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.


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



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



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.


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.



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,


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/ .



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’.



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.



{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).





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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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).



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















Guth and Gefter, welcome for quoting the G-theory

On June 1, 2017, Amanda Gefter wrote an article at Nautilus defending Alan Guth on the recent ‘Inflation war’, by saying: { You can create a universe from nothing—you can create infinite universes from nothing—as long as they all add up to nothing.}

This statement is the KEY point in the G-theory, which I have informed Guth in 1993 when I politely told him that his ‘inflation’ is wrong. I showed him two points.

One, the neutron decay in G-theory, which associates with a vacuum boson and the calculation of its mass.

Two, the creation law:

Law of Creation — If B is created by “creating something from nothing process,” B (the something) must remain to be “nothingness” in essence.



This creation law was stated on page 45 in the book ‘Super Unified theory’, US copyright © 1984 # TX 1-323-231

This creation law is also available online at many places for over 25 years.

One, see http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm (online since 1996)

Two, http://www.prequark.org/think03.htm#A08

Three, it is also the key point of the book {Nature’s Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcraps} which is available to the ‘Department of physics, MIT’ since January 2017, also see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/

Guth and Gefter, welcome to the G-theory. 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). When you or anyone else tries to change your position by borrowing other idea, please state the ‘source’ of the quote the next time when you are using the idea of G-theory.

There are two more differences between ‘inflation’ and ‘cyclic multiverse (CM)’:

One, the exponential expansion (EE) of CM happened before THIS big bang, while the EE happened after this big bang for ‘inflation’.

Two, the expansion (exponential or after big bang) is an innate property of the equation-zero, not a ‘gravitationally self-repulsive force’ of the ‘inflation’. The exponential expansion is caused by the ‘bounces’, see graph above. The ‘after big bang expansion’ is caused by ‘dark flow’, see graph below.

Note, Gefter’s article is available at http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation 

In addition to this post, I also commented at Gefter’s article, available at  http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/the-inflated-debate-over-cosmic-inflation#comment-3337714678



Comment on Adam Riess’ talk

at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre Center on May 11, 2017

Two major data from Planck mission are:

P1, Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %)

P2, H0 (Hubble Constant, based on CMB, void of matter, pure energy, the early universe, with Neff = 3) = 66.93 ± 0.62 km s−1 Mpc−1

On the other hand,

The Local Value of the H0 {Hubble Constant, with (30% of matter/70% of energy), now, later universe} = 73.24 ± 1.74 km s−1 Mpc−1

Riess’s key conclusion is {If not an error, could be a vital clue pertaining to the 95% of the Universe (i.e., the dark sector) we don’t understand.}


It was predicted (about 4 years ago) that a 9% dark flow must be the direct consequence in the {matter (30%)/energy (70%)} universe in comparison to the {energy (100%) CMB} universe. For the P1 calculation, see two graphs below.





This is the most important PREDICTION of modern physics/cosmology that there should be a DARK FLOW of 9% (transferring energy from MASS to DARK ENERGY), which accelerates the expansion of this universe. And, this prediction is verified by ADAM RIESS’ data.

Finally, the BEGINNING must also determine the END. The END of this universe is determined by the parameter of Ω, mass/energy density of the universe.




This Ω is not a constant but is an EVOLUTION (dynamic) parameter. The only way to calculate this Ω is via the DARK FLOW.

When W = 100%, there is no dark mass (matter) in this universe. The entire universe is 100% energy. The universe expands SIMILAR to inflation.

When W = 0%, the mass has reached its peak, and the Ω can go over 1 (Ω > 1). The universe begins to contract, going to the big crunch.

When W > 0%, the universe expands with acceleration. Now, the W = 9%.

By knowing how to calculate Ω, we can evaluate the possible fates of this universe.

There is no connection (logical, causal or even non-causal) of any kind between the BEGINNING (Big Bang or else) to the END of (ripping the space-time or eternal darkness).

