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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For, i = {physicists}

**I: A brief history**

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

First, some facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One, a new kind of entropy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

**II: A detailed review**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

There are three different gravity theories.

One, Newtonian gravity, attractive force for mass.

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

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

** F = ħ/ (delta S x delta T)**

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

**III: Paradox no more!**

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

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

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

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

What is its internal pressure?

What is its own gravity?

I will make these more clear with two concepts.

One, {free particle}:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two, tidal force:

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

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

The gravity force for A and B are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two, ‘neutron’ star (NS)

Three, ‘black hole’ (BH)

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

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

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

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

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

Then, what is inside of the black hole?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**IV: Conclusion**

This information issue is addressed in two ways.

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

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

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

Note (added on June 10, 2016):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Note (added on August 29, 2016):**

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

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

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