thumbs-up.html


Section five: era of hope or bullcraps?

If M-string theorists can claim this $10,000 prize, then the era of the past half a century is indeed the era of HOPE.

If M-string theorists claim the ‘only game in town’, then it is the era of BULLCRAP.


This ‘only game in town’ claim becomes ‘dishonesty fallacy’ if those four calculations were done long ago and are available online for long time.


All fallacies are excusable. But, this ‘dishonesty fallacy’ cannot be excused.



Type I: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with both open and closed strings, no tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type IIA: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral)
Type IIB: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral)
Type HO: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type HE: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8


 Copyright © September 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

Vision eulogy: the Post Checkmate Temper Tantrum fit


Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) gave a “Vision speech” on August 5, 2016 at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ ) held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China}.

It not only is a great eulogy for String theory but is an ‘unconditional surrender declaration’ for the mainstream physics. This eulogy/declaration consists of only three simple points.

Point one, a framework is a hodgepodge, can rot but not be falsified.



Point two, String-theory is a framework, a big hodgepodge.



Point three, mainstream physics is trapped in a triangle hellfire dungeon, with no way out.



The first two points are the compliments of String theory in a nice eulogy. The last point is the total surrender declaration for the mainstream physics.


Indeed, the only way to rescue the mainstream physics is by solving these three hellfire dungeon curses: {(initial/boundary conditions), (essence of spacetime), (uniqueness/unification)}.


One, uniqueness/unification: locked up the measuring rulers of this universe; the calculation of Alpha.

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html


Two, essence of spacetime: the rising of SM zoo and mass; calculating the Planck CMB data and Vacuum boson’s mass.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/


See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong


Three, initial/boundary conditions: the calculation of Cosmology Constant.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/you-are-superficially-right-but-totally-wrong-in-the-deepest-point-188143a8b228#.80vcfsz3a


Now, the guarding curses of the hellfire dungeon which imprisons the mainstream physics are removed. The mainstream physics is now rescued, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/mainstream-physics-rescued-from-the-hellfire-dungeon/ .


Yet, on a {15 year old “SUSY Bet” settlement event in Copenhagen on August 22, 2016}, most of the “SUSY Bet” losers (including Dr. David Gross) are still clinging on their SUSY-undead.


{“In the absence of any positive experimental evidence for supersymmetry,” Gross said, “it’s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: ‘Don’t follow your elders. … Go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially.’ That’s definitely a good lesson. But I’m too old for that.”}


Gross is obviously going through the {first stage of grief}, the denial and giving up. Other deniers are more aggressive, proclaiming the {underdetermination} of the current situation. But, with the removing the three curses, the {underdetermination} of physics is no more, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/underdetermination-of-physics-is-no-more/ .


See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/mainstream-physics-rescued-from-the-hellfire-dungeon/


After the {anger and depression}, David Gross (and all others) will definitely get a upward turn, as my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) had showed this “G-string rescue” to Dr. David Gross and others.




This post checkmate temper tantrum fit will soon be over for sure.

Note: The post checkmate temper tantrum fit:

There are three checkmates on the mainstream physics:

One, the three unreachable curses (in Gross speech).


Two, the 2016 data (LHC, LUX, IceCube), especially on M-string theory, SUSY and WIMPs, etc.

SUSY was only a wild goose idea at the beginning. Then, it became an essential CONSEQUENCE of M-string theory. Finally, it becomes the hope for solving the dark mass issue. Yet, SUSY is now checkmated by the 2016 data.


Three, the G-string rescue: the G-string is not different from M-string in degree but is in kind. The foundation of G-string is completely different from the entire mainstream physics. The mainstream physics is phenomenologically based while the G-string is First Principle (axiomatic) based.  Yet, as the only theory being able to remove the first checkmate (the three hellfire dungeon curses), the G-string rescue becomes the final checkmate on the mainstream physics.


Now, we have a classic post checkmate temper tantrum fit.

First, the denial: String (M-string) theory is a framework, can rot but not falsifiable.

Second, placing the blame: String (M-string) is innocent as the entire PHYSICS is imprisoned by the three curses.

Third, self-excuse:  {… the young people … Go out and look for something new and crazy …}, that is, I am smart but not crazy. Don’t blame on me.

Four, giving up: {But I’m too old for that.}

Five, making a religion: the TRUTH in religion can be ordained without the concerning of evidences of any kind (empirical or rational). Now, John Ellis (a prominent theoretical physicist at CERN) has ‘also’ announced that no matter what the LHC says, he’s not giving up on SUSY. See, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html .


Yet, the real and final CHECKMATE is the G-string rescue; that is, the MAINSTREAM theoretical physics in the past 50 years is totally wrong, a total trash. Tens thousands of great physicists were simply wasting their lives away and wasting billions of tax payers money away. The post checkmate temper tantrum fit on this will be like this:



Underdetermination of physics is no more!

After the 2016 data from {LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.}, ALL mainstream BSMs (beyond standard models) are now dead.


Yet, many (even very prominent) physicists are still praying for the resurrections of those mainstream BSM corpses under the philosophical idea of ‘underdetermination’ which states that all theories are underdetermined.


What is underdetermination? The detailed definition of it is available at here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/ . But, I will give a very simple example here for readers who do not have time to read that book size definition.



Here has three known facts.

One, Mike has $10.

Two, orange costs $1.

Three, apple costs $2.


From these three facts, we can build a lot theories (models).

Ma: Mike brought 11 oranges.

Mb: Mike brought 2 oranges and 4 apples.

Mc: Mike brought 4 oranges and 3 apples.

Md, Mf, …


With the three known facts (evidences or data), Ma is easily ruled out as being wrong. But for Mb and Mc (perhaps more M…), the known evidences are not enough to SEPARATE these competing theories. The situation now is underdetermined. Those theories (Mb, Mc, …) are underdetermined theories.


