Standard

Posted by

Posted on

September 28, 2021

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Dawn of the new HEP era

A: The background

In the past 40 years, the HEP (high energy physics, the foundational physics) is solidly based on the SM (Standard Model) which is a phenomenological model (with many free parameters), also based on Higgs mechanism.

In the theoretical front, there are some key issues.

One, Naturalness (restraining the Higgs boson mass; resolving the hierarchy issue).

Two, SUSY (with s-particles), the solution for naturalness.

Three, Cosmic Inflation scenario to eternal inflation to Multiverse (dodging the mystery of the nature constants issue, claiming that the nature constants (CC, Alpha, Higgs boson mass, Planck CMB data, Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, etc.) of THIS UNIVERSE are all environmental and cannot be derived.

Four, black hole information paradox.

Five, how to construct the quantum gravity.

Yet, all the issues above seemingly could be resolved by M-string theory, as:

SUSY is the direct consequence of M-string.

Multiverse is the direct consequence of M-string.

The black hole entropy can be calculated by M-string.

Graviton is the direct consequence of M-string.

That is, the M-string theory is the only TOE (theory of everything).

B: The dissidents

However, there are a few (very few) disagreed with the M-string’s claim in the mainstream HEP community.

In the 2004, Peter Woit and Lee Smolin disagreed with M-string’ claim with two reasons.
        M-string is just a framework of ideas (not well-defined theory),

        and thus, it cannot predict anything while explain everything.

        So, it is a pseudo-science.

While Peter Woit keeps up his anti-M-string campaign, Lee Smolin drifted off.

Around 2015, Sabine Hossenfelder kind of joined this dissident group while her key disagreement is on the Naturalness issue without openly denouncing the M-string.

Also, around 2015, Paul Steinhardt (the inventor of ‘inflationary cosmology’) began to distance himself from what he had invented.

In addition to this dissident group is so puny, they are criticized for their big shortcomings:

{they just disagree without anything new of their own).

So, M-string is the ONLY game in town STILL.

C: The dawn

The first light:

On June 4, 2021, Peter Woit stated: {If a highly complex and obscure set of ideas accurately computes the details of something you can observe, you know there is something right about it, even if you don’t understand the set of ideas.} See https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12353#comment-238968

Obviously, the {ideas accurately compute the details of something you can observe} refers to the followings: (Alpha, CC, Higgs boson mass, Planck CMB data, etc.)

See

The second light:

Peter Woit published his {Euclidean twistor Unification theory} and gave a lecture at Brown University on September 23, 2021, see the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNK_JxK0s9E&t=115s ).

After being a dissident for the past 20 years, Dr. Woit is putting out something new of his own.

The following is some background about his new work.

Einstein’s GR (general relativity, a gravity theory) is based on Minkowski geometry while the SM (QFT) was written with Euclidean geometry.

So, the difficulty of unifying GR with quantum (SM) is caused by some irreducible difference between the Euclidean geometry and Minkowski geometry.

Then, there is another issue, the {imaginary time} which was used in physics in two ways.

One, as the mathematical convenience for physics calculation, without any physical meaning of its own.

Two, as a novelty at the point (or before) of the big bang while it is not a part of space-time after the big bang.

In Dr. Woit’s new work, he tried two things.

One, projecting both geometry (Euclidean and Minkowski) into twistor space.

Two, adding a distinguished imaginary time direction into Euclidean twistor space, then the difference between Euclidean and Minkowski can be bridged, that is, a geometrical unification. And thus, the Gravi-weak unification becomes possible.

My words to Dr. Woit:

D: The evening twilight

Planck’s principle”: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

This evening twilight is ensuring that the dawn of this new HEP era is, in fact, here.

This article can be viewed via https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/dawn-of-the-new-hep-era.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

August 2, 2021

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Is there an absolute maximum temperature?

{Is there an absolute maximum temperature?}

This was a question at Quora, and I gave an answer (see, https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-maximum-temperature-in-the-universe-that-cannot-be-exceeded-similar-to-the-maximum-speed-of-an-object-being-the-speed-of-light/answer/Armando-Jos%C3%A9-Molina?comment_id=213973583&comment_type=2 ).

The flowering is that answer.

{The answer is a big YES.

