Redemption of Nobel-Physics

Almost everyone expected that the physics-Nobel will and should go to LIGO.

Yet, {setting LIGO bullcrap} at backburner has redeemed Nobel-physics from its Higgs bullcrap.




{Note (added on July 11, 2017): this week CERN reported that the evidence (a signal of 3.6 sigma, not confirmation) of H -> bb channel was recorded after analyzing 50 fb-1 of data (the Run I and Run II of 2016). End Note.}

A 3.6 sigma signal from 50 fb-1 data is by no means a success for Higgs, and it is in fact a major problem for it. Furthermore, the life of Higgs mechanism is hinged on neutrino being a Majorana fermion, but the recent evidence has showed otherwise. Without a Majorana neutrino, Higgs mechanism is definitely wrong. Without confirming Higgs mechanism, the new boson is definitely not a Higgs.


In July, CERN finally admitted about the Higgs nonsense.



Yes, gravitational wave (GW) was verified indirectly long ago. But, GW definitely is not the media (way) for the gravity interaction. GW is at best an attribute of gravity.

Yes, LIGO detected two signals. But, it could well be the collision of two moving currents in the Earth’s liquid core which cannot be detected with the standard Seismometer.

Anyway, LIGO has said much (much, much, …) more than it actually knows.

When the first detection was announced, I had no way to know the nature of the signal, as it could well be a GW signal. But, LIGO’s explanation about two 30 M☉ mass black holes collision is definitely nonsense.

Now, the direction of the event is reported.

One, all telescopes (ground or space based, optical or otherwise) can search the area.

Two, as the black hole is much colder than the space ambient CMB temperature, that kind of event should give some signature in the CMB data.

Three, theorists can now exam the forming 30 M☉ mass TWIN-black holes mechanism.

Thus, I kept my silence at the first detection announcement.

When the second and perhaps the third detection were announced a few days ago (in June 2016), it is now a Bullcrap for the following reasons. Also see .

First, no one (not a single person in this world) knows the population density for the LIGO type twin black holes. Only after enough detections, we can then estimate that density. Only after knowing this density, a calculation can then be made to see whether this density can be produced with the known mechanism which produces the black holes via the supernova process (SP). The mechanism for the twin black holes production via SP is not well-understood.

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

One, if these are primordial black holes (not via SP), they must have some signatures in the CMB data, as they are much colder than the CMB ambient temperature. But, no such signature is found thus far.

Two, if a primordial black hole can have over 30 M☉ mass, then the entire ‘inflation’ idea will be in jeopardy, and this is contradiction to the ‘flatness’-observation data.

Three, we should have some production mechanisms about their productions first before making any big claim.

Third, 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 from the same GW, …


Fourth, if the population (via SP or primordial) of this kind of twin black holes is very high, it must play some very important roles in the ‘Dark Mass’ issue. But, right now, there is no sign of this from any other types of data (Planck CMB, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope survey, Dark energy survey, … etc.). Furthermore, this high density is in contradiction to the Planck CMB data CALCULATION (via the G-theory).


Furthermore, why is 3 M☉ mass in a very small region (less than 1 mile diameter) not becoming a new black hole?


For a science, verification from a different experiment is the minimum requirement for a science claim. The two detectors of LIGO consists of only one experiment. We need data from someone else.

Furthermore, we should also verify a claim with different experimental methods. When the event LOCATION can be identified, that region can then be investigated with other means (optical, X-ray, gravitational lensing, etc.).

Today, too many theoretical issues are not addressed, and there is not a single VERIFICATION from other experiments up to this point. LIGO has said much too much more than it actually knows.

For more issues about the black hole, see

In addition to the above simple points, the most important issue is that whether this twin-black-holes STORY can address some simple questions, such as:





Yes, GW (gravitational wave) is real, and it will be detected one day. It is very possible that LIGO will be the one to accomplish this. But, LIGO announcement this year (2016) is definitely a bullcrap. And, here is the bullcrap stamp for {LIGO 2016}.


By putting this {LIGO bullcraps} on the backburner, Nobel-physics has redeemed itself.

