Paul Steinhardt’s remorse, Popperianism and Beauty-Contest

Paul Steinhardt is one of the major founder/inventor of ‘multiverse/eternal inflation scenario’. After the BICEP2 fiasco, he becomes remorseful not only on his early mistakes but is about the dishonesty about many his colleagues.

“The BICEP2 fiasco, where multiverse proponents first claimed a “smoking gun” vindication from B-modes, then went on to claim that no B-modes was just as good for their theory once they disappeared. …

Steinhardt was furious. He thought it was flip-flopping. He began to wonder if any data would disturb the serene certainty of inflationary theorists. … How can it be that not seeing gravitational waves is fine, and then seeing them is a smoking gun, and then not seeing them is fine again?’ …

The theory’s weaknesses can be explained away with the same glib shrug that accompanies the retort: ‘God just made it that way.’ …

‘Andre Linde has become associated with eternal inflation because he thinks the multiverse is a good idea,’ he told me. ‘But I invented it, too, and I think it’s a horrible idea. It’s an emperor’s new clothes story. Except in that story, it’s a child who points out that the Emperor has no clothes. In this case, it’s the tailors themselves telling us that the theory is not testable. It’s Guth and Linde.’”  (Quote from ).

Steinhardt’s remorse has two parts.

One, it is about the dishonesty of some prominent physicists who occupy the positions with the power of controlling the researching funding, with the power of manipulating the news media and with the power of silencing any dissenting voices. I will discuss this dishonesty issue in a new post.

Two, it is about the physics epistemology, the falsifiability/demarcation issue. Ever since the rising of Popperianism (by Karl Raimund Popper), the demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific is defined by a concept of falsifiability: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.

“Truth” by definition (semantics) cannot be falsified. Of course, most of theories are just approximations to truths, and thus they can be falsified. So, Popper’s falsifiable concept could be acceptable if the ‘falsifiable’ is defined correctly. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Popper’s falsifiability is totally defined by and with ‘empirical data’ which is forever fallible themselves. In an easy case or superficial (not deeply rooted nature mystery) issue, Popperianism works fine and did fine for the past four centuries. However, its two deadly birth defects are now showing up clearly.

First, some verified (with Popperianism) theories are not true. I will discuss this later.

Second, now theory develops into a FAMILY theories. When one member of the family is killed, the survival members will quickly mutate to accommodate the killing data, such as M-string theory, SUSY, multiverse and the inflation scenarios. That is, the Popperianism is now totally USELESS.

In fact, the falsifiability is now viewed as silly by Steven Weinberg (in his John Horgan interview on May 1, 2015); he said: “First of all, this business of falsifiability is a silly criterion imposed on physical science by Karl Popper, who was looking for some way of discrediting Marxism and psychoanalysis.”

Of course, falsifiability is not only wrong but is totally stupid. The Truth can never be falsified. I have argued on this long time ago. The most recent comments are  ,

and .

This falsifiability/verification war was escalated by a recent comment of Dr. Amanda Peet in her great lecture on May 6, 2015 (video available online). I have made some comments on it at: , .

While the Truth can never be falsified, it can always be verified. On the other hand, anything non-true can always be falsified, although not via Popperianism.

Every theory is falsified when it fails on its MISSION, fails on its foundation (base) or fails to be any useful. So,

One, the mission of M-string theory is ‘string-unification’ {describing SM (Standard Model) particle zoo with a set of string-lexicons}. Regardless of how many data-success M-theory has (none right now), it is a failed theory if it does not accomplish its mission.

Two, multiverse’s foundation is that there are zillion sets of nature constants which govern zillion different bubble-universes, and these zillion sets of nature constants arose randomly. That is, the nature constants of THIS universe are just the result of the randomness and cannot (must not) be derived (calculated). Thus, if we can show the way of how the nature constants of THIS universe are derived (see ), the foundation of the multiverse becomes nonsense.

Yes, every non-true theory can always be falsified although not via Popperianism, and I have showed two examples [M-theory and multiverse] above. Yet, how can a ‘Truth’ be VERIFied? If we cannot verify a truth, we are still in limbo. Fortunately, truth can always be verified with a new epistemology {the Beauty-Contest}.

This Beauty-Contest Epistemology (BCE) is totally different from the theory-epistemology {based on hypothesis/predictions}. BCE has neither hypotheses nor predictions. BCE is about a beauty pageant of two groups: contestants from a DESIGNed universe with contestants from the Nature universe.

A designed universe is not a theory or a set of theories but is constructed as a ‘Formal System’ with a set axioms (not hypotheses). And, this design is totally arbitrary, by arbitrarily choosing some axioms. If they don’t work out, we simply find a new set of axioms. This designed universe does not produce any predictions but DEVELOP a set SENTENCEs (laws and theorems).

Then this designed universe will enter into a beauty contest with the discovered universe, beginning with the derived nature constants, laws vs the discovered set.

Of course, wthout solid examples, the beauty-contest will just be talking talks. I will now show some solid examples about the beauty pageant with rounds of contest and with matching contestants.