As the goalpost of many theories (such as SUSY and multiverse) can be arbitrarily moved, those theories will be forever underdetermined, being a living-dead forever.


But no, this is not the case for physics. There are four known facts (precisely measured) in physics.

One, {1/Alpha} = 137.0359…

Two, Planck CMB data: {dark energy = 69.2 +/- 1%; visible mass = 4.82 +/- 0.05%; dark mass = 25.8 +/- 0.4%}

Three, Higgs boson’s mass: {125.09 (+/- 0.24) Gev}

Four, Cosmology Constant? {~ 3 x 10 ^ (-120)}


That is, any theory which cannot derive (calculate) these four known facts must be ruled out. With this criterion, physics is no longer underdetermined any more.


Yet, if no one is able to come up a theory to meet the criterion, a resurrection elixir for those mainstream BSM corpses can be produced: {the only game in town}.


Furthermore, many claim that those four facts are just simple numbers, and every number can always be reached with some numerological formulas. But in my view, a numerological formula could always give hints for some underlying logic (physics). So, I have offered an award of US $5,000 for anyone who is able to come up numerological formulas for those four numbers. The detail of the offer is available at http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-thumbs-up.html .


With this four-fact criterion, the underdetermination of physics is no more.



Mainstream physics: rescued from the Hellfire dungeon

The mainstream physics was imprisoned in the hellfire dungeon by four guarding curses:

How to calculate Alpha?

How to calculate (and account for) Planck CMB data?

How to calculate Vacuum (wrongly named as Higgs) boson’s mass?

How to calculate Cosmology Constant?




The mainstream’s hope relies on finding some new particles (SUSY, WIMPs, Extra dimensions, sterile neutrinos, etc.), but that hope was crashed by the 2016 data from {LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.}. Furthermore, any more data from LHC will help very little, as the discovery rate will decrease exponentially, see graph below.



That is, the entire mainstream BSM is now dead. There is no hope of any kind for the mainstream physics to escape from the imprisonment of the Hellfire dungeon via the help from mainstream BSM.


Fortunately, all those four curses are removed by the G-string quantum-gravity.

One, Calculating Alpha (#how2CalculateAlpha ):

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/totally-blind-deaf-googlefacebookblogosphere-era-jeh-tween-gong


Two, calculating (accounting for) Planck CMB data (#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata):

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/


Three, calculating Vacuum (wrongly named as Higgs) boson’s mass (#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass):

G-string beta decay

Step 1: picking up a (d, -d) vacuum to form a five quark blob

Step 2: vacuum transformation {(d, -d) to (u, -u)} via a vacuum boson

Step 3: exchanging prequarks, W-like weak current

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong


Four, calculating (accounting for) Cosmology Constant (#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant):

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/


This G-string rescue was presented at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )} held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016), by my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian.  The key points of this presentation is available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ .

My Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) discussed This “G-string rescue” with Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) on August 5, 2016; see photos below.





Note (added on August 29, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/


 Copyright © August 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong


The Final Total TOE (theory of everything)


For a Final total TOE, it must consist of, at least, three pillars:

One, physics-TOE

Two, life-TOE

Three, math-TOE

It must arises from a single FIRST PRINCIPLE.

And, it must make contact to ALL known facts (not theories).


This criteria is simple enough and is verifiable by every street walking person.


Section one: the philosophy

Wigner (in a 1969 essay) argued that {“the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious”, and that “there is no rational explanation for it”.}

Wigner’s statement shows the current status of math which has a BASE totally disjoined from NATURE. The modern math INVENTed a set LANGUAGEs and plays a language game internally. Language by definition is recursively defined and is a machine for producing paradoxes and riddles.

Furthermore, the key point here is that the math-universe is a multiverse, with infinite many sub-universes while THIS physical universe is unique with many known attributes: nature constants, Planck CMB data, SM particle zoo, etc.


So, the key issue here is that:

One, is math ONLY as a great tool and language for describing physics? Or,

Two, {math universe} is totally isomorphic to the {physics universe}, the total universal structural realism.

Or, three, THIS unique physical universe of ours is just a happenstance in the physics-multiverse.


The answer from nature is {Two}, and this was the key point in the book {Super Unified Theory, US copyright TX 1-323-231} which describes this issue with three Chapters:

Chapter Seven – Colored numbers (page 53 – 61)

Chapter Eight – Chromology (page 62 – 69)

Chapter Nine – Unilogy (page 70 – 74)


Some of discussions of this issue were also post online over 20 years ago, see,

Unification of physics and mathematics, http://www.prequark.org/Mlaw.htm

and, Law of Creation, http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm


As the criteria is that all these three TOEs must arise from a single ‘First Principle’, there is no way to prove that the third TOE (math) is correct if we cannot show the details of two other TOEs. Thus, I will show the validity of math-TOE by showing the two other TOEs first.


Section two: physics-TOE

One, the first principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}

Two, definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}

Three, manifestation of timelessness: at every t, it must be ‘timelessness’ in essence.



Four, the equation of this ‘timelessness’: {Delta S = (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) x C x Delta T} … Equation zero

S, space; T, time (real); C, light speed. (n1, n2, n3) take the value of {0, 1, 2, or 3}

Five, Equation zero generates 48 SM fermions, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html


Six, the manifestation of ‘immutability’: via Ghost-rascal, see  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2014/02/ghost-rascal-conjecture-and-ultimate.html . Again, it generates 48 SM fermions.

Seven, the manifestation as force(s):

F (unified) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant … Equation one


This force (gravity) has two parts:

First, it moves the entire universe from {[here (now), now] to [here (next), next]}, and it causes the expansion of universe with acceleration.



