The proof of the abc conjecture


The abc conjecture: there are a finite number of c (= a + b), for

c > rad (abc)^ (1+ ε); ε > 0, a real number


c < K (ε) x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) for ALL c; K (ε) > 0, a real number.


Let a = d + d1 = (p^n x dp) + d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.

Example: a = 17 = 18 – 1 = (3^2x 2) -1; 18 = d, d1 = -1, p = 3, dp = 2, n = 2


Doing the same for b and c;

b = e + e1 = (q^m x ep) + e1

c = f + f1 = (w^k x fp) + f1


So, the rad (abc) = rad (a) rad (b) rad (c)


For rad (c) >= c, f1 ≠ 0 is the necessary condition.

For c >= rad (abc), f1 = 0 is the necessary condition; that is, c cannot be a prime.

The sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < C


Some scenarios can be evaluated for this sufficient condition (SC).

Scenario 1: if d1 = e1 = 0 and there is a h1 (a natural number) while 1 < h1 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 2: if d1 = 0 and there is a h2 (a natural number) while 1 < h2 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 3: if e1 = 0 and there is a h3 (a natural number) while 1 < h3 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 4: all other cases (the uncertainty).


All four cases, the SC = true.

For any give c (with f1 = 0, not a prime), there are S1 (number of cases meeting scenario 1), S2, S3 and S4.

Let S = S1 + S2 + S3 + S4; S can be finite or infinite.

Now, {rad (abc) < c} = {for any c (not a prime, f1 = 0), is S finite?}

For any given c, we can do some actual search for S1, S2, S3.

From our experience, S1 + S2 + S3 is more often as finite than not.

However, there is no way of guaranteeing that S4 is finite.

By not knowing the answer, we can try with tossing a coin on S4 of an arbitrary selected c: head = true; tail = false.

Then, the P (S) = {tail (50%), head (50%)} after infinite many tosses.


Law 1: There are infinite many c (= a + b) for c > rad (abc).


Obviously, law 1 is a physics law, verifiable via experiments.

Now, we can make a cheating weight (ε > 0, a real number) and add it to rad (abc) side as {rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε)}.

With this cheating weight on the rad side as {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) < c}, then P (S) = {tail (< 50%), head (> 50%)} of each toss. Again, this can be verified physically.

After N tosses, P (S, N) = {P(S, tail)/N = (~ 0), P (S, head)/N = (~100)}; that is, for any c (a real number while a + b = c) there is always a N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that

{N (ε) x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) > c}, N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).

Again, this can be verified physically.


The above process can be proved in four steps: induction (operational) progressive process, a verification TRAIN.


First, making the above simple tossing [selecting an arbitrary c (= a + b) and doing the actual search] process into a game with the following rules.

Every game consists of T (=10) tosses, which produces (i tails, j heads), T = i + j = 10 in this case.

So, P (SC = true) = j/T, P (SC = false) = i/T, P the possibility of SC

ΔP = P (SC = false) – P (SC = true),

If ΔP > 0, abc conjecture is false.

If ΔP < 0, abc conjecture is true

Let G = 1 when ΔP < 0; G = 0 when ΔP >= 0


This game will be repeated N times.

When N = 1, G1 = (0 or 1)

N = 2, G2 = (0 or 1)

N = n, Gn = (0 or 1)


Let G’n = (number of 1) – (number of 0); {(number of 1) + (number of 0) = n}


Definition 1: If G’n > 0 for all n > N (ε), [N (ε) a large number > 0], then abc conjecture is true.


Second, the cheating: a cheating weight ε is added on one side of the tossing coin.

That is:    ΔX = {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) – rad (abc)} = rad (abc)^ε


Law 2 (the indeterminacy): when ΔX = 0, the average of ΔP = 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is a large number.

Law 2 can be verified physically.


Law 3: when ΔX > 0, the average of ΔP < 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is large. (This can be proved by actual calculation and search with a finite n).


Third, the induction proof of law 1, 2, 3: these physically proofs establish a verification TRAIN.


Fourth, going beyond the induction: is there a math ghost rascal which can sabotage the above induction TRAIN?

The answer is no: a cheating game cannot be sabotaged even by a ghost rascal; see the ghost rascal law.

Ghost-rascal law — For a coin flipping (tossing) game (head vs tail), T is the number times flip as one ‘game’, N is the number times that that ‘game’ is played. If T >= 10 and N >= 10^500, then no amount of sabotage from a Ghost can change the outcome of this game.

See, Ghost-rascal law and the Ultimate Reality

This is a physics law which can be verified by actual verification to any large number N. This Ghost-rascal law is, in fact, the way that nature GENERATES the standard model particles, see Chapter four of this book. For nature, T = 3 and a finite number N is enough to guarantee the generating and confining the particle zoo.