Note (added on December 22, 2016): On December 5, 2016, (Daniele Gaggero, Gianfranco Bertone, …) published an article {Searching for Primordial Black Holes in the radio and X-ray sky, }, saying: {we find that PBHs with M ~ 30M ☉, that could be responsible for the gravitational waves detected by LIGO, contribute less than 20% to the whole DM density. … Even more stringent constraints arise in principle from the analysis of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) … We show that under conservative assumptions on the accretion process, the possibility that O(10) M  primordial black holes can account for all of the dark matter in the Milky Way is excluded at 4σ by a comparison with the VLA radio catalog at 1.4 GHz, and at more than 5σ by a comparison with the NuSTAR X-ray catalog (10 − 40 keV).}

Comment from Gong: the above finding shows

One, BH (black hole) as a major player for the dark mass issue is ruled out. That is, the BH population density is not very high.

Two, the LIGO type BH has very small population density. That is, the LIGO Bullcrap (II) is vindicated.


Note: Observed fact: Dark mass cuddles around the visible matters. This is also the essence for the Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %) calculation.

{The different mass for the different landlord [fermion] is as different name tags for his mass-territory, a pimple on the mass-charge, so to speak. See }

When the Twin-BH merges become firecracker show, the bullcrap begins, as no such high density of Twin-BH systems is observed from any type of sky survey.

Note (added on October 21, 2016): Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler is excited about his idea of “hidden valleys physics”, see

I tweeted to CERN on this Higgs nonsense directly, and that tweet received hundreds retweets and likes. But, no apology from CERN yet thus far (on November 23, 2016).


I tweeted to LIGO on its nonsense directly, and that tweet received many retweets and likes. But, no apology from LIGO yet thus far (in November, 2016).


Note: Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler just (on January 24, 2017) confirmed that LIGO claim does not have any independent verification yet. He wrote: {And LIGO’s gravitational waves data is public; you can check it yourself, and moreover there will be plenty of opportunities for further verification as Advanced VIRGO comes on-line this year. See }.


Note (added on June 17, 2017): LIGO announcements must consist of two parts.

One, its detected signals are astrophysical origin.

Two, its interpretation of that signal must be in consistence with the known understanding of the current astrophysics.

I was personally unable to challenge the ‘one’, but it fails to get support from all other astrophysical tools (x-ray, gamma-ray, lensing data, etc.).

My main objection is about the ‘two’. The rate of LIGO’s detection is too high to be in consistence to the current data on the black-hole population-density. And, in G-theory of Planck CMB data calculation, the high black hole population density plays zero role in it.

On 13 Jun 2017, a group astrophysicists is now challenging the ‘one’; that is, LIGO’s detected signals might not have the astrophysical origin, see







The dawn of a new physics paradigm


In the past half a century (over 45 years), the theoretical physics paradigm is dominated by the String (M-) theory. Of course, there is a very weak opposition, led by Peter Woit, Lee Smolin and Carlo Rovelli, on the reason that it (String M-) does not make any testable prediction. Of course, they (Woit, Smolin and Rovelli etc.) do not have any alternative. This led to the Munich conference (Why Trust a Theory, in December 2015, see ), and String (M-) theory claimed its validity on the ground of {being the Only Game in Town}. Carrying this {Only Game in Town} flag, string (M-) theorists walked out from the conference victorious.


Section one: The total collapse of String (M-) theory

On September 15, 2016, K.C. Cole (the most senior science reporter of the world) wrote an article at Quanta magazine (the most prominent science journal) and said: {String theory has so far failed to live up to its promise as a way to unite gravity and quantum mechanics. See }


#StringTheoryOfficiallyDead is now a worldwide consensus.


Massimo Pigliucci (very prominent philosopher/biologist) was a speaker at the Munich conference (Why Trust a Theory), see .

eggcarton300 a very popular blog.


Admitting that String (M-) is not physics per se by the mainstream physics community.


Equal Capitalism: a representative of lay public.


Eight days after Cole’s article (September 23, 2016), the most diehard String (M-) theorist admits three points:

One, String theory has been called the particle physicist’s approach to quantum gravity. …

Two, When people talk about the failure of string theory, they’re usually talking about its aspirations as a “theory of everything”.

Three, The quirky thing about science: sociologically, success and failure look pretty similar. Either way, it’s time to find a new project.

That is, the string-theorists can still be {entanglers or bootstrappers}.

What the heck is {entanglers or bootstrappers}? See

The collapse of String (M-) theory is total, big avalanche.


Section two: What is {Quantum Gravity}?