Second, every individual particle interact with ALL particles in this universe via the {Real/Ghost symmetry}, with the strength measured with Newton’s gravity equation (distance is measured in the world (real) sheet).

See http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm


This physics-TOE has the following consequences:

Consequence one: universe expands with acceleration. See, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html

Consequence two: uncertainty principle is the emergent of Equation one.

Consequence three: calculation of Alpha

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/totally-blind-deaf-googlefacebookblogosphere-era-jeh-tween-gong

Consequence four: calculation of Planck CMB data

See, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/

Consequence five: calculation of Cosmology constant, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/

Consequence six: the Hierarchy problem

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/why-making-something-easy-so-difficult-aae8e3715b6d#.6ko3u5dlf

Consequence seven: the physics-TOE,

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-final-toe-theory-of-everything/



Section three: life-TOE

The highest EXPRESSION for life is {intelligence and consciousness}.

One, definition of ‘intelligence’:

Necessary condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

Sufficient condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

See http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm

Two, definition of ‘consciousness’:

Necessary condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

Sufficient condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).


More about this ‘Theorem of Consciousness’, see Metaphysics of Linguistics, http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr018.htm

More about this ‘Theorem of Consciousness’, see Metaphysics of Linguistics, http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr018.htm .


Now, intelligence and consciousness are SEEDed in physics. Yet, the utmost EXPRESSION of life has a structure as a topological torus, having 7 color-codes.


With embedded intelligence and consciousness, life evolves INTELLIGENTly, see DEATHS OF TWO GODS, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deaths-of-two-gods/ and, INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/

With embedded intelligence and consciousness, life evolves INTELLIGENTly, see DEATHS OF TWO GODS, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deaths-of-two-gods/ and, INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/ .

With {intelligent evolution}, life-TOE is complete, and it unifies with the physics-TOE.



Section four: the math-TOE

There are three key points for the current mainstream math:

One, number line has the cardinality of continuum; that is, between any {two points}, there are ‘infinite’ numbers between them.

Two, there is ONE ‘number’ for each ‘point’ of the number line.

Three, Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable.


On the other hand, this math-TOE must have the followings:

One, number line has the cardinality of continuum; that is, between any {two points}, there are ‘infinite’ numbers between them.

Two, there are at least ‘TWO’ numbers for each ‘point’ of the number line. This is the key for the math-TOE.

Three, Continuum Hypothesis is false. I will not prove it here in a traditional way but will give an example (the bridge between two cardinalities).


First, we should renormalize the Godel’s incompleteness to regain the completeness in TOTALITY, see http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm . More detailed discussion is available at http://www.prebabel.info/lifesys.htm , completeness is regained in life-system via a renormalization process.

See http://www.prebabel.info/lifesys.htm


Second, there are at least two NUMBERs in each number-line POINT.


In the above graph, the ‘X’ point is the point A = 0. The point B is a moving point. When B moves to ‘X’, B = 12. That is, the point ‘X’ in fact has two numbers (0, 12)

In the above graph, the ‘X’ point is the point A = 0. The point B is a moving point. When B moves to ‘X’, B = 12. That is, the point ‘X’ in fact has two numbers (0, 12).


Third, Continuum Hypothesis is false; there is a bridge between two infinities.

See http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm

Fourth, more entanglement:

One: 1/3 = 1/2 – 1/4 + 1/8 – 1/16 + 1/32 – 1/64 + 1/128 – 1/256 + 1/512 – 1/1024 + 1/2048 -… +…

For 1/3 (with an odd number as the denominator), it can only be “reached” with the sum of a sequence of numbers with only the even numbers as the denominators, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_13.html and http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm

Two: prime numbers cannot be reached via multiplication with nature numbers.

Three, Fermat’s last theorem: the sum of two nature number cannot be reached via the same algebra operation.


Each point (number) is in fact entangled with (or reachable by/from) infinite number of other numbers. For example, 3 is linked to 1/3, {3^n, integers}, {3 ^ (-n), irrational}, etc.

This ‘number entanglement’ is the base for the third cardinality.


Fifth, the ‘HOLE’ point contains infinite number of geometrical points.

See http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm


With the above, we can reconstruct the NUMBER line as follow:

One, with the “number entanglement’, there are three cardinalities: countable, uncountable, the bridge (pseudo-uncountable).


Two, there are three ‘zeros’, in correspondence to the three infinities.

0 (c) = 1/countable

0 (u) = 1/uncountable

0 (p) = 1/pseudo-uncountable


Three, every POINT on the number line has three different NUMBERS.

4 + 0 (c) = C4

4 + 0 (u) = U4

4 + 0 (p) = P4

Yet, these three different ‘4’ cannot be distinguished algebraically or by any known math operations. That is, for some numbers A < > (not the same as) B, {A – B = 0}.

Now, there are two theorems:

Theorem 1: between two ‘points’ of number line, there are infinite ‘numbers’.

Theorem 2: between two ‘numbers’, there could have either infinite or finite numbers.


Four, this ‘number entanglement’ does show up by having three different kind of numbers:

First, with countable digits, such as 3 = 3.0000… (the c-number).

Second, with uncountable digits, such as Pi = 3.14… (the u-number)

Third, with pseudo-uncountable digits, such as 2 ^(1/2) = 1.414… (the p-number)


Five, with a seed number {1}, we can construct the entire number line (including three infinities) with a 7-color code system.

See http://www.prequark.org/Fermat.htm


Section five: The map of Final TOE

I have constructed the physics-TOE from the first principle together with two manifested equations, as below.

The first principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}; definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}


{Delta S = (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) x C x Delta T} … Equation zero

F (unified) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant … Equation one


At this point, there is seemingly a major difference between math and physics.