On the other hand, the Big Crunch naturally connects to the Big Bang. More details about this {beginning/end} issue, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/

In G-theory, the Cyclic multiverse expands exponentially (a x 2 ^ N), a is the initial condition which is set = 1, and N is the number of bounces.

The TQA (total quantum actions of THIS universe at the Big Bang) = (a x 2 ^ N) = [1/CC (3 x 10^-122)]/T, T (life time of this universe) = 4.34 x 10 ^ 17 (seconds). CC is the Cosmology constant.

Thus, TQA = 7.6 x 10 ^ 103; N = 345

Pre-this-Big Bang, the universe has bounced at least 345 times. This pre-big bang bounces will very much look like the ‘inflation’.


The detailed calculation, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ and the book {Nature’s Manifesto, https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/natures_manifesto2.pdf }.


The End of the “Inflation-War”


The “Inflation-War” between two groups of Cosmologists (and Physicists) was officially announced on May 9, 2017, see https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/a-cosmic-controversy/ .

Group one: Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb

Group two: David Kaiser, Alan H. Guth, Andrei D. Linde and Yasunori Nomura + 29 cheerleaders (including 4 Nobel Laureates).

Issue: Group one accuses the “Inflation-Cosmology” is not science. Group two is the defender.

As {what is science?} is different for the two groups, this War is about the {Chicken argues with ducks}; talking to oneself, not to each other.


Thus, I have made a {Quality Control gauge (go/no-go) for physics theory}


This is a puzzle-test-gauge, and it has the following attributes.

One, all pieces (except one missing piece) are known.


Two, these known pieces can be categorized in two ways.

First, by scale:

S1: quantum scale, {QM, SM (particles), ħ, hydrogen, CKM matrix, Cabibbo angle, Weinberg angle, Alpha}

S2: classic scale, {SR, GR, Newton, Maxwell (EM)}

S3: cosmic scale, {Planck CMB, CC, Dark mass, Dark energy}


Second, by type:

T1: as laws or principles, {QM, SR, GR, Newton, Maxwell (EM), CKM matrix}

T2: as structure, {SM (particles), hydrogen, Dark mass, Dark energy}

T3: as numbers or constants: {Cabibbo angle, Weinberg angle, Alpha, ħ, Planck CMB, CC}.


Three, the missing piece is the gauge for the {theory in question}.


There are three steps (or rules) for the gauging.

R1, is {this theory in question} a part of this puzzle? If it is, it must RELATE to some known pieces. If not at all (not even relates to a single one), it is not a part of this puzzle.

R2, if it cannot RELATE to ALL KNOWN pieces, it is not the right piece.

R3, if there is no fitting piece after trying ALL (infinite numbers of) possible pieces, the {theory in question} can be the {only game in town}.


Now, is any known piece above the direct consequence of {Inflation} by precise derivation? The answer is a big NO. That is, the {Inflation} is not even part of this puzzle. Science or not, {Inflation} is simply not PHYSICS.


Of course, there is a rescue in accordance to the R3. If no theory in an infinite possibility (such as in the case of multiverse), then {Inflation} can be the {only game in town}.


On the other hand, if we can find one theory which meets all three rules, then {Inflation} is dead.

With R1, we must show that one model is able to DERIVE at least SOME known pieces (if not ALL).


I will start with the issue of {how does THIS universe expanding with acceleration?} See graph below.


With this universe expanding force, it DERIVES the quantum-principle (QM).


In this model, ħ is the fundamental ACTION unit, and bookkeeping is done with a simple ratio {ħ/ (total quantum action counts)}. This ratio has been precisely measured as CC. This CC is the bookkeeping for this COSMO.


If the ħ is the fundamental ACTION unit, it should be the building block for all known matter too. That is, we should be able to DERIVE the value of ħ from the structure of the simplest atom (hydrogen). Indeed, we can, see graph below.


Now, I have showed one model which not only is deriving some (not just one) known puzzle-pieces but encompasses the entire scope (from quantum particles to Cosmo). That is, R1 has been met.


