God did, you say

Who created this universe?

God did, you say.

I have no way to argue with you as I know 100% sure that I did not do it. By all means, I am not interested in the issue of who did it. I am only interested in two issues.

Issue one (I1), the ACT of creation, of how (not about who did)?

Issue two (I2), its product: the structure of this created product (not about who did again).

 

The mainstream physics does not and is unable to address the issue one (I1). However, it has done some great works on the issue two (I2), at least with three great pillars.

P1, Standard Model (SM) + quantum principle + some measured nature-constants (such as, Alpha, CC, Cabibbo /Weinberg angles, etc.)

P2, Planck CMB data + Hubble (Big Bang) cosmology

P3, Newtonian gravity + GR (General Relativity)

 

These three pillars are wholly established without any ambiguity or disagreement. But, there are at least three unresolved issues (UI) from these three pillars.

UI1, many of those measured nature-constants cannot be derived (calculated) with these three pillars.

UI2, SM is incomplete and unstable, not including the gravity, the dark sector and the fine-tuning of Higgs mass, etc.

UI3, quantumness and gravity are incompatible; P1 and P3 do not jive.

 

It is easy to show that when one UI is resolved, all will be resolved. On the other hand, if a pathway is definitely a wrong track for one UI, it will be wrong for all.

 

So, I will discuss the UI issues beginning with the UI2, as the mainstream physics community has spent most of its energy on BSM (Beyond SM) which takes the SUSY as the paradigm.

eggcarton419

But, no SUSY at {LHC, dark matter search (such as LUX), astrophysical sources (such as, AMS02, IceCuble, etc.) thus far (July 7, 2017)}.

eggcarton424

 

In fact, there are two ways to address this UI2; horizontally like SUSY or vertically like Prequark.

eggcarton498

 

With Prequark Chromodynamics (see http://www.prequark.org/ ):

One, UI1 is resolved.

 

 

 

Two, UI2 is resolved.

Planck CMB data is derived (calculated)

In this calculation, dark mass/visible mass/dark energy are related with a precise dynamics (including the dark flow). That is, dark mass/visible mass CANNOT be related only via gravity (their masses). So, WIMP (or any DARK PARTICLE scenario) by definition (with the above equations) is wrong conceptually.

 

Three, UI3 is resolved.

Quantumness is an emergent of gravity.

eggcarton466

While the mainstream physics is unable to address the issue one (the ACT of creating this universe), it does able to reverse-engineering to reconstruct the Big Bang state, the so-called ‘inflation-scenario’; that is, there must be a period of ‘exponential expansion’ at Big Bang.

 

As only a reverse-engineering, it can and must fit with the current observable universe. But, its shortcoming is now wholly denounced by Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb (see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/ ). However, there are two issues about this ‘inflation-war’.

One, the pro-inflation camp is now claiming: {You can create a universe from nothing—you can create infinite universes from nothing—as long as they all add up to nothing.} This is Plagiarism, as everyone knows that ‘inflation’ is not about {creating something from nothing} but is about manifestation of this universe from something very SMALL (definitely a something) while the creation-cosmology is my work, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/guth-and-gefter-welcome-for-quoting-the-g-theory/ . Furthermore, I politely informed Guth about this in 1993.

eggcarton469

 

Also see http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation#comment-3337714678

“Inflation” is now totally discredited, not even a science, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/inflation-is-now-totally-discredited-not-even-a-science-c27f367418cc

 

Two, while any Bounce-cosmology can account for the ‘exponential expansion’ phase,

eggcarton489

All other bounce-cosmologies do not have a mechanism to change Ω from the current value of (< 1) to (>1). Only G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics) has a ‘Dark Flow’ mechanism to accomplish this task.

 

The PREDICTION of the current dark flow of 9% is now verified by the new Hubble Constant measurement, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ .

eggcarton502

 

The G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics) has not only resolved all UI (unresolved) issues, and it is able to address the impossible: the ACT of creation, with a ‘First Principle’.

eggcarton388

 

All the G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics) predictions are the consequences of this ‘First Principle’. Furthermore, this G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics) is now saving the soul of the mainstream physics.

First, the Higgs fiasco:

A new boson (with 125.26 Gev. mass) was declared as Higgs boson in 2012, and Peter Higgs won the Nobel in 2013. But,

One, Higgs mechanism is not verified five (5) years after that discovery.

eggcarton311

 

{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.

 

And, the mass of Higgs boson is still not calculable (derivable) via Higgs mechanism (regardless of whether it is right or wrong).

 

 

eggcarton430

 

But G-theory (Prequark Chromodynamics) is able to calculate this new boson (vacuum Boson) mass.

 

My soul saving call for this Higgs nonsense was issue in 2015.

eggcarton346

It is very nice to see that the mainstream physics is now admitting its Higgs nonsense.

eggcarton512

Second, the LIGO nonsense.