Physics manifests IN time/space (the equation zero), and thus it is constrained in Energy (an expression of space/time). Thus, physics universe is a FINITUDE.

On the other hand, math manifests IN nothingness {the union of zero(s) and infinities)}.

Thus, the evolution of math has no physical constrain and can have infinite expressions while physics universe is unique (no multiverse). The physics-multiverse is denounced at here, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html

While math evolution can lead to multi-math-universe (arbitrary constructions, such as the Grassman, Quaternion and Octonions numbers), its BASE (the basic lego pieces) is totally NATURE (total Platonism: basic math lego pieces are timeless entities, independent of the physical world and of the symbols used to represent them.) while the human-math is all about the ‘construction’ of ‘structures’.

As the Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in the set theory, it is valid to select a third cardinality as a new axiom. But, no. This third cardinality is not a humanly selected axiom but is a part of nature’s math basic lego pieces. The reason for the insistence of this is that it is the only way to DERIVE the physics universe from math-universe.

By knowing the difference between the two, the only way to DERIVE the physics universe from math-universe is by transforming infinities into FINITUDE (same as creating something from nothing).


In math universe, the finite numbers are produced by the INVERSE operation of infinities. Yet, transforming infinites into physics-universe (a finitude), they (infinities) must be transformed into CONCRETE objects. And, this was done with two Platonic equations.

One: 1/3 = 1/2 – 1/4 + 1/8 – 1/16 + 1/32 – 1/64 + 1/128 – 1/256 + 1/512 – 1/1024 + 1/2048 -… +…  (trisecting an angle, taking countable steps); countable infinity is now transformed into a concrete object (A: angultron, a trisected angle)


Two: pi / 4 = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – 1/11 + 1/13 – … + … (with “countable” infinite steps to reach ‘uncountable digits’); uncountable infinity is now transformed into a unit circle (which gives rise to space/time equation zero; the 64 subspaces: 48 fermions and 16 dark energy).

See, http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm ,

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_13.html   and



That is, the math-universe (infinities) gives rise to the physics-universe. Of course, I will give more evidences to show this point.

One, the generalization of a circle is elliptic curve, and the fermion is described with elliptic curve.



See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/ .


Two, In addition to this {infinite to finitude} transformation, the key essence of these two equations is the {number entanglement: odd numbers can only be reached by even numbers, and vice versa}. This number entanglement is also the source for quantum (gravity) entanglement.

The essence of the math-universe to physics-universe transformation is all about infinities and the pathways of their concretization. That is, the key equation is,

A – b = 0, but A is not b.

This means that most of numbers are unreachable by finite means (arithmetic and algebra operations), as every *finite* number is the concretization of infinities, and it does carry a tail with infinite digits. That is, for any selected number *A*, it is surrounded by zillions (at least two) neighborhood numbers which are not distinguishable from the number *A* by all means. Thus, all those unreachable (indistinguishable from the number *A*) numbers must be color-coded, such as, b = A (red), = A (blue) or = A (green), etc.; that is, A (x) – b = 0.

Yet, there is always a number C, and

A – C > 0

The largest C cannot truly be determined with finite means. But, in principle, there is always *a* largest C in the physical universe *with* finite means (by measurement). That is,

A – C = g

Although we do not know the exact value for g, g is larger than 0 (g > 0). In the math universe, g is un-determined and can approach the concept of *continuity*. Yet, in the finite (physical) universe, this g becomes the smallest *deterministic unit*, distinguishing the number *C* from the number *A*. Indeed, for the *physical* universe, the g can actually be determined. Let,

X-axis as space, thus, the (delta S > =g).

Y-axis as momentum, the (delta P >= g).

So, (delta P) x (delta S) >= g^2


In physics, the photon is the medium for causality (see Constants of Nature, http://www.prequark.org/Constant.htm ). Thus, the smallest *deterministic* unit (for causality) in the physical universe is (photon / c), c is the light speed.  That is, in the physical universe, g^2 = (photon / c).


Yet, photon is the result of the interaction of e (electron).

So, g^2 = (photon /c) = (e^2/c), e is electric charge.

In the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge, (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”, the e-charge is,


e (charge) = (L * C)^(1/2) = [(1/2) ħ * C]^(1/2); L the angular momentum, C light speed, ħ (Planck constant).

So, g^2 = ħ * C / C = ħ,

Thus, (delta P) x (delta S) > = g^2 >= ħ

Now, the uncertainty principle of physics is the direct consequence of the *Nature math*, the essence of infinities and of unreachable of numbers (the number entanglement), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html

With this *derivation*, this new paradigm is fully verified. Yet, there is one very important additional point. That is, this major essence of the *unreachable numbers* is swept away in the human math by the concept of *continuity*. That is, the human math is completely unaware of this *Nature math*.


Three, this {number entanglement} is also the source for Fermat’s last theorem and abc-conjecture, and they are closely related to the elliptic curves. Fermat’s Last Theorem was proved by using elliptic curves but still not knowing the essence of the theorem: the entanglement caused by the colored numbers. In fact, this colored number is the SOURCE for the Fermat’s last theorem, see The Philosophical Meanings of Fermat’s Last Theorem, http://www.prequark.org/Fermat.htm .


Four, topologically a complex elliptic curve is a torus (can be defined with 7 color-codes) which is the BASE for consciousness via the Theorem of consciousness (Ringel-Youngs theorem).



Section six: conclusion

One: Physics TOE

First principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}; definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}


First, Nature constants: Cosmology constant (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ ), Alpha = (1/137.03599…), etc.

Second, Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %)

Third, expanding universe with acceleration

Fourth, SM fermion zoo


See, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html , https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ and http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html


Two: Math-TOE — First principle in math as {nothingness = 1/infinit(ies)}


First, {colored number/number entanglement: 0 (c) = 1/countable; 0 (u) = 1/uncountable; 0 (p) = 1/pseudo-uncountable} with 7 colors {1, c-numbers, p-numbers, u-numbers, countable, uncountable, pseudo-uncountable}.