Temperature is the measure of THERMO energy per unit space (such as 1 cube meter or one millionth of 1 cube meter); that is, t-energy/cube (Te/c in short).

To increase the Te/c is by packing more energy into it with whatever means.

Yet, Te is a type of mass (can become mass).

When the (Te + X)/c reach a critical point, it [the c (the space)] sinks into a black hole (the temperature ~ 0 Kelvin).

The above process is demonstrated by every Supernova.

Different Supernova can reach a different Te (max., a finite number) but the end is about 0 Kelvin.

That is, the higher temperature than Te (max.) is 0 Kelvin.

So, {(Te + X)/c = black hole critical energy (BHCE)}; Te, the thermal energy in c (a unit space) and X is the mass energy in c.

When X = 0, Te (max) = BHCE

The Big Bang temperature (BBTe) = BBTe (average) +/- de (a very small fluctuation).

BBTe (average) < BHCE, a finite number, that is, the maximum temperature.

There are three pathways for this BBte (temperature) to go:

One, when BBTe (average) + de > BHCE, it sinks into a black hole, 0 Kalvin.

Two, when BBTe (average) = (Te + Xi)/c while Xi > 0, Some massive particles are created, and Te is smaller than BBTe (average)

When the space increase in time, BBTe (ti) = {(Te + Xi)/ci, ci > c} < BBTe (average).}

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 27, 2020

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

The proof of the abc conjecture

zeta 2

6th-Natures–Manifesto

primeProof

Linguistics—theTrilogy

Chinese_grammar

Final Toe Summary

Dawn of the new HEP era

3rd-PreBabel — The Universal

Physics-Alpha-Lie

TOE-in-God

Yijing only2nd-PreBabel — The Universal

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

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

Or

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

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2014/02/ghost-rascal-conjecture-and-ultimate.html

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, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html }.

Some other readings: PreBabel – the universal and perfect language 2nd-PreBabel — The Universal

Yijing Yijing only

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 10, 2019

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Only a fool will do it …

5th-Natures–Manifesto

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 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-large-hadron-collider.html .

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 https://twitter.com/Tienzen/status/1070773333052940288

eggcarton763

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 http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/why-larger-particle-collider-is-not.html?showComment=1549545555732#c3900326954831152945

More details about this debate, see her blog post: {Particle physicists surprised to find I am not their cheer-leader (February 02, 2019, http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/02/particle-physicists-surprised-to-find-i.html )}.

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 https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/yau ) 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)}.

eggcarton773

This book was reviewed by:

By Peter Woit (Not Even Wrong), see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8114

And, by https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3140 (01 April 2016)

Two, Strings 2016 was held in Beijing in August 2016 to promote the Super China Collider (SPPC, 100 Tev.), see http://cmsablog.fas.harvard.edu/2016/08/strings-2016-conference-at-tsinghua-university-in-beijing/

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).

Chinacollider02

eggcarton242

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 {https://thegreatcollider.com/2016/12/13/china-should-not-build-a-super-collider-now/ }.

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 (https://thegreatcollider.com/blog/ 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 https://twitter.com/Tienzen/status/860650702690852865 .

yang06

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 https://twitter.com/Tienzen/status/864348431338184706

eggcarton477

More details are available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/china-super-collider-part-three-a-misled-hype-or-dishonesty/

For the pdf of the four articles, see https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/china-super-collider-analysis.pdf

For the Chinese version of the articles, see https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/china-super-collider-debate-2.pdf

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.

yang03

It is now available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/

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 https://twitter.com/Tienzen/status/1040012008819580929

yang08

For this new FCC debate, here is my tweet, see https://twitter.com/Tienzen/status/1090481484991946752  (on January 29, 2019)

eggcarton774

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 ( https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4122#comment-1803928 ). This is also reported by Peter Woit (a very prominent HEP physicist), see graph.

zzz001

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.

zzz002

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

eggcarton517

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.

zzz003

Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler and his group are still looking for new particles beyond SM (see  https://profmattstrassler.com/2019/02/19/a-broad-search-for-fast-hidden-particles/ ). 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 https://physicsworld.com/a/disappointment-as-japan-fails-to-commit-to-hosting-the-international-linear-collider/

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 https://physicsworld.com/a/preparing-for-a-post-lhc-future/ ). Also, see my tweet below.