Can this model meet R2, deriving ALL known puzzle pieces {such as, the Planck data (dark energy = 69.2; dark matter = 25.8; and visible matter = 4.82); Cabibbo angle; Weinberg angle; Alpha, etc.}? The answer is a big YES, see the book {Nature’s Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcraps} at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/


I told Alan Guth that {Inflation} is nonsense with very polite words in 1993. I am very happy that three more cosmologists now agree with me, 24 years after my comment. I am 100% certain that the {Inflation} will still be nonsense zillions years from now.


In addition to this ‘quality control gauge’, we can examine this issue with traditional science methodology (theory-prediction-verification interplay).

In the G-theory’s derivation (calculation) of the Planck CMB data, it predicted a 9% DARK FLOW.


This prediction was verified a few weeks ago. Adam Riess (Nobel Laureate) announced on May 11, 2017 that the local measurement of Hubble constant is about 9% higher than the Planck CMB calculation (at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre Center), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ . Also see Freedman’s plot below.



In addition to passing the “quality control gauge” and ‘prediction/verification’ criterion, it needs to pass the Occam’s razor too; that is, better than the other cyclic-multiverse (CM) models.

For a correct cosmology, it basically must encompass 5 stages.

One, exponential expansion.

Two, energy dominant (no matter) period, before the CMB period: opaque, no lights (photons) can move freely.

Three, stars/galaxies forming period.

Four, accelerating expansion (currently).

Five, the END (fate) of this universe.



For the mainstream:

‘one’ is described as ‘inflation’ or other CM models.

‘two’ and ‘three’ are the results of GR (General Relativity) and SM (Standard Model of particle physics).

‘four’ is a fact but the mechanism is unknown (the dark energy).

‘five’ is described with Ω.



On the other hand, in G-theory:

‘one’ (exponential expansion) is the result of ‘cyclic bounces’.



‘two’, ‘three’ and ‘four’ are controlled by the Dark Flow (W, between dark mass and dark energy).


When W = 100%, total energy, no matter

When W < 100%, matter forms (stars and galaxies)

When W > 0, the dark flow (mass rights leak as energy) generates more ‘space’, accelerating expansion.

When W = 0, no more mass leakage, and the Ω will slowly go to 1, ready for another bounce.

Currently, the W = 9% is the PREDICTION of G-theory, and it is now confirmed with the measurements (CMB and local) of Hubble constant.


For mainstream, the ‘End’ is an unknown for ‘inflation’. For CM, it (the END) is of course clearly defined as a ‘bounce’.

For all other CM models, they do not have a mechanism to change the Ω from the current value of (< 1, smaller than 1) to the required value of (> 1, larger than 1).

Furthermore, the ‘inflation’ and all other CM models are not about creation but began with something very small (definitely not nothing).


Now, we can make clear comparisons between G-theory and all the other models (inflation and all other CMs).

One, inflation is not a creation. It starts with something very small (definitely not nothing) which went through the exponential expansion (e^60 in 10^ (-35) seconds). The exponential expansions (such as inflation) at THIS Big Bang is phenomenologically similar to the CM expansions; thus, many CMB data do fit with ‘inflation’.

On the other hand, G-theory is a creation process. It starts with the equation-zero, from nothing creates (real time and ghost time). In real time, matter (positive energy) are created while the ghost time houses its (matter’s) ghost, the gravity (negative energy). The FIRST universe had only one particle (such as up-quark), and the lifetime of that universe is the same length as the life time of a virtue up-quark. About at the 10th universe, a (just one) proton was created. Then, the anti-protons for the next universe. It will take about N= 345 to reach the PRE-this-big bang state.



Two, ‘inflation’ is a process AFTER (or at the same time) the big bang.

On the other hand, CM expansion is definitely BEFORE this big bang.


Three, ‘inflation’ does not lead to a definite END for this universe.

On the other hand, CM is controlled by the W-dynamics.

First, equation-zero shows that ¼ of time-energy goes into space while ¾ goes into matter. If no flow between the two, two times more matter are created than space.

But, there is interaction (flow) between the two.

At the beginning of the big bang, W = 100%, all energy, no matter. All matter are converted into energy/space.