Second, Fermat’s last theorem, ABC conjecture, etc.

Third, describing physics TOE

Fourth, as a base for life TOE


Math-universe is built up with arbitrary constructions by using a “lego base”, but this {Lego Base} is not a construction but is totally nature, expressed from the {First Principle} which gives rise to physics-universe too.

Math-universe is built up with arbitrary constructions by using a “lego base”, but this {Lego Base} is not a construction but is totally nature, expressed from the {First Principle} which gives rise to physics-universe too.


Three: Life TOE — Intelligence + Consciousness

First, definition of ‘intelligence’:

Necessary condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

Sufficient condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.


Second, definition of ‘consciousness’:

Necessary condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

Sufficient condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

See http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm


Four, on a deeper level, physics TOE is derived from math by concretizing infinities.



Five, physics/math/life are totally unified.



See http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm


Note 1: in 2014, Max Tegmark published a book “Our Mathematical Universe” which promotes an idea of {the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH)} with the central point as: {Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and “in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world”.} His key idea is similar to mine but with the following giant differences.

One, Tegmark does not and did not know any physics-TOE; so, his idea is just a philosophy, no way to unify physics and math.


Two, this math-TOE is totally based on the colored numbers (the third cardinality) and the number entanglement, and Tegmark does not have any idea of these.


Three, Tegmark reached his conclusion for multiverse from two confusions:

First, (1/Alpha) is not computable, at least not in countable steps, and this is absolutely wrong.

Second, that there are unlimited (if not infinite) math-structures in comparison to a unique physical universe. In my math-TOE, math and physics have the same BASE lego set while physics manifests in the arrow of time (being constrained by energy) while math manifests in the essence of nature (the timelessness). The multiverse bullcrap is denounced in the article {Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html }.


Note 2: this article is written as a part of presentation {(Modeling universe by G-string theory) at “Strings 2016 (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )” held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016)} and will be handed out as handout at {The 7th International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians (ICCM 2016),  held from Aug. 6 to Aug. 11, 2016 in Beijing} by my colleague Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China).


Note added on August 7, 2016 (after the new LHC 2016 data was released):

My Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) discussed “The Final Total TOE” with Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) on August 5, 2016; see photos below.

“The Final Total TOE” was presented at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )} held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016), by my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian too.  The key points of this presentation is available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ .





Note (added on August 29, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

 Copyright © August 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong


Alice/Bob paradox = Sum {wrong (i)}

See note (at the end of this article) about the LIGO announcement on June 15, 2016.

For any genuine paradox (G-paradox), it must have two FACTs which lead to CONTRADICTORY results.

In Chapter three of {The Divine Constitution (ISBN 0916713067, 9780916713065, see https://books.google.com/books?id=8MMzPwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Gong+Jeh-Tween%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9oDyT9z8E-PO2wWznf2fAg )}, it states: every G-paradox (such as, the Grelling autological paradox, Cantor’s paradox, Russell set paradox, etc.) can be resolved in two ways.

One, there must be a higher symmetry which is able to unify the contradiction.

Two, the contradiction can always be removed by further symmetry breaking.


However, for a wrong-paradox, it is defined with the following equation:

Sum (fact (i)) + sum (error (i)) = wrong-paradox

For, i = {physicists}


I: A brief history

With this definition, we can now review the {Alice/Bob (black hole information) paradox}.

First, some facts.

One, according to GR (general relativity), some stars (with about 3 times of Sun’s mass, 3 M☉ (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit)) would collapse into a stellar black hole (a region that even lights cannot get out or escape) which has an event horizon (having Schwarzschild radius).

Two, this stellar black hole should be ‘hairless’, that is, having only three macro-parameters (mass, electric charge, and angular momentum) without any other variables (hairs).


Note 1, at this point, there is no paradox. This stellar black hole is a burial site for a once living star while all the quantum information of the star were buried (as a dead skeleton) but not lost.


Yet, there is i = 1 (Stephen Hawking), and he made the following CLAIMs.

One, black hole is a black body, and thus it should have THERMAL-radiation (photons).

Two, this thermal radiation of black hole will lead to the eventual TOTAL evaporation of the black hole.

Three, this thermal radiation is not a carrier for any dead-skeleton (information).


So, the conclusion is that when this burial site (black hole) is totally evaporated, no dead-skeleton can be found while they were not carried out by the outgoing vapors (the thermal radiation, the photons). So, the dead-skeleton is simply lost (the black hole information paradox). But, this conclusion is in conflict (contradicting) with the laws of quantum mechanics.


Now, we have a ‘dead-skeleton lost’ paradox.

Then, there are i = 2 (Leonard Susskind and Larus Thorlacius, and some others), and they made the following CLAIMs.

One, the vapors are virtual particle pairs (Alice and Bob, not thermal photons) which are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, and one of them (always Alice) falls into the hole while Bob escapes.

Two, the escaping Bob will eventually lead to the TOTAL evaporation of that black hole.

Three, as Alice and Bob are entangled twins (only different in sex), all information of doomed Alice can be recovered from Bob.


The conclusion: although Alice’s dead-skeleton was lost forever, her SOUL is preserved in her twin-brother Bob via the quantum entanglement. So, there is no ‘dead-skeleton (information) lost’ paradox.




Note: Stephen Hawking conceded to be wrong  for stirring up this ‘dead-skeleton lost’- paradox at this point.


Finally, there is i = 3 (Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, and James Sully), and they CLAIMed the followings.

One, Alice was not killed in vain, as she puffs out a bit blue light during her last breath (of course in accordance to the law of GR), and that little blue light made the black hole’s event horizon a bit bluer.