Now, Gianotti fails on this ILC issue.

End note}

See the following tweets:

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 28, 2018

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html .

 

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

eggcarton632

 

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.

eggcarton630

 

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.

eggcarton629

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 1, 2017

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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 https://www.quantamagazine.org/edward-witten-ponders-the-nature-of-reality-20171128/ .

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.).

eggcarton242

Figure 1

 

Chinacollider02

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 https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theorys-strange-second-life-20160915/ } 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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/china-super-collider-part-three-a-misled-hype-or-dishonesty/ .

eggcarton477

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX2R8-nJhLQ 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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/m-theory-toe-if-and-only-if-it-adds-two.html }, 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.

eggcarton567

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.

eggcarton567a

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.

eggcarton388

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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/the-angel-and-demons-in-the-100-years-of-physics-nightmare/ .

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”.

eggcarton592

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.

Some other readings:

Nature’s Manifesto, 4th edition: 4th-Natures–Manifesto

Political Science: Political-Science

Western Democracy: West-Democracy

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 25, 2017

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Heavenly Father and his artistic baby

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

eggcarton388

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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/quantum-gravity-from-here-to-eternity/ ).

eggcarton37

Figure 2

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

eggcarton313

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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html . 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

 

eggcarton590

Figure 9

 

eggcarton582

Figure 10

 

eggcarton572a

Figure 11

 

Locking the measuring rulers with intrinsic angles:

eggcarton584

Figure 12

 

Figure 13

 

Energy/mass distribution:

Figure 14

 

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

eggcarton466

Figure 15

 

eggcarton467

Figure 16

 

Producing a vacuum boson.

eggcarton570b

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).

eggcarton581

Figure 21

 

Five, WIMP is ruled out in 2017, see http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles-1.22970

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

Seven, Big Bang matter/anti-matter annihilation is ruled out in 2017, see https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude .

Eight, the Weinberg angle is now measured precisely = 28.75 degrees, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05288 .

Nine, the dark flow (W = 9%) was discovered in 2016 by Adam Riess, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ .

eggcarton473

Figure 22

 

eggcarton502

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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/the-angel-and-demons-in-the-100-years-of-physics-nightmare/ }.

 

Fortunately, the ‘Cellular Automaton Quantum Mechanics’ is now casting out the ‘Copenhagen demon’, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/the-mickey-mouse-principle/ .

eggcarton561d

Figure 24

 

eggcarton561

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.

eggcarton515

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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/ .

 

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 https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/the-angel-and-demons-in-the-100-years-of-physics-nightmare/ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 16, 2017

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05288 .

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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html or page 36 of ‘Super Unified Theory”.

 eggcarton584

In fact, the Weinberg angle (θW ) 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 (θW ))

 

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

All Δ θn are mixing angles.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 12, 2017

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

2 Comments

The Angel and demons in the 100 years of physics nightmare

Natural is moving nicely minute by minute for the past 14 billion years and is playing its predetermined dance to its predetermined destiny with grace and joy.

 

On the contrary, the human mainstream physics is now in a hellfire nightmare after the discovery of a new boson in 2012. Is it suddenly falling into this hellfire nightmare unexpectedly? Or, were many hellfire demons already plagued the mainstream physics since the beginning 100 years ago? Logically, the latter must be the case. That is, the cause for the nightmare today can be traced out from its history.

The brief history

One, in (1925 – 1927), Copenhagen doctrine DECLARED that ‘quantum uncertainty’ is an intrinsic attribute of nature, and it cannot be removed by improvement of measurement in principle, and this led to the ‘measurement mystery’.

Soon, Schrödinger came up a Cat-riddle, and it CREATED the ‘superposition mystery’, the omnipresent of the ‘Quantum God’.

 

Two, in early 1954, a general gauge symmetry theory was developed by Chen Ning Yang and Robert Mills. Then, in the first part of the 1960s, Murray Gell-Mann discovered the “Eightfold Way representation” from the experimental data. The Yang-Mills theory is a mathematics beautiful tool to describe some symmetries while the ‘Eightfold way’ is obviously encompassing some beautiful symmetry. However, the Yang–Mills field must be massless in order to maintain gauge invariance.

eggcarton580

Three, in order for the Yang-Mills gauge to make contact with the real world (the Eightfold Way), it must be spontaneously broken. In 1964, Higgs and et al came up a ‘tar-lake like field’ (the Higgs mechanism) to break the SU gauge spontaneously.