After the opaque stage, matter became to form but still with a positive dark flow (+W); that is, the space is boosted by this +W (9% now) in addition to its rightful share (1/4 of time energy). So space expands with acceleration in addition to its normal expansion. During this period, the Ω is smaller than 1.


When W = 0, that acceleration of space expansion stops. At this point, the Ω will slowly reach the value of 1. As matter/energy ratio is 3 to 1 with equation zero, gravity will slowly change W from positive to negative (-W); that is, converting space into matter. In this period, the Ω will slowly go over 1. And, it leads to a new BOUNCE.


“Inflation” or any other cyclic model does not have this W-mechanism. Without this W-mechanism, there is no way of changing Ω from smaller than one (1) to larger than one (1).


Note, added on September 28, 2017 (over 4 months after this post): Sabine (a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics) wrote an article {Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore, see https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/#2d04f93eb45e }.


China Super Collider, part three — A misled hype or dishonesty


Copyright © May 1, 2017 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

{Note: the debate of building China Super Collider (CSC) is now officially over, and CSC project is officially killed. For detailed debate, see China-Super-Collider-analysis  (https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/china-super-collider-analysis.pdf ). For Chinese edition, see China-Super-Collider-debate 2







End Note}

In our previous articles, I have showed two points.

One, there is no new physics for a 100 Tev p-p collider, according to the newest March 2017 data. See China-Super-Collider-part-one

Two, all 3 Nobel Laureates of physics (Steven Weinberg, David Gross, and Sheldon Lee Glashow) did not commit to any prediction that 100 Tev p-p machine can produce any new physics. That is, there is no clear MISSION for this machine.

And, all 3 of them did not try to push USA (their own country) to build such a machine while a tunnel for it is already 100% ready (that is, 70% of the cost is already paid for while the other cost could be shared by other countries). That is, USA will not even waste an idle space for the GREAT project while it is almost free. See China-Super-Collider-part-two

They three are supporting the Chinese project solely on the non-science points. The most important one is the ‘spin-off’ argument, with the example that {CERN invented World Wide Web}. That is, if Chinese Super Collider will not produce any new physics, it still has chance for having some great ‘spin-offs’, perhaps just as great as the WWW.


If this is the key argument for building the Chinese SC, we should then examine whether CERN truly invented WWW or not.

First, what does World Wide Web (WWW) mean for the streetwalking persons? It has two meanings.

One, everyone (streetwalking person) can browse zillions websites.

Two, everyone can publish one’s view and stories online.


With the above definition or understanding, then, what does WWW consist of? What are its backbone parts?

It should have at least (not all inclusive) two parts.

One, everyone has one web device (PC or smart phone) on hand.

Two, these web devices can communicate among one another (download and upload).


So, what is WWW?

Answer: the infrastructure which encompasses the two parts above is a WWW.

Now, we can analyze the parts and the history of this infrastructure.

One, computers must communicate among one another long distance. This was accomplished via internet, invented in 1960s (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet ).


Two, EVERYONE needs a computing device. This possibility starts with the first Apple computer sold by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in 1976. When IBM introduced PC in 1981, the foundation for WWW has set, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers .


Three, without a user friendly computer (usable by every streetwalker), the WWW of today will not be realized. That is, without the introduction of MS window in 1985, PC was not truly usable by everyone, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows .


Four, without the development of the 32-bit data bus processer {such as the Pentium Pro (a sixth-generation x86 microprocessor) developed and manufactured by Intel, introduced in November 1, 1995, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_Pro }, PC was only able to process some text messages, not the kind of web page of today.


Five, without a commercial ISP (Internet service provider), there will be no WWW. The first commercial ISP in the US opened in November 1989, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(Internet_service_provider ).


Six, without the communication connection (capable of handling the huge data transmission) among continents, there will be no WWW. The first transatlantic telephone cable to use optical fiber t went into operation in 1988, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication .


Seven, by 1979, UseNet allowed users to communicate through a virtual newsletter, a text-based web page. While the chat-pages were widely spread in the late 1980s, the modern web pages (with graphs, easily readable by layperson) appeared after the easy using web browser, introduced by Mosaic (later Netscape) in 1993, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_web_browser .


Eight, with many different computing devices, the browsers are having difficult time to read and to display web pages for the different devices; that is, no World Wide pages. In 1995, Java platform (developed by Sun Microsystems which has since been acquired by Oracle Corporation) resolved this issue, see http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/overview/javahistory-index-198355.html .

Nine, without a search engine, everyone will be lost in this web site ocean. The first web search engines (Archie search engine, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_search_engines ) appeared in 1990, 4 years before Yahoo and 14 years before Google.


Ten, without the first free social media

https://smallbiztrends.com/2013/05/the-complete-history-of-social-media-infographic.html , not everyone is able to be a publisher; that is, no WWW of today. By 1988, internet relay chats (or IRCs) was already widely used. The first recognizable social media site, Six Degrees, was created in 1997. It enabled users to upload a profile and make friends with other users. In 1999, the first blogging sites became popular, creating a social media sensation that’s still popular today.

After the invention of blogging, social media began to explode in popularity. Sites like MySpace and LinkedIn gained prominence in the early 2000s, and sites like Photobucket and Flickr facilitated online photo sharing. YouTube came out in 2005, creating an entirely new way for people to communicate and share with each other across great distances.

By 2006, Facebook and Twitter both became available to users throughout the world. These sites remain some of the most popular social networks on the Internet.


The above ten are the backbones of WWW. But, where is CERN in this picture? Of course, CERN has absolutely nothing to do with this picture, this infrastructure.


There is only one hyped or dishonest STORY.

Being generating so many documents from so many different departments, CERN commissioned one person (Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, a computer engineer) to come up a way to handle the communications among departments. Berners-Lee used himself as the hub (a repository) for all documents, the Berners-Lee web site, appeared on 6 August 1991.

Berners-Lee wrote, {Most of the technology involved in the web, like the hypertext, like the Internet, multifont text objects, had all been designed already. I just had to put them together. It was a step of generalizing, going to a higher level of abstraction, thinking about all the documentation systems out there as being possibly part of a larger imaginary documentation system.}

Yes, Berners-Lee was the one who coined the term {World Wide Web} and made some contribution on the HTML language.

But, how dare for him to claim that he invented the WWW while the first commercial ISP was in business in November 1989, while the first web search engine was available in 1990, while the virtual newsletter (a text-based web page) was already in use in 1979, and while Internet relay chats (or IRCs) were widely used in 1988?


As none of the ten above is able to claim the sole credit for WWW, no one challenges Berners-Lee’s dishonest claim. But, how dare for CERN (a big institution) to claim (or not denying) that CERN invented WWW? How dare of those Nobel Laureates to spread this nonsense.


No, WWW is not a spin-off from CERN.


Then, there is another misleading (dishonest) push about the cost of the construction for this China-Super-Collider.

Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Lee Glashow did not talk about this at all. David Gross claimed that the first stage (the CEPC) will cost about 6 billion US dollars while refused to make any speculation about the cost for SPPC.


Yet, the BEPC leadership claims that the total cost (for both CEPC and SPPC) is about 20 billion US dollars. If this is not stupid, must be a lie.

Just check out the cost for LHC.

One, the LHC itself (the first upgrade) costed over 10 billion US dollars.

Two, the LHC used the LEP tunnel. That is, the pre-LHC cost should also be included. The construction of LEP and 15+ years of operation costed over 15 billion US dollars.

Three, the designed LHC life is 25 years.  With the current cost (without the future inflation), it is now over one billion dollar a year as the operation cost. The lifetime operation cost will be over 30 billion US dollars.

Four, LHC planed three more upgrades: from 7 to 13 Tev (in 2014); from 13 to 14 Tev (in 2018); then goes to HL-LHC (High Luminosity LHC, in 2020) (http://hilumilhc.web.cern.ch/ ). These three upgrades will cost about 5 billion US dollars.

