Science is not some eye catching headlines

Cosmos Magazine reported on 23 October 2017: {Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude (see )}.

This title is truly eye-catching, and it indeed goes viral in the public media, sees also .

Under this eye-catching hype, there is a very good and solid science, finding out that there is essentially no difference between proton and its antiparticle (see–proton-and-antiproton-share-fundamental-properties.html , and, ).


Instead of making such an eye-catching hype, science should do some soul searching: {What has gone wrong?}

A) What went wrong?

The obvious WRONG conclusion is based on two speculations.
One, the matter (especially proton) and antimatter (antiproton) were created equal (amount) at the Big Bang.

Two, the FACT of today that THIS universe is dominated by matter is because that the antimatter has almost ALL been annihilated.

These two speculations lead to a new speculated conclusion: there must be a process which annihilates antimatter while preserving the matter.

Then, this speculated conclusion lead to the fourth speculation: there must be some differences between matter and anti-matter in addition to its definition, having opposite electric charge.

Yet, the recent data shows that there is virtually NO difference between the two.


B) Righting the wrong

Instead of making an eye-catching joke, science must conclude that one (at least) of the two original speculations must be wrong.

In G-theory, matter and anti-matter are not mirroring counter partners but are woven together by one string and one anti-string. That is, the anti-matter is the necessary partner co-exist with the matter simultaneously, and there is no anti-matter-annihilation massacre right after the Big Bang.




See {BaryonGenesis, the master-key of all mysteries; }


C) The supporting facts

This G-theory is supported by two facts:

One, as the anti-matter is a co-existing partner of matter, the dark mass calculation must account the anti-matter together with the matter in the equation, and that calculation fits the Planck data perfectly.


Two, there are zillions anti-matter (anti-quarks) inside of proton or neutron; the anti-matter does not disappear from this matter-dominated universe.



D) Additional issues

Yet, the two facts above cannot escape from the fact that matter (such as proton, neutron, and electron) is after all DIFFERENT from its anti-partners (anti-proton, anti-neutron, and positon). That is, why is THIS universe dominated by the matter, not anti-matter?

This last question was addressed in G-theory long ago in terms of “Cyclic multiverse”.

That is, the matter universe and anti-matter universe appear alternately in a cyclic multiverse.


Unfortunately, the “Inflation-paradigm” has misled the entire world for more than 40 years. Fortunately, ‘inflation’ is now killed (see ).


However, the ‘cyclic multiverse’ model of Paul J. Steinhardt, et al, did not address two important issues.

One, why is THIS universe dominated by the matter, not anti-matter?

Two, what is the detailed mechanism for pushing Ω over 1 from its current value of less than 1?


Again, G-theory provides the answer.


E) The conclusion

Regardless of the G-theory, physics mainstream community should reexamine its two original speculations. Any eye-catching headline will not advance science a single bit.

One thought on “Science is not some eye catching headlines

  1. Pingback: The Angel and demons in the 100 years of physics nightmare | 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