 

Four, in 1967, Steven Weinberg and others combined an SU (2) gauge (a special Yang-Mills gauge) and the Higgs mechanism to construct the EWT (Electroweak Theory). And, this EWT works beautifully for a two quark model (with up and down quarks).

 

Five, in the November Revolution of 1974, Samuel Ting discovered Charm quark via the J/ψ meson; the original two quark model was thus expanded as a four-quark model.

 

Six, in 1973, Maskawa and Kobayashi introduced the “CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction”. Together with the idea of Cabibbo angle (θc), introduced by Nicola Cabibbo in 1963, the ‘Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa matrix’ was constructed. As this CKM matrix demands AT LEAST ‘3 generations of quarks’, a six-quark model was constructed, the SM (Standard Model). The SM further predicts the weak-current (Ws) and neutral current (Z). tau (τ) lepton was discovered in 1975.

 

Seven, in 1983, the Ws was discovered, and Z soon after. Then, top quark was finally discovered in 1995.

 

At this point, the SM is basically confirmed. However, the Higgs mechanism also predicted a field boson. As the Higgs mechanism is the KEY cornerstone for SM, it (the SM) will not be complete if the Higgs field boson is not discovered.

 

The brief history of BSMs

With the great success of SM, a few BSMs (beyond standard model) quickly emerged.

 

One, the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), with a higher symmetry; {SU (5), SU (3) x SU (2) x U (1); at about 10^16 Gev energy scale}. This work was mainly done by Glashow in 1974. The key prediction of GUT is the proton decay. From the early 1980s, a major effort was launched to detect the proton decay. But, the proton decay’s half-life is now firmly set as over 10 ^ 33 years, much longer than the lifetime of this universe, To date, all attempts to observe new phenomena predicted by GUTs (like proton decay or the existence of magnetic monopoles) have failed. With these results, Glashow was basically going into hibernation, while hoping that ‘sterile neutrino’ come to his rescue.

 

Two, the Preon model (done by Abdus Salam) which was expanded as Rishons model (mainly done by Haim Harari). It has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means “unformed” in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means “void” in Hebrew Genesis)}.

Rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable. So, it was almost abandoned on day one.

 

Three, the M-string theory began as a bosonic string theory. In order to produce fermions, it must incorporate the idea of SUSY. That is, M-string theory and SUSY must be Dicephalic parapagus twins.

eggcarton320a

In the 1960s–1970s, Vera Rubin and Kent Ford had confirmed the existence of dark mass (not dark matter). SUSY was claimed as the best candidate to provide this dark mass. Thus, M-string theory dominates the BSM for the past 40 years.

 

The awakening of the demons

In 2012, a Higgs boson-like particle was discovered, with a measured mass = 125.26 Gev which is trillions and trillions smaller than the expected value.

eggcarton430

The only way out of this predicament is by having a hidden massive partner to cancel (balance) out its huge mass. This massive partner can be a SUSY particle or a twin-Higgs. By March 2017, no twin-Higgs nor any SUSY were discovered under two (2) Tev range. Even if SUSY were existing in a higher energy sphere, it (SUSY) is no longer a solution for this Higgs-naturalness issue.

 

Furthermore, the b/b-bar should account for over 60% decaying channel for Higgs boson. But by now (November 2017), this channel is still not confirmed. The best number was 4.5 sigma from a report a year ago, which is not enough to make a confirmation. Most importantly, even if the channel were confirmed, it cannot meet this 60% mark.

eggcarton311a

Thus, many physicists now are open the possibility that this 2012-boson might not be the Higgs boson per se.

eggcarton512

Yet, this Higgs demon does not stop its dance with the above issues.

The neutrino’s mass by definition cannot be accounted by Higgs mechanism, as a tar-lake like field to slow down the massless particle to gain an apparent mass, as neutrinos do not slow down in the Higgs field at all. Thus, neutrinos must be Majorana fermions.

 

Yet, the Majorana angel has never been observed.

One, by definition, Majorana particle must be its own antiparticle. But, many data now show that neutrino is different from its antiparticle.