Law 4: the induction TRAIN of Law 1, 2, 3 with a large n cannot be sabotaged by any math ghost rascal.


With this ghost-rascal guarantee, there is always an N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that {N (ε) x rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε) > c} for ALL c (= a + b), N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).

The abc conjecture is now proved.

However, this Ghost-rascal law is a physics law which can be verified via physics means. Without this Ghost-rascal law, the abc conjecture cannot be proved.


While the human math can only be proved via the lego rules, the nature math can and sometimes only be verified via physical means. In fact, the nature math is the nature laws (same as physics laws).


But what does this abc conjecture mean in the number (or physics) system?

Equation of Wonder: bigger the ΔX, smaller the ΔP < 0.


For every c (= a + b)

Let a = d + d1 = (p^n x dp) + d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.

b = e + e1 = (q^m x ep) + e1

c = f + f1 = (w^k x fp) + f1

Then {p, q, w, dp, ep, fp, d1, e1, f1, n, m, k} are the players for the dynamics of rad (abc).

Let Q be the dynamics of rad (abc) on those players.

With ΔX (on rad (abc)), there will be a ΔQ.


Definition 2: ΔQ = | h/ ΔP|; the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the stronger the possibility that abc conjecture is true. That is, the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the smaller ΔQ is.


Now, the equation of wonder can be rewritten as:

ΔQ = h/ ΔX or (ΔQ x ΔX = h), h is a real number and should be a constant.

|ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ is the possibility of whether there is infinite SC {sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < c} for an arbitrary c (= a + b).

That is, |ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ really defines the internal radical/prime dynamics for SC?

The equation {ΔQ x ΔX = h} shows that ΔQ (internal radical/prime dynamics) is confined by ΔX (the cheating weight).


More info about this Equation of Wonder, see the derivation of physics uncertainty equation via the number system at {Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature, }.

Only a fool will do it …

A debate is currently going on, on the issue of building FCC (Future Circular Collider, with 100 Tev p-p colliding energy, will be run by CERN) after Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder wrote an Op-Ed article {The Uncertain Future of Particle Physics} at The New York Time on January 23, 2019, see .


Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder is a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies and is the author of the book: {Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Published on June 12, 2018). Her book criticizes the recent (past 40 years) development on the foundational theoretical physics which is based on the ideas of naturalness, SUSY and multiverse. She views that these lead the theoretical physics into a wrong path. However, she did not object the building the larger particle collider (larger than the current LHC) in her book. Her objection of FCC is only a recent conviction, after I informed her on December 6, 2018, that I have single-handed killed the China Super Collider project, see tweet below.

Or see


Also see her statement {That’s right, I changed my mind about building a larger collider because I realized I am not consistent with myself when being in favor of it.}, see


More details about this debate, see her blog post: {Particle physicists surprised to find I am not their cheer-leader (February 02, 2019, )}.


While Hossenfelder is rehashing this 100 Tev p-p collider debate on FCC of CERN, it will be very useful to review the HISTORY on the same debate for the China Super p-p 100 Tev collider.


One, the push for the China Super p-p 100 Tev collider began in 2015 by Dr. Shing-Tung Yau (William Caspar Graustein Professor of Mathematics) at Department of Physics of Harvard University, see ) who published a book:  {From the Great Wall to the Great Collider: China and the Quest to Uncover the Inner Workings of the Universe}, published by International Press of Boston, (214 pp.). ISBN 978-1-57146-310-4 (on Oct 23, 2015)}.


This book was reviewed by:

By Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong), see

And, by (01 April 2016)


Two, Strings 2016 was held in Beijing in August 2016 to promote the Super China Collider (SPPC, 100 Tev.), see

Almost one thousand String theorists attended the conference, including David Gross (Nobel Laureate), Edward Witten, Nima Arkani-Hamed (who was then the Direct of SPPC project).





Three, on 2016/09/04, Dr. C.N. Yang (Nobel Laureate) wrote an article against the SPPC project with the reason that China is still a developing country and is not ready for this kind of endeavor (not on the physics reason), see his article { }.


Four, by December 2016, the promoters of SPPC project (Dr. Yifang Wang, the director of Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP) of The Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Shing-Tung Yau)  had secured almost the entire HEP community to endorse the SPPC projects, the big names are, see ( for their endorsing articles) :

Stephen Hawking (December 30, 2016)

Steven Weinberg (Nobel Laureate), December 28, 2016

Sheldon Lee Glashow (Nobel Laureate), December 23, 2016

Edward Witten, December 21, 2016

David Gross (Nobel Laureate), December 19, 2016

Nima Arkani-Hamed (Institute for Advanced Study, School of Natural Sciences, director of SPPC project)


The most convincing argument is from Stephen Hawking, saying {China has an incredible opportunity to become the world leader here — don’t waste it. A good example is to build the Great Collider that can lead high energy physics for the next fifty years.}


Five, Hawking’s argument is very powerful for any political leader. By March 2017, the rumor says that the SPPC project was officially approved by the highest official of China (meaning by President Xi). Of course, Dr. C. K. Yang alone was no match to all those Nobel Laureates.