On September 27, 2016, Sabine Hossenfelder (Theoretical Physicist) wrote an article: {What do physicists mean by “quantum gravity”? }

She wrote: {Physicists refer with “quantum gravity” not so much to a specific theory but to the sought-after solution to various problems in the established theories. … Physicists are presently pursuing various approaches to a theory of quantum gravity, notably string theory, loop quantum gravity, asymptotically safe gravity, and causal dynamical triangulation, for just to name the most popular ones. But none of these approaches has experimental evidence speaking for it. Indeed, so far none of them has made a testable prediction.}

But, what a {quantum gravity theory} should look like? Or, what kind of issues it should address?

She said, it should address at least three issues: {The sought-after theory of quantum gravity is expected to solve these three problems: (1) tell us how to couple quantum matter to gravity, (2) explain what happens to information that falls into a black hole, and (3) avoid singularities in general relativity. Any theory which achieves this we’d call quantum gravity, whether or not you actually get it by quantizing gravity. }

That is, there is thus far no {quantum gravity theory} in the mainstream physics. String (M-) theory is thus of course failed its calling as a {quantum gravity theory}.


Section three: Is {String (M-) theory} a viable physics?

Is {String (M-) theory} useful on any other ‘open’ physics issues (in addition to the quantum gravity)?

There are at least five open issues (not all inclusive).

One, the naturalness:

  1. The hierarchy issue,
  2. calculating nature constants (such as Alpha)
  3. calculating Cosmological Constant
  4. calculating Higgs boson mass

Two, dark mass/dark energy issue: the Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %)

Three, the baryongenesis

Four, the Neff = ???, the 4th generation and sterile neutrino issues.

Five, the ‘base’ for the SM particles: a physics or language description for those particles.


String (M-) theory fails on ALL those open issues.

The above issues can be simplified with 4 hashtags:






Section four: the current data

The structure of THIS universe is now defined with at least seven (not all inclusive) sets of data.

One, Planck CMB data:

Dark energy/dark mass: (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %)

Neff = 3.04

Hubble constant (Ho) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1

Two, LHC data:

Higgs-boson-like mass = 125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev

Ruling out any new particle (SUSY, extra-dimension, micro-black-hole, 4th generation fermions, etc.)

Three, WIMPs data (from LUX, Fermi satellite, AMS02, etc.)

Four, IceCube data (ruling out sterile neutrino)

Five, Cosmology Constant ~ 3·10−120 to 3·10−122 (depending on using h or ħ)

Six, other Hubble constant (Ho) data:

Riess, Lucas M. Macri data: Ho = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1 (see ).

Europe’s Gaia space telescope data: Ho = 73.0 km s−1 Mpc−1 (see ).

Seven, other data, such as:

  1. V.e.v = 246 Gev
  2. Alpha = (1/137.0359…)
  3. Masses of elementary particles, electric charge, etc.


Except for Hubble constant, all above data are consistent among one another.

The {4th generation fermions, sterile neutrino, extra-dimensions} are firmly ruled out by the above data.


Section five: Is String (M-) theory a theoretical framework?

How to theorize a physics theory?

In the history, we see TWO different ways of theorizing physics.

One, phenomenology: theorizing about something that was already experimentally accessible and with many data available. And, it consists of at least four steps.

First, inferring (conjecturing) laws from data, such as Faraday, Newton laws and conservation laws, etc.

Second, translating laws into mathematical language, such as Maxwell’s theory of Electromagnetism and Classic mechanics (Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics).

Third, making predictions.

Fourth, making massive calculations (such as calculating the LHC background).


Two, principle-based-theorizing (PBT): its BASE is not empirical data. And, there are at least three different types of PBT.

First, based on different PERSPECTIVE. String (M-) theory is initially only changing the ‘point’ particle into a ‘string’ while did not introduce any new physics or new principle. Can this {point to string} stretching produce new physics? In principle, it cannot. In reality, it does not.


Second, based on WISHFUL thinking.

In Standard Model, fermions and bosons are totally different. Why? There could be two answers,

  1. There is a PHYSICS reason for the difference.
  2. Their difference is superficial, as there is a higher symmetry (the SUSY, with s-particles).

Without the ability to find a), it is very easy for choosing b) while there is absolutely no evidence of any kind for b). In terms of gambling, there is of course having a good chance for this choice to win.