Two, Majorana neutrino should induce the ‘neutrinoless double beta decay’, but its half-life is now set as over 10 ^ 25 years, much longer than the lifetime of this universe.

Three, by definition again, Majorana particle’s mass must come from ‘Sea-saw’ mechanism, that is, balanced by a massive partner, such as sterile neutrino or else (SUSY or whatnot). But, ‘sterile neutrino’ is now almost completely ruled out by many data (IceCube, etc.)

Four, the most recent analysis of the ‘Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ fits well if the neutrino is a Dirac fermion (without a massive partner). If the neutrino is viewed as Majorana particle (with a hidden massive partner), ‘the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis’ can no longer fit the observation data.

 

Without a Majorana neutrino, the Higgs mechanism is DEAD. With a dead Higgs mechanism, SM is then fundamentally wrong as a correct model, although it is an effective theory.

 

This Higgs demon is now killing the SM, pushing the mainstream physics into the hellfire dungeon.

 

Of course, Weinberg and many prominent physicists still hope a rescue from one of the BSMs, especially from the M-string theory. But, SUSY (a major component of M-string) is now totally ruled out as an EFFECTIVE rescue. And, many most prominent String-theorists are now abandoning the M-string theory, see Steven Weinberg video presentation for ‘Int’l Centre for Theoretical Physics’ on Oct 17, 2017, at 1:32 (one hour and 32 minutes mark. The video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX2R8-nJhLQ . A brief quote for his saying is available at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9657

eggcarton569

The rescuing angels

While the theoretical physics is falling into the hellfire dungeon step by step, the experimental physics angels are descending on Earth with sincerity and kindness.

One, dark mass (not dark matter) was firmly confirmed by 1970s.

Two, acceleration of the expansion of the universe was discovered in 1997.

Three, a good estimation of CC (Cosmology Constant) ~ 3×10−122 was reached in the 2000s.

Four, a new boson with 125.26 Gev mass was discovered in 2012.

Five, Planck CMB data (2013 and 2015) provided the followings:

(dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

Neff = 3.04 +/- …

Hubble Constant: H0 (early universe) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1 (by Using ΛCDM with Neff = 3)

These were further supported by ‘Dark Energy Survey”.

eggcarton581

Six, the Local Value of the Hubble Constant: H0 (now, later universe) = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1. The difference between this measurement and the Planck CMB data show a dark flow rate, w = 9%.

Seven, the LIGO twin-neutron stars coalescing ruled out most of the MOND models in October 2017.

Eight, there is no difference between matter and its antimatter in addition to being having different electric charges.

 

The failed Inter-Universes Escape

Under a total siege by the data angels, the Higgs mechanism led army planed an ‘Inter-Universes Escape’. Its war plan was very simple, with two tactics.

One, blind its own eyes and yelling super loud: {We are the only game in town.} For this, they organized a Munich conference: {Why Trust a Theory? Reconsidering Scientific Methodology in Light of Modern Physics, on 7-9 December 2015, see http://www.whytrustatheory2015.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/index.html }.

 

Two, INVENTING almost unlimited ghost universes by using the dominant cosmology theory, the ‘inflation cosmology’.

“Inflation” was a reverse-engineering work for resolving some cosmology observations, such as the flatness, horizon and homogeneous cosmologic facts. As a reverse-engineering, it (inflation) of course fits almost all the old data and many NEW observations. But, almost all reverse-engineering are only constrained by the THEN observed data while without any ‘guiding principle’.

That is, the ‘initial condition’ of the ‘inflation’ cannot be specified or determined. This guidance-less fact allows unlimited ‘inflation models’ to be invented. Of course, it leads to ‘eternal inflation’, having unlimited bubble-universes.

At the same time, the M-string theory also reached its final destination, the ‘String Landscape’, having also unlimited string vacua, again for unlimited bubble-universes (the Multiverse). That is,

“Eternal inflation” = ‘string landscape’ = multiverse

Now, there is a CONVERGENCE coming from two independent pathways, and this could be a great justification for its validity.

 

With the superweapon of Multiverse, ‘the Higgs mechanism led army’ is no longer besieged by the angel of facts. Those facts (nature constants, etc.) of this universe is just a random happenstance, and even Nature does not know how to calculate them.

 

The only way to kill this Multiverse escape is by showing:

One, ALL the angel facts of THIS universe can be calculated.