Six, after knowing that SPPC program was officially approved, on April 7, 2017, I decided to oppose the project and wrote my first article. On May 5, 2017, I wrote my 4th (final article), see tweet .



By May 11 (less than one week later), I got the feedback that the SPPC program was officially killed. I tweet this on May 14, 2017, see


More details are available at

For the pdf of the four articles, see

For the Chinese version of the articles, see


From the timeline above, it is super clear that I was the one who single-handed killed SPPC program of China.


How can I do it?

One, this kind of big project must be approved by the TOP, TOP leader, in this case, President Xi. While Xi is a great political genius, he does not know physics. That is, he will only count the names of each group. On the pro-group, there are three Nobel Laureates + Stephen Hawking (who is a super celebrity in China) + almost all HEP big names (Witten, Nima, etc.) + his physics advisors (Yifang Wang and Shing-Tung Yau). On the Con-side, there was only one (Dr. C. N. Yang) who did not opposite it on the reason of physics. Thus, if SPPC does not produce any physics, Xi will not be responsible for this. By all means, the SPPC program will make China the leader of the HEP for the next 50 years. Furthermore, a null result from SPPC will officially move HEP into new territory, abandoning the current paradigm. Furthermore, the claimed cost for SPPC was only 16 billion (US dollars) which is only a packet change for China as she had over three (3) trillion cash reserves at that time.

Conclusion: President Xi’s approving the SPPC project (as the rumor said in March 2017) cannot go wrong, 1) 20 billion is only a packet change, 2) will be the leader of HEP for the next 20 years at least, 3) the null result — > new paradigm, 4) almost 99.99% of HEP community support the project.

That is, no amount of physics or else arguments can defeat the 4 points above.


Two, as the supreme leader of China, President Xi has everything. All that he cares about is his achievement in HISTORY. If there is one line in the history says: {President Xi did not listen to the advice of Gong on the SPPC project}, this one sentence will destroy all his great legacy. Of course, if Gong is a nobody in Chinese history, this sentence will never be written. But President Xi knows all too clear that in the entire humanity (from ancient to eternal future) only one person he (Xi) cannot afford to challenge, the Gong. When he challenges Gong, a sentence will be written in history, either way.

Conclusion: my four articles are very powerful but truly carry no weight; as if they were written by others, they will carry no power at all on this debate. My name (the Gong) is the only reason killed SPPC project.

No leader in China has the courage to oppose me if he wants to preserve his legacy in History.


On the other hand, my name has no meaning in Japan. That is, the death of ILC (if happens, see note) will not be caused by my name. However, the Japanese must have investigated the SPPC case of China. My four articles (while carrying no weigh in China) must carry some weigh in Japan.


I published a new book {Nature’s Manifesto: Nature vs Bullcraps; in January 2017 with the US copyright # TXu 2-078-176}. This book is available at many university libraries, such as Princeton, see graph below.



It is now available at


After the publication of this book:

Edward Witten has officially abandoned the String theory.

Sean Carroll is no longer hyping the multiverse; from January 25, 2017 to now, he is writing less than 1 blog a month in comparing to the average of one per week before that. See



For this new FCC debate, here is my tweet, see  (on January 29, 2019)




With my book, only a fool will build a new collider.

Welcome Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder to the right (and winning) side of the history.

In addition to the China Super p-p collider (which I killed 18 months ago), there are two other super collider projects in the world.

One, ILC (International Linear collider) in Japan, and its fate will be determined next month (March 2019). With my killing the China Super collider, it is very hard for Japan to continue the project. It is very much dead with the recently leaked out rumor. We will see soon enough.

Two, FCC (Future Circular collider, will be run by CERN, the Europe project), and it is now very much in doubt.

Scott Aaronson (the David J. Bruton Centennial Professor at MIT) is a proponent of building the FCC but is admitting that FCC is now in trouble, see his comment ( ). This is also reported by Peter Woit (a very prominent HEP physicist), see graph.


For the past 40 years, both M-string and SUSY failed on every experimental test but insisted that they are the ONLY GAME in town.

Now, Lee Smolin (a theoretical physicist at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) just admitted that they are not the only game in town, see graph below.