LIGO is THUS FAR another OPERA joke and BECIP2 fiasco.

I made this point one year before the work of Creswell et al, see https://medium.com/@Tienzen/yes-ligo-no-one-else-has-detected-two-signals-but-not-too-fast-4c12ed099d2 .

LIGO’s claim is conceptually wrong.

It has two points.

P1: its detection has the astrophysical (not terrestrial) origin.

P2: its interpretation is that that signal is the result of two massive black hole coalescing.

 

LIGO’s argument for P1 is based on two point.

One, the signals (after subtracted all noise) from each detector has the same (or similar) waveform.

Two, the time lag between the two signals is less than 10 milliseconds.

 

These two points can at best make the matching signals as a candidate for GW (gravitational wave).

As the two detectors (separated over 3,000 miles) have the similar designs and similar apparatus, they could have similar inherited system noise (ISN). This ISN could be very strong at the turn-on phase (before going to a steady state). If the two detectors are turned on at about the same time, these ISNs can be easily matched within the 10 millisecond time lag. When two similar systems go into steady states, the ISNs will become weaker, but the matching can still happen. With this analysis, it is easy to PREDICT that the STRONG signals should always happen at the turn-on phase.

 

But, most important of all is that without detecting the 2nd crest of the same event, a matching cannot be confirmed as GW. I made this point very clear one year ago.

eggcarton336

LIGO’s claim of P2 is simply not science, as it at best is just a speculation. The P2 claim thus far has identified 9 black holes (6 pre-coalescing, 3 now existing).

Black hole by all means is not invisible, especially when there are INTERACTIONS. Black hole can be indirectly seen with ‘gravitational lensing’, or the behavior of the nearby stars. The interaction can of course be detected with some other signatures, such as gamma-ray burst, neutrinos (from the collision of the ‘event horizon’). But, one year went by, no any sign of those from the following surveillant eyes:

Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope

Fermi Large Area Telescope

Dark Energy Camera, a 570-Megapixel digital camera mounted on a telescope in the Chilean Andes

IceCube

How can LIGO claim P2 without any 2nd party verification? This is not science.

 

But most important of all is that LIGO speaks a {twin massive black holes} population density way, way above the current observation (data), and there is no observed ‘PROCESS’ which can produce the LIGO twin black holes. I have made this point very clear again one year ago.

eggcarton345

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/10/15/redemption-of-nobel-physics/

For P1, LIGO very much did not clean all the noises. Without the detection of the 2nd crest of the same event, the LIGO signal is very much a piece trash caught between two detectors. The following graph is a very good description of LIGO’s work thus far.

eggcarton530

The followings are the facts about LIGO thus far.

One, it has no proof that its so-called signals are GW signals.

Two, it has no ideal of any astrophysical process which can produce the GW150914 type of twin black holes.

Three, its detectionS speaks a total different cosmologic structure which is in conflict with all the current observable data, especially on the issue of population-density of the LIGO-twin-black holes.

Four, it has no support from any other surveillant eyes and ears.

 

Third, “Inflation” is now totally discredited, not even a science.

There are a few facts about ‘inflation’.

One, it is just a reverse-engineering to produce a ‘Big Bang’ state: that is, a period of exponential expansion from something very small.

Two, it does not provide any guideline for the ‘fate’ of this universe.

Three, it does not provide any explanation for the current ‘accelerating cosmic expansion’.

Four, it is highly sensitive to its initial condition; that is, it itself is not an initial condition of THIS universe. Thus, it is an ad hoc trash, not needed for this universe.

Five, it cannot shake-off a bad consequence, the multiverse; that is, it does not even provide any explanation for THIS universe.

Six, it does not provide a solution for the baryongenesis issue.

 

On the other hand, the ‘Bounce-cosmology’ does provide:

One, the initial ‘exponential expansion’ via the cyclic-multiverses before THIS big bang.

eggcarton489

The ‘matter and anti-matter alternately appear in each bounce’ naturally resolve the BaryonGenesis issue.

Two, the ‘FATE’ of any universe (including this one) is clearly defined, a new bounce.

Three, the ‘current accelerating cosmic expansion’ is clearly explained with a dark flow. And, this dark flow is now confirmed by the new Hubble Constant measurement. See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/

 

And it is also confirmed by the Planck CMB data.

 

In fact, the entire evolution of THIS universe {from Big Bang -> CMB -> star/galaxy formation -> current accelerating cosmic expansion -> a new bounce} is explained with the dark flow (W).

 

Conclusion:

Now the LINEs have drawn very clearly.

One, SUSY vs Prequark

Two, Higgs boson vs Vacuum boson

Three, inflation-scenario vs bounce-cosmology (with dark flow of W)

Four, quantum uncertainty: fundamental vs emergent

Five, creation law vs incomprehensible

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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