So, the current estimate for LHC is (15 + 10 + 30 + 5 = 60 billion $), without considering the first 25 billion which could account for as 40 billion of today’s money. And, the next 35 billion could well be under estimated. That is, the cost for LHC (and its upcoming upgrade) will be more than 75 billion US dollars.


But, wait, wait, wait!

CERN itself is unable to process all the data it collects. CERN has a  {worldwide LHC computing grid (http://wlcg.web.cern.ch/ )} which is a global collaboration of more than 170 computing centers in 42 countries, linking up national and international grid infrastructures. The operation cost per year for this huge network is over one billion US dollars a year. For 25 years, the cost is over 25 billion today’s dollars.


So, for a 14 Tev machine, the lifetime cost is over 100 billion US dollars.

This brings up another issue. Is this {worldwide LHC computing grid} available for Chinese super collider (CSC) when it begins to run? The answer is almost 100% NO. Is there another computing grid available for CSC? Another big NO for now. That is, China must build her own grid, which will cost at least 10 billion US dollars.


Pushing CSC without any supporting infrastructure, it is evil, trying to do China in. Giving a birth, it costs only 1,000 US dollars, but the lifetime cost for that baby could well go over one million US dollars.

The BEPC leadership is trying to do Chinese people in with their evil ego.




Nowhere to run!!!

Dear Todd: Thanks for the info. Yes, I do know about the many-quark-blob report (https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/03/lhcb-observes-exceptionally-large-group-particles ). It is just a kind of ‘quark-chemistry’, having no insight for the foundation of TOE-physics.

LHC (at CERN) should report its 2016 data at two conferences in two days:

One, Aspen 2017 Winter Conference (Starts 19 Mar, Ends 25 Mar 2017, at Aspen, Colorado USA): http://indico.cern.ch/event/550030/

Two, 2017 Moriond Conference (March 18th – 25th, 2017, at La Thuile, Aosta valley, Italy: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/

Instead of commenting their reports afterwards, I will make a statement here first. The book {Nature Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcrap; 560 pages} is available limited time at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ , and ALL issues are addressed in it. That is, there is “Nowhere to Run” by any further experimental works but to vindicate the book {Nature Manifesto}.

However, I will elaborate this statement a bit more in this post.

For the mainstream theoretical physics:

One, Standard Model: it is just a hodgepodge from the experimental data (equations are just the results of the reverse-engineering to fit the data). The only theoretical principle is the “Higgs mechanism”.

Two, BSM (Beyond Standard Model):

  1. SUSY, a wild guess without any empirical support, and it is a total stupidity.
  2. String (M-) theory, by only changing a ‘point’ into a ‘string’ and hoping for the miracle. Worse yet, without SUSY, it cannot even account for fermions. It is not just wrong as physics but is a total bullcrap.
  3. Inflationary scenario, another wild guess trash.
  4. Multiverse, the direct consequence of 1) string-landscape, 2) eternal inflation. It is further motivated by the mainstream failure of deriving the nature constants of THIS universe.

For the mainstream experimental physics (including the observational astrophysics):

First, some facts are established.

One, Planck CMB data: dark mass, dark energy, Neff, etc.

Two, some nature constants (Alpha, non-zero Cosmological Constant, vacuum boson mass (125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev), etc.)

Three, dark-flow (about 9%)?

Second, the on-going research directions:

One, with collider: searching for the BSM particles (as dark mass)

Two, with neutrino: Majorana neutrino? Seesaw mechanism? Neutrino CP violation, etc.

Three, with astrophysical observations

Four, with direct detection of WIMP

The theoretical base for the mainstream physics is now very clear, with five pillars.

One, Higgs mechanism

Two, string — point to string (increasing some hidden dimensions)

Three, SUSY

Four, inflation

Five, with WIMP

SUSY will definitely be ruled out again in these upcoming LHC data reports:

First, direct production at LHC: No.

Second, as dark matter (from LUX, AMS02, Cosmic gamma rays, etc.): No.

Third, as invisible bystander (from EDM, LHCb data): No.

Without SUSY, String (M-) theory cannot even describe fermions.