Two, ALL the angel facts of THIS universe is bubble-independent, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html .

 

 

 

More discussions on M-string theory is available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/the-era-of-hope-or-total-bullcrap/ .

 

The Arch-Demons

In addition to rule out the Multiverse nonsense, there are some other major issues:

One, baryongenesis

Two, the dark energy/dark mass

Three, the gravity/spacetime

Four, is ‘Quantum-ness’ fundamental? (Including its measurement and superposition issues).

 

In G-theory, the ‘quantum-ness’ is not fundamental but emerges from the dark energy, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html .

eggcarton466

 

eggcarton467

 

Furthermore, the G-theory universe is all about ‘computation’, that is, there must be a computing device in the laws of physics. And, of course, there is. In G-theory, both proton and neutron are the base of Turing computer, see http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm .

 

These two points show that the ‘quantum-ness’ is not about ‘uncertainty’ but is all about the ‘Cosmo-certainty’, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/the-certainty-principle/ . That is, the Copenhagen doctrine is, in fact, one of the Arch-Demon.

 

In addition to ‘computation’, THIS (not other-verse) universe is all about energy and mass. So, the Structure-Function of THIS universe can be defined as:

S (universe) = S (energy, mass)

= S (dark energy, dark mass, visible relativistic mass/energy)

As both Newtonian and GR are related to the structure of this universe, Gravity can be defined by the S-function, as:

Gravity = G (S) = G (dark energy, dark mass, visible mass)

= G (dark energy) @ G (mass)

For G (mass), it has only one parameter, mass. This FACT shows that every ‘mass’ must interact with ALL other masses in THIS universe. That is, the Simultaneity Function can be defined by G (mass), that is,

G (mass) = Si (mass); G (mass) is a simultaneity function.

This Si function can be renormalized only if the gravity interaction transmits instantaneously. In fact, if the gravity of the Sun reaches Earth with light speed, it will not fit the reality. The Sun/Earth gravitational interaction is precisely described with Newtonian gravity law, which encompasses instantaneity.

 

So, for Sun/Earth gravity at least (if not for other cases), G (mass) should be the function of both {simultaneity and instantaneity}. Thus, we can define:

G (Sun/Earth) = G (mass, simultaneity, instantaneity)

 

For Newtonian gravity, the ‘masses’ are wrapped into two points, the ‘center of mass’ while the simultaneity and instantaneity are the innate part of the equation.

 

For GR, the simultaneity and instantaneity are wrapped into the ‘spacetime sheet’. When mass interacts with the GR spacetime sheet, it transmits both simultaneously and instantaneously.

 

This kind of wrapping makes both gravity theories automatically incomplete, as effective theories at best. Now, Newtonian gravity is now viewed as wrong in terms of Occam’s razor, and thus it does the modern physics no harm. On the other hand, GR is still viewed as the Gospel of gravity, and it becomes the greatest hindrance to getting a correct gravity theory.

 

If GR did provide us some insights before, it is a long time ago past tense. The recent promotion of the greatness of the LIGO discovery will further drag us down the hellfire dungeon. LIGO indeed might provide some additional data to confirm what we already know, but it cannot rescue GR’s fate as a total trash. The following is just a short list of GR’s shortcomings.

One, GR plays zero roles in the construction of quark/lepton.

Two, GR plays zero roles in calculating the nature constants, such as Alpha or Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, etc.

Three, GR fails to account for dark mass and dark energy, unable to derive the Planck CMB data.

(dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

Neff = 3.04 +/- …

Hubble Constant: H0 (early universe) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1 (by Using ΛCDM with Neff = 3)

Four, GR provides no hint of any kind for the BaryonGenesis, which is definitely a cosmology issue, and this alone should give GR the death sentence.

Five, the last but not the least, GR is not compatible with QM (quantum mechanics).

More details on this, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/yes-gr-is-very-successful-as-gravitational-lens-ff65efb63889 .

 

Yes, GR is, of course, a very EFFECTIVE gravity theory (as a great reverse-engineering work) but is definitely a wrong one for the correct theory. The GR wrapping which hides the essences of gravity (simultaneity and instantaneity) renders it unsalvageable and unamendable. That is, it is, in fact, the greatest hindrance to getting a correct gravity theory. So, GR is the other Arch-Demon for modern physics.