The above shows that SUSY and M-string theory is not the only game in town. This can be shown with the following graph.



Today (2-19-2019), the New Yorker published an article {A different kind of Theory of Everything}, by Natalie Wolchover (interviewed Nima Arkani-Hamed),  Nima finally accepted the theory of Prequark, see graph below.


Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler and his group are still looking for new particles beyond SM (see ). But with the book {Nature’s Manifesto: Nature vs Bullcraps}, there cannot be one, the reason for not building FCC.


{Note (added on March 7, 2019): the ILC of Japan was killed, see

On 22 Feb 2019, CERN director-general Fabiola Gianotti tried to sure-up the support for future larger colliders (including ILC) in a Physicsworld interview (see ). Also, see my tweet below.

Now, Gianotti fails on this ILC issue.

End note}

See the following tweets:






Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? Without getting an answer to this question, any physics theory cannot be the FINAL theory.

However, Sean M. Carroll has recently (February 8, 2018) wrote a chapter on this for ‘Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Physics, with the following abstract.

{It seems natural to ask why the universe exists at all. Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation.}

And with the conclusion: {The right response is “that’s just the way things are.” It’s up to us as a species to cultivate the intellectual maturity to accept that some questions don’t have the kinds of answers that are designed to make us feel satisfied.}


That is, Carroll has denied that {Why is there something rather than nothing?} is a legit question of any kind (physics or otherwise). And, I have made the following tweet as a response.


That is, if there is an answer, then Carroll’s argument will be cut out by Occam’s razor.


{Why is there something rather than nothing?} is really a question of {How this universe was created?}; I have provided a detailed answer on this at my tweet (see, ).


However, I will provide a detailed discussion about:

{Something (in appearance)} = {Nothing (in essence)}

First, what is nothing?

In math, ‘nothing’ can be represented by a number (zero).

Then, what is zero?

In math, zero can be defined with, at least, two equations.

Zero (c) = 1/ (countable infinity)

Zero (u) = 1/ (uncountable infinity)

As these two infinities are clearly and precisely defined in math, thus ‘nothing (zero)’ is also precisely defined.


Second, in addition to zero/infinity, there are FINITE numbers in math. However, these two parts are totally disjoined: infinities can never transform into finite, and vice versa.


Third, is there ‘nothing (zero)’ in the physical universe? Obviously, the answer is no. If the answer is Yes, then the question {Why is there something rather than nothing?} has been answered.  The best ‘nothing (zero)’ in the physics universe is the CC (Cosmology Constant) which has 120 zeros after the decimal point at least.

Without ‘nothing’, then this physical universe cannot have ‘infinities’ neither as a physical REALITY.

If these are the case, then there is a fundamental difference between math and physics although math is a great tool and language for physics. And, the issue of CREATION can, indeed, never be answered by science.


Of course, there is another possibility. Although infinities can never transform into finite numbers, they might be able to be embedded in physical objects. If this is the case, something can be created from nothing (infinities); that is,

{Something (in appearance)} = {Nothing (in essence)}


In G-theory, I have shown two such transformations.

One, countable infinity (or zero (c)) is embedded (transformed) into a trisected angle.

It takes COUNTABLE steps to trisect any angle by evenly dividing it, with the following steps.

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

= .33349 – … + … = .3333333333333…..

Of course, a trisected angle is definitely a concrete object. If humans do not have the time to complete this task, nature will definitely have a better chance of doing it.


Two, can uncountable infinity manifest into a concrete object? For the number pi (3.14159…), it has uncountable digits as it is a “normal” number.

{(Pi / 4) = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – 1/11 + 1/13 – … + … (with “countable” infinite steps)}

That is, pi (having uncountable digits) is reached with the above equation. Yet, there is a concrete object (a circle) which always associates with the number pi. Thus, the uncountable infinity MANIFESTS as a circle which is a concrete object.


As these two infinities (of math) are embedded (transformed) into two physics (concrete) objects:

First, the {math universe = physics universe} becomes possible. But, I will not discuss this here.

Second, these two embedments have shown:

{Something (in appearance)} = {Nothing (in essence)}

These simply lead to the ‘First principle’ and the creation equation (equation zero).


At every moment of ‘t’ on the time hose, it is, in fact, ‘nothing’ while ‘equation zero’ creates ‘something (a structure)’. The parts of that structure are something but that structure is in essence ‘nothing’.

So, the structure (encompassing matter and anti-matter) will not annihilate while the parts (something) can be annihilated between their anti-partners. That is, there is no BaryonGenesis issue, see .


After the creation of a structure (nothingness in essence), the arrangement (distribution) of its parts becomes the ‘Second Principle (Mixing principle)”, and it leads to the { Cabibbo angle (θc)), Weinberg angle (θW ) and Alpha}.