Inflation is now even denounced by some of its most important inventors (such as Paul J. Steinhardt), see {Wrong about inflation (By Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb; https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf )}. For the {Emperor’s new dress story}, it was a child pointing out the nonsense. For {inflation}, it is now declared as crap by its tailor.

The multiverse is mainly represented by Max Tegmark’s  (MIT professor) book “Our Mathematical Universe”, and it is now denounced by Sheldon Glashow (physics Nobel Laureate), see http://inference-review.com/article/a-hand-waving-exact-science .

For WIMPs (dark particles):

First, via direct detection (LUX, etc.): No.

Second, via direct production at LHC: No.

Third, via AMS02 or cosmic gamma rays: No.

Four, as axions (low mass), via (PICO and CAST): No.

Five, as Sterile Neutrino (via LHC, IceCube, etc.): No.

Yet, for this upcoming LHC report, the key point will be on the Higgs mechanism (HM).

For Higgs mechanism, the following issues must be addressed.

One, it must provide masses for some fermions (not including neutrino). That is, Higgs boson must couple very strongly with its cousins (Higgs-field fermions). If this new LHC report (with almost 100 fb-1 data) can still not establish this Higgs mechanism (with the right proportion), it is time to change the name of this new boson to Vacuum Boson which decays mainly via the diphoton channel.

Two, as Higgs mechanism cannot provide the masses for neutrinos, neutrinos should be Majorana particles. That is:

First, there must be neutrinoless Double Beta Decay.

Second, neutrino and its anti-particle must be identical, cannot be distinguished.

Third, neutrinos can have inverted mass-hierarchy.

If these three are not verified in this huge data (LHC and other neutrino data), Higgs mechanism is wrong.


Three, Higgs mechanism (HM) cannot account for the dark mass. So, if WIMPs (SUSY, axions, sterile neutrino, etc.) cannot be found, HM is wrong.

Four, HM cannot account for the dark energy.

Five, HM cannot account for the new boson’s mass (125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev.).

On the other hand, for the G-theory (Nature’s Manifesto; see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/ ), all the above shortcomings of the HM are removed.

The mass-rising mechanism for ALL fermions (including neutrinos) is via the {bouncing (having momentum change) between (ghost point) and (matter universe)}. The mass-rising for bosons is caused by the bouncing between fermions. That is, neutrino is in principle not different from all other fermions (quarks and electrons, etc.).

So, neutrino (in G-theory) cannot be Majorana particle; that is,

No neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,

No inverted mass-hierarchy for neutrinos.

Furthermore, neutrino and its antiparticle must behave differently in the CP symmetry.

In G-theory, Planck CMB data (2013 and 2015) was easily derived, without any WIMP. Thus, there is no chance for these new LHC reports of seeing any WIMP.

Any correct experimental data cannot go beyond the scope of {Nature’s Manifesto}. Nowhere to Run, for sure.

Note (added on March 25, 2017): the two conferences (mentioned above) are now over, with a new set of data. The following is my comment on these two conferences.

Told you so

With 80 fb-1 data at 13 Tev. (about 10 times more than 2012), but:

No Higgs mechanism

No Majorana neutrino



No sterile neutrino

Note: most graphs below are taken from the CERN/Aspen reports.

The Standard Model (SM), based on Higgs Mechanism (HM), cannot account for:

Neutrino masses

Dark energy/dark mass


Mass Hierarchy

Gravity, etc.


Thus, SM needs:

SUSY (for dark mass, hierarchy, etc.)

WIMP (for dark mass)

Majorana neutrino (for neutrino mass and/or baryongenesis, etc.)

Sterile neutrino (for dark mass and/or majorana neutrino, etc.)

The missing (failure) of one item above will be a deadly blow to SM, especially its base, the Higgs mechanism. If all the above items are missing, the entire mainstream physics collapses.

But, this new data (80 fb-1 from LHC and many others) show the following.

One, NO Higgs mechanism: the b/-b quark decay channel was not even talked about.