Without a true principle, the initial String-theory cannot even produce fermions. After married to SUSY, it became Superstring theory and was able to produce both bosons and fermions in a mathematical language. Now, String (M-) theory and SUSY are Dicephalic parapagus twins.


But, it can still not describe the SM particles with an M-string language (the so called string-unification). Where is the BEEF?


In addition to failing to address ALL the open physics issues and to meet all known data of today, the String (M-)/SUSY twins fail on all their proclaimed missions.

Of course, String (M-)/SUSY twins are written in math language which is in PRINCIPLE no difference from English (a great language for fiction). That is, math language can write a great and consistent physics-fiction.

No, String (M-)/SUSY twins are not theoretical physics framework but are fictions.


Section six: the last straw

As a very complex math construction, String (M-)/SUSY twins can hide in the Ivy Tower for long time, without being shooting down by the lay public. Yet, its multiverse fantasy becomes the last straw for its downfall.

Original string theory had 26 dimensions, in order to be math consistent. The Superstring theory (the String (M-)/SUSY twins) has 10 dimensions, which are obviously 6 more than the empirical observation.

In order to pack these 6 additional dimensions away, string theorists pack them into a ‘polynomial-equation’, set to be ‘zero’. With this packaging (Compactification), those additional dimensions are hidden away.

The geometry of this arbitrarily chosen {polynomial-equation = 0} can be described as Calabi–Yau manifold. As the coefficient of this Calabi–Yau polynomial can also take some arbitrary numbers, the solutions for the Calabi–Yau manifold are huge (although finite), such as, 10 ^ 500 or higher.

So far so good, everything seems logical:

Stretching a point into a string,

Marrying SUSY to get fermions,

Packing the unobservable extra dimensions into Calabi–Yau manifold.


Now, here is the bombshell. The ‘solution landscape of Calabi–Yau manifold’ is too huge, as NP-complete: {that is, no (fast) solution to them is (or can be) known}.


There can be two choices for this result.

One, all the works on the String (M-)/SUSY twins are the waste of time.

Two, Nature denies human intelligence forever to reach its secret. That is, no way to sieve out THIS universe (with its defining nature constants) from the {solution landscape of Calabi–Yau manifold}. The nature constants of THIS universe are not derivable, just a happenstance. And, this is called the multiverse-doctrine.

The String (M-)/SUSY twins have failed on all the ‘open issue’ tests and on meeting all known data, but the Calabi–Yau manifold is the last straw which causes their total downfall as there are signs that the {NP completeness} argument is wrong.


Section seven: the sign posts for the new physics paradigm.

In the past half a century (about 45 years), the theoretical physics paradigm is dominated by the String (M-)/SUSY twins. Anyone who denies multiverse while believing in String (M-)/SUSY twins is either a fake string-theorist or being dishonest.

There should at least four sign posts (not inclusive) for a new physics paradigm.


One, the only way to falsify multiverse-doctrine is by showing that the nature-constants of THIS universe can be derived, and they are bubble independent.

So, I have offered $10,000 award prize for anyone (Nobel laureates included) who is able to calculate the following four simple nature constants:





The detail of this offer is available at .


Two, reconciling two Hubble constant (Ho) data:

Riess, Lucas M. Macri data: Ho = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1 (measurements from the CURRENT sky)

Planck CMB data: Hubble constant (Ho) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1 (measurements from the ancient relic)

Obviously, there is a DARK FLOW (about 9%), flowing from now to past. This dark flow is in principle tied in with #how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata and tied in with the Baryongenesis.


Three, encompassing {quantum gravity}

Quantum gravity (QG) must consist of three attributes (not all inclusive):

  1. Governing the cosmos (that is, being source of expansion and acceleration; dark energy/dark mass)
  2. Giving rise to particle zoo (as every particle carries mass, the key parameter for gravity). QG must also be a particle theory.
  3. Giving INTERACTION simultaneously (every particle interacts with ALL other particles in this universe at the SAME time)


Four, encompassing {life/intelligence/consciousness}

{Life/intelligence/consciousness} are all about processing INFORMATION. At the BASE of physics law, a computing device must be embedded in it.



The old physics paradigm {String (M-)/SUSY twins} is now officially dead.

The sign posts (criteria) for a new physics paradigm are now clearly defined.