These calculations are direct results of the {Second Principle (Distribution/Mixing principle)} which is totally based on the Pi (uncountable infinity concretizing process).


At the same time, the (countable infinity concretizing process) creates three Line-strings which carries two Trinary-charges (quark colors and Gene-colors).



Then, the Third Principle should be the ‘Bookkeeping/Information Processing’ which leads to CC (Cosmology Constant) and a computing device.


Of course, this computing device leads to the manifestation of Life.


Furthermore, these principles must lead to some consequences.

One, time hose must lead to an accelerating expansion of the universe and the Unified force.



This leads to QG (quantum gravity).


And, it must produce the following distribution.


This calculation also shows the answer to the BaryonGenesis.

And this dark energy (vacuum energy) must lead to a Vacuum-Boson.



Two, as the Dark Flow is changing the distribution of the parts of the STRUCTURE, this universe must swing from one extreme to another; that is, it must be cycling.


The evidence of this Dark Flow has discovered about one year ago.



Finally, these lead to an 11-dimension universe.


Some conversations:






More details, see

This issue can be understood via linguistics too, see the new books {PreBabel — The Universal & Perfect language} and {Bible of China Studies } and {PreBabel (2nd edition) PreBabel — The Universal }.


The great progress on Multiverse and Popperiansim

The Multiverse was invented after the discovery of String-landscape, having zillions different string-vacua. Thus, by definition, each bubble of the multiverse has different vacuum and thus has different natural constants and physics laws.


There are two immediate consequences from this definition:

One, THIS universe of ours is just a happenstance, one out of the zillions randomly floating bubbles. That is, the natural constants of THIS universe is not a consequence of any law or logic but a happenstance and thus cannot be DERIVED.

Two, those bubbles are disconnected by DEFINITION. The chance for anyone of them to collide is very small. {Note: no evidence of the bubble-collisions is detected.} And, this leads to the conclusion that the Multiverse is not falsifiable, and this starts the debate on Popperianism.


In fact, the Multiverse can be easily killed by showing two points.

One, all natural constants of THIS universe can be derived THEORETICALLY.

Two, the DERIVATIONS of these natural constants are bubble-independent.

And, I have shown these two on October 27, 2013, see .


On January 17, 2018 (almost five years after my article), Sean Carroll (Astrophysicist at Caltech) wrote an article: “Beyond Falsifiability”, saying {Cosmological models that invoke a multiverse – a collection of unobservable regions of space where conditions are very different from the region around us – are controversial, on the grounds that unobservable phenomena shouldn’t play a crucial role in legitimate scientific theories. I argue that the way we evaluate multiverse models is precisely the same as the way we evaluate any other models, on the basis of abduction, Bayesian inference, and empirical success. There is no scientifically respectable way to do cosmology without taking into account different possibilities for what the universe might be like outside our horizon. Multiverse theories are utterly conventionally scientific, even if evaluating them can be difficult in practice.

cosmological multiverse, …. It’s not the best name, as the idea is that there is only one “universe,” in the sense of a connected region of space, but of course, in an expanding universe, there will be a horizon past which it is impossible to see. If conditions in far-away unobservable regions are very different from conditions nearby, we call the collection of all such regions “the multiverse.”}


It is very nice of seeing the diehard Multiverse devotee (Sean Carroll) has finally come around.

First, Carroll’s multiverse is no longer disconnected bubbles but is a bad name for the parts which hide beyond the event horizon of THIS universe.

Second, the stupidity of the Popperianism has finally been challenged. Truth by definition cannot be falsified.

I wrote about the stupidity of Popperianism many, many years ago. The most recent one is available at .



Massimo Pigliucci (the K.D. Irani Professor of Philosophy at the City College of New York) still tried to defend Popper, and he  wrote a comment (on January 22, 2018) on Carroll’s article; he wrote, {Setting aside that falsificationism is not a scientific theory, but rather a notion in philosophy of science (after all, how would you falsify Popper’s account?), Sean admits that he hasn’t gone over the nuances of what Popper actually wrote. That’s unfortunate, because Popper was a bit more of a sophisticated philosopher than he is usually given credit for. Even though his ideas are no longer current in philosophy of science (you know, philosophy does make progress!), if one invokes him to dismiss a scientific theory (as Ellis and Silk do), or, conversely, rejects his insight in order to deflect criticism against one’s favorite theory (as Sean does), it would be good to take a look at what the men actually wrote.

Without going into too much detail (for an in-depth discussion and pertinent quotes see my Aeon article mentioned above), Popper realized that falsification is not a sharp blade capable of neatly cutting off science front non-science. He was also aware of, and discussed at length, the fact that legitimate scientific theories do include ad hoc explanations that are used by scientists as place holders until (and if) they figure out what is wrong with the theory they are working on. Nobody has ever rejected a scientific theory because all its statements were not immediately falsifiable, nor did Popper suggest such a crude practice in the first place.}


It is nice to know that Popperianism is now a dinosaur in the Philosophy of Science, but the stupidity of Popperianism has done the science a great harm and is still misleading zillions people. There are two simple points on this Popperianism.

One, Popperianism is conceptually wrong although it might be having some practical use, as all the crap theories can be easily falsified. But, the truth by definition cannot be falsified while all truths can be verified.

Two, the damning concept of Popperianism on science was widely accepted by the Western society while Popper did not come out to denounce it; so, all his other good or great ideas on science cannot be the excuse for the wrongness of that naive-Popperianism which is not only wrong but is totally stupid.



The tide of eradicating the two tumors {the Parallel-Multiverse and the naive-Popperiansim} of physics is now chased by many mainstream physicists, such as Sabine Hossenfelder.



Edward Witten, a physics hero

On November 28, 2017, Quanta Magazine published an article of Natalie Wolchover (a senior writer at Quanta magazine, winner of 2017 AIP Science Writing Award) who interviewed Edward Witten recently. That article is available at .

I must praise and complement Witten’s courage to give the death sentence to M-string theory finally, as it is after all his hallmark.


Of course, Wolchover’s article itself is heavily camouflaged for upholding Witten’s dignity, with many side-attractors. However, the following direct quotes of Witten’s statement from the article will reveal Witten’s true intention clearly.


A) The direct quotes

{Now, Nati Seiberg [a theoretical physicist who works down the hall] would possibly tell you that he has faith that there’s a better formulation of quantum field theory that we don’t know about that would make everything clearer. I’m not sure how much you should expect that to exist. That would be a dream, but it might be too much to hope for; I really don’t know.

Physics in quantum field theory and string theory somehow has a lot of mathematical secrets in it, which we don’t know how to extract in a systematic way.

I could point to theories where the standard approach really seems inadequate, so at least for those classes of quantum field theories, you could hope for a new formulation. But I really can’t imagine what it would be.

I think our understanding of what it (M-theory) is, though, is still very hazy. AdS/CFT and whatever’s come from it is the main new perspective compared to 22 years ago, but I think it’s perfectly possible that AdS/CFT is only one side of a multifaceted story. There might be other equally important facets.

Maybe a bulk description of the quantum properties of space-time itself, rather than a holographic boundary description. There hasn’t been much progress in a long time in getting a better bulk description. And I think that might be because the answer is of a different kind than anything we’re used to. That would be my guess.

I guess I suspect that there’s an extra layer of abstractness compared to what we’re used to.  … But I can’t say anything useful.}


The above statements clearly show four points.

One, QFT is a failed program for describing the nature.

Two, {M-string theory + AdS/CFT + hologram} fail to describe nature.

Three, he suspects that there is an extra layer of abstractness in addition to the two above.

Four, he simply does not know what that extra layer of abstractness could be.


These four points not only give M-string death sentence but also on all other theoretical cornerstones (QFT, AdS/CFT, and hologram) of the mainstream paradigm for the past 50 years.


B) A brief history

Is his finally accepting the total defeat the result of the no-show of SUSY at LHC?

For many SUSY devotees, the no-show of SUSY at LHC is just a great reason for building a bigger collider, such as the proposed 100 Tev Chinese Super Collider,  which was pushed by the entire West, the most notable prominent physicists are David Gross, Witten, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Hawking and countless others (Nima, Tommaso Dorigo, etc.).


Figure 1



Figure 1a

However, my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, China) talked to David Gross at String 2016 about the G-theory.

Figure 2


This might lead to the article of K. C, Cole {The Strange Second Life of String Theory, on September 15, 2016, see } which strongly hinted that the first life of M-string was dead.


By May 11, 2017, the CSC (100 Tev Chinese Super Collider) was officially killed after my series (4) of articles, see .


Figure 3


Finally, on Oct 17, 2017, Steven Weinberg gave a video presentation for ‘Int’l Centre for Theoretical Physics’ and revealed that both Witten and Nima have given up M-string theory (see at one hour 32 minutes mark).


C) An analysis

Can Witten hold out his total surrender?

Of course, not.

For saving M-string, it must add two points.

In my November 5, 2011, article {M-theory, a TOE if and only if it adds two points, see }, I showed only one point.

M-string is a string without any INTERNAL structure while the G-string is composed of prequarks and with internal structure.


Figure 4


This G-string immediately provides the ‘String unification’, describing all fundamental fermions with a clearly defined language.