Note (added on June 9, 2017): CMS analysis on H→ bb¯ decays at (√s = 13 TeV) with 35.9 fb−1 data (published on 2017/05/29) shows that an observed significance of 1.5σ (0.7σ expected for the standard model Higgs). That is, the Higgs mechanism is not verified, see https://cds.cern.ch/record/2266164/files/HIG-17-010-pas.pdf

Two, NO Majorana neutrino: as neutrino moves with 99.9999…% of light speed (not slowed down by the tar-lake-like Higgs field), its MASS cannot be the result of Higgs mechanism. This is why the Majorana idea came about (to give neutrino mass with seesaw mechanism, different from the Higgs mechanism). But, there are, at least, three consequences for the Majorana neutrino.

First, there must be ‘neutrinoless double beta decay’

Second, neutrinos could have inverted mass hierarchy.

Third, neutrinos MUST be their own anti-particles.

But, all these three are NEGATIVE from the newest data.

NO neutrinoless double beta decay: see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.00570


No inverted  neutrino mass hierarchy: see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03425 and  https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03328

No Majorana neutrino by definition (being its own antiparticle), see https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160728-neutrinos-hint-matter-antimatter-asymmetry/ and http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/is-the-neutrino-its-own-antiparticle

No Majorana neutrino is very significant, as neutrino must not be different from other fermions (quarks and electrons, etc.). Thus, their mass-rising mechanism must also be the same. As Higgs mechanism (HM) cannot account for neutrino’s mass, HM must be wrong completely.

Three, NO SUSY

Higgs mechanism cannot account for the dark mass. So, it needs SUSY. In fact, SUSY is viewed as the super Penicillin for all the problems of the mainstream physics.


However, even this SUSY Penicillin cannot derive all nature constants and Planck CMB data.

Of course, the presentation shows that SUSY is not found in this 80 fb-1 data.


Furthermore, SUSY is further ruled out in the WIMP data, in the LHCb data, etc. Without SUSY, all those problems cannot be addressed in the mainstream physics.


The LUX data was known for 6 months. This time, the LHC data further ruled it out most of the Gev WIMPs. The exclusion line is very much reaching the neutrino floor (the yellow area).


Most importantly, the PICO data (addressing the low mass region, the axion) was also analyzed. And, it very much excludes the low mass WIMP (such as axion).




Again, the AMS02 anti-proton excess can be accounted for by the known cosmic processes (see https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/03/cosmic-collisions-lhcb-experiment  and the following graph).



Five, NO way to account for new boson’s mass (125.26 +/- 0.28 Gev.)


Only G-theory can derive (calculate) this new boson’s mass.

Furthermore, the new measurement from this new data set (80 fb-1) is now closer to my (G-theory) calculation (125.46 +/- Gev.), in fact, identical.


Six, other important data:

First, NO sterile neutrino, see http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/sterile-neutrinos-in-trouble . Sterile neutrino is not a part of SUSY. It cannot play important role as dark mass neither, as neutrino is warm/hot dark matter (that is, it boils, cannot be held in a space while dark mass hugs around the visible matter). But, sterile neutrino can make neutrino being Majorana. No sterile neutrino is another strong point to rule out Majorana.


Two, NO BSM-kind of particle of any kind: any kind of BSN particle (SUSY, axion, sterile neutrino, WIMP, etc.) will be sensed at the BS0 meson decay (analyzed by LHCb). But, NO, see https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/02/standard-model-stands-its-ground .


With all the data (reports) above, the mainstream physics COLLAPES all on its own.

Predicting the death of the mainstream physics alone is indeed a good victory. But, if without a replacing theory for this dead horse, this will only be a victory of self-masturbation. Fortunately, G-theory does rescue the mainstream physics from its hellfire dungeon, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/

Note (added on May 18, 2017):

One, the newest Hubble Constant (measured with Supernovae) is 9% higher than the Planck CMB data, reported by Adam Riess on May 11, 2017, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ . This verified the G-theory prediction, see graph below:

Two, the ‘inflation-war’ was officially announced on May 9, 2017. Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb came out to denounce the ