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







2 thoughts on “Redemption of Nobel-Physics

  1. Pingback: God did, you say | The Great Vindications
  2. Pingback: Chances of Redemption for LIGO | 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s