It also immediately resolves the BaryonGenesis mystery.


Figure 5


I did not discuss what the second point needed for M-string theory is in that 6-year-old article. Now, here it is, the ‘First principle’: the real/ghost symmetry.


Figure 6


The direct consequences of this are:

Figure 7


Figure 8


Figure 9


D) My comment

The past 100 years were very successful in the experimental physics while it was a total disaster on the theoretical side, see .

I, however, must congratulate Witten’s courage of finally admitting that M-string was a total failure. Only hero has this kind of courage.


Note (added on December 4, 2017): on December 1, 2017, Scientific Controversies (Sci Con; a series of conversations between scientists hosted by PW Director of Sciences Janna Levin) held a public discussion with the title {Scientific Controversies: String Theory} with two prominent physics {David Gross (Nobel Laureate in Physics) and Clifford Johnson}.

Levin began the discussion by asking the two of them where they stood on string theory: pro, con or agnostic? This flustered Gross a bit (he’s one of the world’s most well-known and vigorous proponents of string theory) and Levin somehow took this as meaning that he was agnostic. Finally Gross clarified things by saying something like “I’ve been married to string theory for 50 years, not going to leave her now”.


Figure 10

Obviously, however wrong the M-string theory is, Gross cannot abandon her after 50 years marriage. Although without the courage of Witten, Gross’ loyalty for LOVE must also be praised.


Heavenly Father and his artistic baby

Heavenly Father created THIS universe with His ‘First Principle’.


Figure 1

A: The consequences

The consequences of this first principle (Equation zero, G-theory) are followings:


One, time moves forward as a time-hose to create a space-time cone, and space expands at EVERY point with constant speed ‘C’, and it consists of 11-dimensions (see ).


Figure 2

Two, it produces ‘intrinsic spin (1/2 h-bar) via bouncing between the real/ghost worlds.


Figure 3

Three, for any set of concentric circles, the outer circle moves always with acceleration.

Four, Universe structure of G-theory produces:  Matter, 24 fermions; Anti-matter, 24 anti-fermions and Vacuum/space, see . This rules out any additional fermions (Such as SUSY) or sterile particles (such as WIMPs, sterile neutrino).

Five, all 48 fermions emergent out from each time quanta. That is, matter/anti-matter co-exist at every time-moment, and there is no matter/anti-matter annihilation at the Big Bang.

Six, it locks two measuring rulers {C (light speed) and ħ (Planck constant) with two locks:

First lock, electric charge (e) = F (square root of (ħ x C)

Second lock, alpha (electric fine structure constant, a dimensionless pure number, unchangeable by selection of dimension-units) = {1/137.0359…}.

Seven, the universe pie is thus divided into three pieces via an intrinsic Angle (A (0)): energy (space), energy (time) and matter (visible and not visible).

Eight, it produces the gene-color: rules out 4th generation and a sterile neutrino. And, it produces the neutrino oscillation.

Nine, the matter/vacuum interaction will produce a ‘vacuum boson’.

Ten, all 48 fermions share an ‘equal right’ (the mass-land-charge), while their apparent masses are different. That is, all those 48 fermions are the SAME kind, and Majorana neutrino is ruled out.

Eleven, it moves the ENTIRE universe from ‘NOW’ to ‘NEXT’, which produces gravity, ‘quantum-ness’ and ‘unified force’.

Figure 4


Twelve, it creates a ‘bookkeeping’: entropy and CC (Cosmology Constant)

Figure 5


Thirteen, it produces ‘bio-computer (a Turing machine)’.

Figure 6


Fourteen, it demands a dark flow (W, from 100 to 0%) for the evolution of this universe. The W is 9% now.

Figure 7


The above is explained below.

Figure 8



Figure 9



Figure 10



Figure 11


Locking the measuring rulers with intrinsic angles:


Figure 12


Figure 13


Energy/mass distribution:

Figure 14


Producing ‘quantum-ness’, ‘unified force’ and accelerating the universe expansion:


Figure 15



Figure 16


Producing a vacuum boson.


Figure 17


Figure 18


This is an eleven –dimensional universe.

Figure 19


Here is the Physics-TOE.

Figure 20



B: The verifications

The above Heavenly laws are slowly but surely verified by the artistic baby (the mainstream physics).

One, acceleration expansion of this universe was verified in 1997.

Two, the vacuum boson (with 125.26 Gev) was discovered in 2012.

Three, Neff = 3 is verified by Planck (2013, 2015) data.

Four, energy/mass distribution was verified by Planck CMB data (2013) and by Dark Energy Survey (2017).


Figure 21


Five, WIMP is ruled out in 2017, see

Six, MOND is ruled out in 2017 by LIGO data.

Seven, Big Bang matter/anti-matter annihilation is ruled out in 2017, see .

Eight, the Weinberg angle is now measured precisely = 28.75 degrees, see .

Nine, the dark flow (W = 9%) was discovered in 2016 by Adam Riess, see .


Figure 22



Figure 23


C: Possessed baby soul rescued

While the growth of this artistic baby (mainstream physics) is progressing slowly but nicely, its soul is nonetheless possessed by three demons: {Copenhagen doctrine (measurement mystery and Schrödinger’s Cat), GR (General Relativity) and Higgs mechanism, see }.


Fortunately, the ‘Cellular Automaton Quantum Mechanics’ is now casting out the ‘Copenhagen demon’, see .


Figure 24



Figure 25


Fortunately, the Higgs demon is about to be exorcised.

One, the Higgs naturalness has now failed, even if SUSY Were existing at GUT scale.

Two, the Majorana neutrino is about completely ruled out.

First, a very strong hint shows that neutrino is different from its anti-particle.

Second, the observation of ‘Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ is very much ruling out the Majorana neutrino.


Figure 26


D: The lingering hallucinations are cured

Two physics hallucinations happened about at the same time and they converge to the same delusive wonderland, the Multiverse.

The M-string theory gets zillions ‘string vacua’, which leads to the multiverse.

The ‘inflation scenario (without a guiding principle for the initial conditions)’ leads to ‘Eternal inflation’ which in turn leads to the multiverse.


The wonder drug for these hallucinations is showing that Multiverse is a delusion with two points.

One, the soul of the multiverse is that the structure constants of THIS universe are just happenstances (the result of the Boltzmann’s brain). That is, even nature (or God) does not know how to calculate the structure constants of this universe. So, by showing the ways of calculating them, that hallucination is cured.

Two, by showing that those calculations are not bubble dependent, it further bursts the delusion bubble.


Now, many prominent physicists (such as Paul J. Steinhardt and et al) are joining in to eradicate these physics hallucinations, see .


F: the remaining living dead

SM (Standard Model of particle physics) has passed every test which we can throw at it, but no one believes that SM is a correct final theory.

On the other hand, everyone still sees GR (General Relativity) being a Gospel of gravity, especially after the LIGO announcement on October 16, 2017.

Indeed, GR has also passed all tests which we can throw at it. Indeed, LIGO could be a great tool for viewing the Cosmos in a different way. But, these will not change the fundamental FACT that GR is a totally wrong description of gravity.

The most important damning FACT on GR is that GR plays no role at ALL in the Heavenly Father’s description (HFD) of THIS universe.

In HFD, this universe is ruled by a Structure-Function which consists of {G (energy, dark energy) + G (mass; dark and visible)}.

The G (energy) leads to the acceleration of the expansion of this universe. But, most importantly, it also leads to ‘quantum-ness’.

The G (mass) is, of course, leading to Newtonian gravity, while GR is just an attribute of this G (mass).


There is no issue about GR being an excellent effective theory for gravity, but seeing it as the Gospel becomes the major hindrance to getting a correct Gravity-theory. The recent over-hyped LIGO story makes the situation even worse. AT this moment, this GR demon is not yet exorcised in terms of sociology. The KEY mission of this article is to cast this GR demon out once and for all. More details, see .








New Electroweak precision measurements

CMS of LHC (CERN) has just reported new Electroweak precision measurements {(sin(θ), lepton/eff)^2 = 0.23101±0.00052} on November 14, 2017, see .

In Standard Model, Weinberg angle is a function of two more fundamental physical constants: weak isospin g and weak hypercharge g’, and they are all ‘free parameters’ (not derived theoretically).

On the other hand, the Weinberg angle was calculated theoretically in G-theory, see or page 36 of ‘Super Unified Theory”.


In fact, the Weinberg angle (θ) is precisely defined by the equation (10), page 37 of ‘Super Unified Theory”, as follows.

     Sin (Δ θ1) =  Sin^2 (Δ θ2) = (Sin^2   Δ θ3) ^2 = (Sin^3 Δ θ4) ^3

= (Sin^6 Δ θ5) ^6 = (Sin^64 Δ θ6) ^64 ……. Equation (10)


  Sin (Δ θ1) = Sin {A (1) – 3 (A (0)/24}

= Sin {Cabibbo angle (θc)) – 3 (A (0)/24} = 0.23067


Sin^2 (Δ θ2 = 28.75°; Weinberg angle (θW)) = 0.2313502

Δ θ2 = 28.75° (Weinberg angle (θ))


{Sin (Δ θ1) + Sin^2 (Δ θ2)}/2 = 0.2310

All Δ θn are mixing angles.