Two, after enough (when about half of the black hole has evaporated) blue light accumulated, the event horizon becomes a firewall for any new infalling Alice who will be fried and never be able to go into the hole. That is, in all practical senses, the HOLE has disappeared (nothing can fall in anymore).



Is the un-evaporated half-black hole still there (as a reality)?

If it is still there, how can it evaporate from this point on?

If it keeps evaporating somehow, what happen to the remaining ‘dead skeleton”? As the complementarity scheme can no longer work for firewall enclosed black hole, is the remaining ‘dead skeleton” lost or not?


Well, the SHOW must keep going. So, there is i = 4 (Stephen Hawking, Andrew Strominger,  Malcolm J. Perry). Of course, the easiest way out for all those wrongs is to denounce the ‘no-hair’-theorem. So, they now CLAIM that all black holes have ‘HAIRs’.


But, but, but, LIGO just announced that it observed ‘gravitational wave’ which was produced by the collision of two black holes. Yet, in its calculation (from and with that observed gravitational wave), these two colliding black holes have ‘NO-HAIRs’. Furthermore, the amount of Hawking block hole hairs might not be ENOUGH to carry all the dead-skeleton.


For a (any) stellar black hole, it has in fact NO Hawking THERMAL radiation in any practical sense, as the apparent temperature of black hole is much colder than the ambient temperature (about 2.7 Kelvin). That is, instead of radiating out, a (any) stellar black hole will absorb thermal radiation from its surroundings. No (absolutely not) stellar black hole formed from the supernova process can evaporate up to now or in a foreseeable future (at least twice the life time of this universe).


Then, why is this ‘dead-skeleton’ paradox still going?

Well, there could be some primordial black holes (result of Big Bang, not from the supernova process) which have much smaller mass. And, the black hole temperature is inversely proportional to its mass. To have a black hole temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), it would need a mass less than the Moon, and such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter, and it can evaporate by now. During its last stage of evaporation, a primordial black hole can give out burst of gamma rays, which should be detectable. Searches for such flashes have proven unsuccessful and provide stringent limits on the possibility of existence of low mass primordial black holes. However, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope launched in 2008 will continue the search for these flashes.


If the prospect of the primordial black holes is not good, again, why is this ‘dead-skeleton’ paradox still going?

Well, there should have some kind of micro-black holes according to the M-string theory. For a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2, it could be detected at LHC (Run I). But, no such a micro-black hole was found thus far, including the LHC (Run II) data thus far.

Note: if any SUSY particle with mass over 1.5 Tev., it could turn into a black hole and should radiate out easily detectable gamma ray flashes. But no such flashes are detected thus far.


Again, why is this ‘dead-skeleton (information)’ paradox still going?

They said: there are some great discoveries during the above history.

One, a new kind of entropy:

Hawking showed under general conditions that the total area of the event horizons of any collection of classical black holes can never decrease, even if they collide and merge. This becomes the second law of black hole mechanics, remarkably SIMILAR to the second law of thermodynamics. With the mass acting as energy, the surface gravity as temperature and the area as entropy, there is a new type of entropy.


This is the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy (S) of a black hole, which depends on the area of the black hole (A). The constants are the speed of light (c), the Boltzmann constant (k),Newton’s constant (G), and the reduced Planck constant (ħ).

In classical entropy, black holes should have near-zero entropy. But with this new type of entropy, Bekenstein claimed that black holes are maximum entropy objects—that they have more entropy than anything else in the same volume.


Two, with this new entropy, Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind discovered the holographic principle, which suggests that anything that happens in a volume of spacetime can be described by data on the boundary of that volume.


Three, with the holographic principle, Juan Maldacena discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence in 1997. This AdS/CFT correspondence becomes lifesaver for M-string theory on its issue of compactification.


Today, this AdS/CFT correspondence is the only pathway for the beyond the Standard Model physics for the mainstream physics.


II: A detailed review

The above is a brief history for the modern physics in the last 40 years. Is this history leading to a great future? Or, is it totally wrong?

If I do not have a different PATHWAY from the above wrong one, I will not have the right to call it wrong. If my pathway is not correct, I will not have the right to call other’s wrong. The comparison is very simple.

Who can derive all nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, Alpha, Cosmology Constant, etc.) and the Planck CMB data?

No one in the above history (the mainstream) can, but I can: see,

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ and

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/  (also see recently added note below).


With these comparisons, there is no more argument about, the scientific methodology or else. And now, I have the right to call a spade a spade. The history of this ‘information paradox’ is totally on a wrong path.


Before showing the correct PATHWAY, I will point out a few Errors in the above history first.

Error one, Hawking radiation was all about thermal photons, and it is practically meaningless.

Error two, black hole will not evaporate with the Alice/Bob drama. Bob is not a part of the ‘PRINCIPLE’ in any black hole’s bank account; that is, the escape of Bob will not take any energy away from black hole. Even if this Alice/Bob drama were paid for with the ‘principle’ of the black hole, there is no physics law demands that Alice must always carry the ‘negative’ energy (which reduces the ‘principle’ of the black hole). Alice being a particle (not just photon), she carries some rest mass. So, if she does not provide more mass to the black hole, this Alice/Bob drama will at least not cause evaporation of black hole at all.



Error three, if the black hole does evaporate, its final Schwarzschild radius will go to zero, and its entropy ‘AERA’ will become zero too. That is, Hawking’s ‘area’ law of black hole is wrong.


The correct path is only about one issue. What is gravity?

Gravity is very simple; it moves the Pepsi can (sits on my desk at REST) from {[here, now] to [here, next]}. And, it takes a force F (gravity) to do it.

F (gravity) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant.

Then, quantum principle emerges from this F (gravity). See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html for details.