 

Here is the ArchAngel

All the calculations for those angel facts (of section D) are done in G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics).

Superficially, Prequark model is similar to the Preon (Rishons) model, but there are at least four major differences between them.

One, the Rishons model has sub-quarks (T, V): {T (Tohu which means “unformed” in Hebrew Genesis)  and V ( Vohu which means “void” in Hebrew Genesis)}. But, Harari did not know what T is (just being unformed). On the other hand, the A (Angultron) is an innate angle, a base to calculate Weinberg angle and Alpha, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html .

 

Two, the choosing of (T, V) as the bottom in the Rishons model was ad hoc, a result of reverse-engineering. On the contrary, there is a very strong theoretical reason for where the BOTTOM is in G-theory.

In G-theory, the universe is ALL about computation, computable or non-computable. For computable, there is a TWO-code theorem. For non-computable, there are 4-color and 7-color theorems.

That is, the BOTTOM must be with two-codes. Any lower level under the two-code will become TAUTOLOGY, just repeating itself.

Anything more than two codes (such as 6 quarks + 6 leptons) cannot be the BOTTOM.

 

Three, rishons (T or V) carry hypercolor to reproduce the quark color, but this set up renders the model non-renormalizable, quickly going into a big mess. So, it was abandoned almost on day one. On the other hand, prequarks (V or A) carry no color, and the quark color arises from the “prequark SEATs”. In short, Rishons model cannot work out a {neutron decay process} different from the SM process.

 

eggcarton570b

eggcarton582

This is one of the key differences between prequark and (Rishons and SM).

 

Four, Preon/Rishons model does not have Gene-colors which are the key drivers for the neutrino oscillations.

eggcarton572a

More details on those differences, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/technicolor-simply-wrong.html .

 

In addition to being the theory to describe particles, G-theory also resolves ALL cosmologic issues which consist of only three:

One, the initial condition of THIS universe

Two, the final fate of THIS universe

Three, the BaryonGenesis mystery

 

BaryonGenesis determines the STRUCTURE of THIS universe, that is,

G (S) = G (dark energy, dark mass, visible mass)

= G (dark energy) @ G (mass)

So, BaryonGenesis must be the function of G (S), which is described as:

(dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82)

The calculation of this Planck CMB date in G-theory uses the ‘mass-LAND-charge’, that is, all 48 fermions (24 matter and 24 antimatter) carry the same mass-land-charge while their apparent masses are different. And, MASS-pie of THIS universe is evenly divided among those 48 fermions. That is, the antimatter does in fact not disappear (not be annihilated) while it is invisible. See the calculation below. More details, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/science-is-not-some-eye-catching-headlines/ .

This BaryonGenesis of G-theory rules out the entire sterile dark sector (WIMPs, SUSY, sterile neutrino, axion, MOND, etc.) completely.

On November 8, 2017, Nature (Magazine) announced the death of WIMP, see http://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles-1.22970 .

eggcarton583

This BaryonGenesis calculation must also link to the issues of the {initial condition and the final fate}. And indeed, it does.

BaryonGenesis, in fact, has two issues.

One, where is the antimatter in THIS universe?

Two, why is THIS universe dominated by matter while not by antimatter?

 

The ‘One’ was answered with the above calculation.

The ‘Two’ can only be answered by ‘Cyclic Multiverse’.

However, for THIS universe goes into a ‘big crunch’ state, the omega (Ω) must be larger than 1, while it is currently smaller than 1. That is, there must be a mechanism to move (evolve) Ω from less than 1 to bigger than 1.

Again, only G-theory has such a mechanism, and it is not a separately invented but is a part of BaryonGenesis calculation, the ‘Dark Flow, W’.

This dark flow (W) prediction of the G-theory was confirmed in 2016, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ .

eggcarton502

G-theory, of course, accounts for the ‘initial condition’, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ .

 

Army of the Archangel

Weinberg has been complaining about the Arch-Demon (Copenhagen doctrine) many times but without making any new proposal, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/01/welcome-to-camp-of-truth-nobel-laureate.html .

 

On the other hand, ‘t Hooft (Nobel Laureate) did embrace the G-theory from the point of Cellular Automaton Quantum-ness, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/08/quantum-behavior-vs-cellular-automaton.html . In 2016, he even published a book on it.

eggcarton579

More details, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/10/21/the-mickey-mouse-principle/ .

 

Sabine Hossenfelder just issued a death sentence for Naturalness (see http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/naturalness-is-dead-long-live.html ).

eggcarton575

 

The death of Naturalness is a precursor to the death of Higgs Mechanism.

eggcarton576

 

Steven Weinberg just revealed the death of M-string theory in his October 2017 video lecture.

eggcarton577

 

Paul J. Steinhardt announced the death of ‘inflation cosmology’ in 2016.

eggcarton578

 

Conclusion

The current hellfire nightmare of the mainstream physics did not start in 2012 but is the results of three demons {Copenhagen doctrine, GR and the Higgs mechanism}, began in 100 years ago. Fortunately, many angel facts (experimental data) have revealed their demon-faces. Finally, the ArchAngel (the G-theory) has come to the rescue. With the growing army of ArchAngel, the human physics’ salvation is now secured.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 26, 2017

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

Science is not some eye catching headlines

Cosmos Magazine reported on 23 October 2017: {Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude (see https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude )}.

This title is truly eye-catching, and it indeed goes viral in the public media, sees also https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/10/26/149201/cern-scientists-conclude-that-the-universe-should-not-exist .

Under this eye-catching hype, there is a very good and solid science, finding out that there is essentially no difference between proton and its antiparticle (see https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/research-landscape/news/2017/10/2017-10-19-riddle-of-matter-remains-unsolved–proton-and-antiproton-share-fundamental-properties.html ,

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24048.html and,

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/scientists-make-rare-achievement-in-study-of-antimatter ).

 

Instead of making such an eye-catching hype, science should do some soul searching: {What has gone wrong?}

A) What went wrong?

The obvious WRONG conclusion is based on two speculations.
One, the matter (especially proton) and antimatter (antiproton) were created equal (amount) at the Big Bang.

Two, the FACT of today that THIS universe is dominated by matter is because that the antimatter has almost ALL been annihilated.

These two speculations lead to a new speculated conclusion: there must be a process which annihilates antimatter while preserving the matter.

Then, this speculated conclusion lead to the fourth speculation: there must be some differences between matter and anti-matter in addition to its definition, having opposite electric charge.

Yet, the recent data shows that there is virtually NO difference between the two.

 

B) Righting the wrong

Instead of making an eye-catching joke, science must conclude that one (at least) of the two original speculations must be wrong.

In G-theory, matter and anti-matter are not mirroring counter partners but are woven together by one string and one anti-string. That is, the anti-matter is the necessary partner co-exist with the matter simultaneously, and there is no anti-matter-annihilation massacre right after the Big Bang.

eggcarton567

 

eggcarton567a

See {BaryonGenesis, the master-key of all mysteries; http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html }

 

C) The supporting facts

This G-theory is supported by two facts:

One, as the anti-matter is a co-existing partner of matter, the dark mass calculation must account the anti-matter together with the matter in the equation, and that calculation fits the Planck data perfectly.

 

Two, there are zillions anti-matter (anti-quarks) inside of proton or neutron; the anti-matter does not disappear from this matter-dominated universe.

eggcarton568

 

D) Additional issues

Yet, the two facts above cannot escape from the fact that matter (such as proton, neutron, and electron) is after all DIFFERENT from its anti-partners (anti-proton, anti-neutron, and positon). That is, why is THIS universe dominated by the matter, not anti-matter?

This last question was addressed in G-theory long ago in terms of “Cyclic multiverse”.

That is, the matter universe and anti-matter universe appear alternately in a cyclic multiverse.

 

Unfortunately, the “Inflation-paradigm” has misled the entire world for more than 40 years. Fortunately, ‘inflation’ is now killed (see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/ ).

 

However, the ‘cyclic multiverse’ model of Paul J. Steinhardt, et al, did not address two important issues.

One, why is THIS universe dominated by the matter, not anti-matter?

Two, what is the detailed mechanism for pushing Ω over 1 from its current value of less than 1?

 

Again, G-theory provides the answer.

 

E) The conclusion

Regardless of the G-theory, physics mainstream community should reexamine its two original speculations. Any eye-catching headline will not advance science a single bit.