Dp: discovered physics, representing the Nature’s design

Mdu: My designed universe, by choosing a single SCHEME. Yet, this scheme will not be discussed here. Only contestants will be presented.

Wp1: winning point one

Round 1: some nature constants

Cabibbo angle (Dp) = 13.04 degrees

θc (Mdu) = 13.5211574853

Weinberg angle (Dp) = 28 to 30 degrees

θW (Mdu) = 28.75 degrees

Beta (1/Alpha) (Dp) = 137.0359 …

Beta (Mdu), with Alpha equation = 137.0359 …

Wp1: In Dp, these three are free parameters, cannot be derived. Yet, In Mdu, they are derived values.

Wp2: in Dp, they are unrelated. In Mdu, they are linked in a chain of derivations. (See , and ).

Wp3: Dp puts no constrain on Multiverse. Mdu refutes Multiverse by yanking out its objective (claiming that those constants cannot be derived).

Round 2: SM quarks and leptons

Dp: quarks and leptons are discovered particles.

Mdu: quarks and leptons are described with a LANGUAGE (see ).

Wp1: Dp does not provide a framework to calculate how many generation of quarks there are. The 4th generation quarks and the sterile neutrino are speculated. But, the grammar of the Mdu language allows only three generations (no more, nor less). The latest CMB data shows that the Neff = 3.04 +/- … .

Wp2: Dp does not prohibit SUSY. But, the EDM ruled out any SUSY below 30 Tev., the LHCb rules it out below 100 Tev. Again, the grammar of the Mdu language does not allow any SUSY. Furthermore, SUSY plays no role in the nature constant calculations.

Wp3: although the human intelligence is an empirical fact, Dp cannot provide any hint for its emergence. In Mdu, a Turing computer is embedded in both proton and neutron (see ), which becomes the BASE for the rising of intelligence.

Wp4: in Mdu, the fermions (quarks and leptons) are iceberg type composite particle (see note 1). With the similarity transformation, the Cosmo (the entire universe) is also an iceberg type composite system. So, the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82) can be calculated, see .

Round 3: UP {delta P x delta S >= ħ}

Dp: this is an empirical fact, cannot be derived.

Mdu: the governing force F (Cosmo) = ħ/(delta S x delta T), S (space), T (time). That is, UP is derived from this F (Cosmo).

Wp1: UP is derived in Mdu.

Wp2: UP (Dp) does not give any hint about dark energy. In Mdu, the dark energy is the consequence of this F (Cosmo), see .

Are these Wps predictions? No. They are just the beauties of the language.

Can this language be falsified? No. Falsifiability is PRACTICALLY useless in this beauty-contest.

The winner of the above beauty pageant must have two points.

One, all contestants must be the expressions (consequences) of a single axiomatic system (designed universe).

Two, they are the language (not predictions) of the designed universe, and no language can be falsified, but its usefulness (winning or losing in a beauty-pageant) can be judged.

Note 1: For a sub particles composite, the composed particle can be pumped to an excited state. Yet, for an iceberg type composite system, the constituents (big chunk of ice, large ocean of water and huge sky) are zillion times more massive than the composed system (the visible iceberg). An iceberg composite might not be able to be pumped to an excited state. The name sake of Pre-quark is the Pre- (not sub-), before quark but not necessary smaller, (see ). Thus, a failure of seeing an excited quark does not falsify the Prequark. The Pre- (not sub-) quark is not a ‘particle’ by all means. Vacutron is just an alphabet for quantum-vacuum. Angultron is just an ‘orientation (as angle)’ in the quantum vacuum. Thus, they are way beyond the technology we have to probe them. But, with this beauty-contest, it has done the ‘string-unification’ while all others failed.

Some more details on this are available at: , and

There is another beauty pageant on the issues of ‘consciousness and intelligence’, and it is available at: .

Reference: more discussion on “Falsifiability” at: , , , , , , , , .

Note 2: Sean Carroll’s new article “Does Spacetime Emerge From Quantum Information? ( )” is using this BCE to support its value.

Note 3, added on July 25, 2015:

One, “SUSY is not only wrong but is totally stupid”, see and

Two, “Higgs mechanism is not only wrong but is totally stupid”, see

Three, “The Higgs boson NONSENSE: enough is enough”, see

Four, “The New York Times: an informative news media or totally blind”, see


8 thoughts on “Paul Steinhardt’s remorse, Popperianism and Beauty-Contest

  1. Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

    ‘Was the universe born spinning?’


    The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

    It’s not the Big Bang; it’s the Big Ongoing.

    Dark energy is dark mass continuously emitted into the Universal jet,

  2. Pingback: Deaths of two Gods | The Great Vindications
  3. Pingback: Creation of Life | The Great Vindications
  4. Pingback: Alice/Bob paradox = Sum {wrong (i)} | The Great Vindications
  5. Pingback: Can a new LHC bump rescue the {Higgs Nonsense}? | The Great Vindications
  6. Pingback: The Final Total TOE (theory of everything) | The Great Vindications
  7. Pingback: Mainstream physics: rescued from the Hellfire dungeon | The Great Vindications
  8. Pingback: The era of hope or total bullcrap | The Great Vindications

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s