Of course, we can make more detailed definition for gravity as follows.

One, gravity must be based on particle physics, as only particles are carrying mass (the only parameter for gravity). Both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity have nothing to do with particle physics, and thus they are wrong gravity theories. See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/

Two, the strength of gravity between any TWO objects is described with Newtonian gravity equation (GmM/r^2).

Three, gravity must be both instantaneous and simultaneous (to ALL particles in this universe). Gravity is DEFINITEly not transmitted with light speed, although the gravitational wave (an attribute of gravity) is. Gravity by all means is not ‘local’. But, the strength of gravity for the Pepsi can which sits on my desk at rest is:

F (Pepsi gravity) = Gm {sum [M(i)/r(i)^2]}  ….. Equation A

i represents the particles of the entire universe, except the Pepsi.



The Pepsi can is sitting on my desk (a spot on the world sheet) at rest, and it (Pepsi can) is interacting with ALL other particles in this universe {which consists of two parts: the world sheet (real universe) and a Ghost point}. That is, this Pepsi can is linked to all other particles of this universe in two pathways:

One, in the real (matter) world, the distance between it and other particles is r(i) > {a Planck length}. So, the gravitational interaction strength between them is calculated with the Newtonian gravity equation.

Two, it (Pepsi can) is linked to all other particles via the Ghost point, and the distance between it and all other particles is R(i) = {a Planck length} for all “i”.


So, the gravity STRENGTH for Pepsi can is calculated with Equation A.

The TIME for the gravity transmission is a {Planck time}, practically instantaneously.

While the gravity of ONE object (such as a Pepsi can) is calculated with Equation A, and the gravity transmission is via ‘Planck time’, the true definition for gravity is that it moves the entire universe from {now to next}. See graph below and http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm for details.





There are three different gravity theories.

One, Newtonian gravity, attractive force for mass.

Two, space-time sheet curvature about mass, the GR (General Relativity).

Three, moving the entire universe from {(here now) to (here (next), next)}, and this is {dark energy} all about, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html , and this force is

 F = ħ/ (delta S x delta T)

The AdS/CFT correspondence is also the direct consequence of the above mechanism.


III: Paradox no more!

Now, we can address the ‘information’ issue in two ways.

One, every bit of information of this universe since its inception (Big Bang) is recorded with a detailed bookkeeping, the Cosmology Constant (CC). By comparing the calculated CC and the measurement, we will know whether there is any information loss. My calculation shows that there is no information loss at all, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ .

Two, black hole is not formed via the Alice/Bob drama. How can a ‘fringe’-drama dig into the essence? Only by knowing exactly of how black hole is formed, we can then discuss its eventual death (if any).

In general, we said that gravitational collapse occurs when an object’s internal pressure is insufficient to resist the object’s own gravity. This statement is not wrong but is misleading, and it did mislead.


What is its internal pressure?

What is its own gravity?


I will make these more clear with two concepts.

One, {free particle}:

In the case of our Sun, the entire space (a BOX) that a given atom (hydrogen atom, etc.) in its lifetime roamed in is viewed as a free particle (the box, not the atom). This free particle (the box) might be a cube with 100 miles on its sides, and it contains billions atoms. For every free particle (the box), it is viewed as a at rest (not moving) particle.

Definition: if a NET force on a particle = zero, it is a free particle.

That is, a {free particle} is always at rest (in terms of the box), as that box does not receive any external force and does not project out any force.

Theorem one: for a particle in a compact object, it is a free particle

Corollary one: the water molecular in the ice-lattice is a free particle.

So, a neutron inside of a neutron star is a free particle.


Two, tidal force:

For a rod (or a box) with one meter long, [(rB – rA) = 1 meter], there is a tidal force on this rod (or box) if it (the box) is not a free particle of a compact object (the source of the tidal gravity),

Tidal force of (A, B) = F(r) – F(r-1) = Tf(A, B)

The gravity force for A and B are:

F(A) = F(r), r is the distance of point A to the center of the packed object.

F(B) = F(r + 1), one meter farther away from the center.


If the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (A, B) is smaller (<) than the structure binding force of the box (hydrogen atom), it could form stars, as it cannot tear atoms apart.

If the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (A, B) is larger (>) than the structure binding force of the box (hydrogen atom), then the atoms will be pulled apart. In this case, it most likely becomes a ‘neutron’ star.

When the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (neutron) is larger (>) than the structure binding force of neutron, it pulls neutrons apart and becomes a black hole. Of course, most of black holes are formed without going through the neutron star stage.


So, basically, there are, at least, three types of stars.

One, ‘proton’ star (PS): like our Sun which is 99.99% composed of ‘hydrogen atom (containing proton)”

Two, ‘neutron’ star (NS)

Three, ‘black hole’ (BH)


The diameter of PS (like Sun) is in average of ‘one million’ miles, and mostly composed of protons (hydrogen atom). The tidal force of Sun is not big enough to break up the hydrogen atom. Yet, the nuclear fusion produces enough ‘thermal-energy’ to balance the gravitation force of the Sun. So, it has a huge diameter.

When the hydrogens are all burnt out, the helium fusion produces much less thermo-energy, the gravitation force will get the upper hand and pull the matter inward. It collapses, with a few pathways.

Type I Supernova: results a white dwarf star, the carbon fusion begins to support a radius about 7000km (about the size of Earth). Yet, it is still a ‘proton’ star.

Type II Supernova: When the tidal force is big enough to break up hydrogen or helium atoms, it collapses as a neutron star with the average radius of (1 to 10 miles), a size of a small city. All atoms are pulled apart, and no proton can survive.


If the tidal force is strong enough to break up ‘neutron’, it becomes ‘black hole’ with Schwarzschild radius about 10 miles for a 3-solar-mass black hole. All hadron particles are pulled apart.


Then, what is inside of the black hole?

The wrong way of saying says that black hole converts the baryons and leptons in the collapsing body into entropy. Other wrong way says that there could be the quark/gluon plasma.


In the classic theory, black hole is defined with a Schwarzschild radius which marks an event horizon. However, in this G-string-gravity theory, black hole is formed by tearing apart all particles via the spaghettification.




After this spaghettification, all particles are torn apart and become strings.

In M-string theory, those strings form the branes.

In G-string theory, those quark/lepton-strings (line-string) curl up into ring-strings, which has zero area and zero volume.

The big difference between G-string and M-string is that G-string has ‘internal’ structure (described with A, V). Those quark/lepton G-strings are ‘line’-strings. When they become ring-strings, they are no different from the M-ring-strings, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/m-theory-toe-if-and-only-if-it-adds-two.html .


That is, all M-string’s formula do work for G-string. In the black hole, G-string will become an M-ring-string.

Note: without the internal structure, M-string is unable to describe the universe outside of the black hole and is a failed theory, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.5lav4kdh8 .

When G-quark/lepton-string (line-string) curls up into a ring-string, the quark color charge and generations are neutralized (not destroyed). So, when a particle (neutron, proton, lepton or else) falls into a black hole, it becomes a ring-string, with all charges neutralized but conserved. When they are radiated out later (if any), the rings straighten back up to regain their charges. That is, no information lost, nor gained.


There are four differences between this G-string description and the classic one.

One, instead of an event horizon with Schwarzschild radius, there is a spaghettification zone. As soon as a particle (or else) is spaghettified, it breaks up into G-ring-strings.

Two, the Schwarzschild description of black hole has a ‘singularity’ at the CENTER of the Schwarzschild sphere. But, in this G-string description, each ring-string is a ‘singularity’ of itself, and there is no singularity at the center of anywhere.

Three, each ring-string is a free particle inside of the black hole. That is, there is no longer any free-falling or tidal gravity on this ring-string when it passes the event horizon.

Four, the event horizon is the innermost circle of this spaghettification zone.


So, ‘quantum gravity’ is not about the gravity between neutrons in the neutron star!

Gravity is the force which MOVEs this entire universe with quantum units, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html and the quantum principle is the emergent of gravity.


Again, every particle in a compact object (solid ball, star, etc.) is a free particle.

So, the gravity of a particle in a compact object EQUALs to all particles in that compact object in accordance to the Equation A.

And, the neutron at the center of the neutron star sees the same gravity as the neutron at the edge.


IV: Conclusion

This information issue is addressed in two ways.

One, the bookkeeping, the calculation of the Cosmology Constant.

Two, the internal structure of the black hole, all ring-strings which still carry the mass and electric charge, but all other information is stored away.

Finally, the holographic principle is the direct consequence of the moving (from now (t1) to next (t2)) universe.


Note (added on June 10, 2016):

Black holes are only burial sites for cosmological objects and play minimal role in the structure of the cosmos, which is ruled by {dark energy, dark mass and visible mass}.

The recent (2016) study done by (Adam G. Riess, Lucas M. Macri, Samantha L. Hoffmann, Dan Scolnic, etc.) shows that the Local value of the Hubble Constant is about 9% higher than the Planck CMB data (2015) estimation.

The Local Value of the Hubble Constant: H0 (now, later universe) = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1

The Planck CMB data (Using ΛCDM with Neff = 3) estimation: H0 (early universe) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1

The ratio {H0 (now)/H0 (old, CMB)} = {73.24/66.93} = 1.0942

So, H0 (now) is 9.4% higher than the H0 (old, at CMB).

This result implies that there is a ‘dark radiation’ (or Neff = 3.4) becoming dark energy and making the universe expanding faster than the CMB period.

See, http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/06/02/universe-expanding-faster-than-expected/ ]

This ‘dark radiation’ was PREDICTed long ago with G-string gravity model, see the graph below.


Dark energy 1 = X; dark energy 2 = Y; Mass (visible + dark) = Z; Dark radiation (dark mass melting into dark energy ratio): W = 9%


Note: LIGO announced (on June 15, 2016) for the observation of 2nd set of black hole merges. Professor Matt Strassler commented: Incidentally, the question of whether they might form the dark matter of the universe has been raised; it’s still a long-shot idea, since there are arguments against it for black holes of this size, but seeing these merger rates one has to reconsider those arguments carefully and keep an open mind about the evidence. See, https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/06/15/ligo-detects-a-second-merger-of-black-holes/ .

In addition to Strassler’s comment, I would like to point out three issues.

One, with this rate of observation, the population of these twin black holes can be estimated. And, the supernova process might not be able to support such a population during the lifetime of THIS universe. The supernova process (SP) is well understood for producing a single black hole. The mechanism for producing twin black holes via SP is not well understood.


Two, if these twin black holes are primordial black holes, then there must have three sub-issues.

First, its population density must be very high. And, there is no reason for favoring only the twin. And, their production mechanism is totally unknown.

Second, if these are primordial black holes, they must have some signatures in the CMB data, as they are much colder than the CMB ambient temperature.

Third, if a primordial black hole can have over 30 M☉ mass, then the entire ‘inflation’ idea will be in jeopardy.


Three, gravitation WAVE is a wave; that is, it is in RIPPLEs. Yet, thus far, LIGO only detected a single silver bullet (with three contours) for each GW. Until we can detect more than one ripple of the same GW, …


Yes, gravitational wave is a reality in G-string gravity. But, LIGO is saying much more than it actually knows.


Also see, Final TOE (theory of everything), https://medium.com/@Tienzen/final-toe-theory-of-everything-9b12ec7c0c9f#.ovdjer2yy


Note (added on August 29, 2016):

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

 Copyright © May 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong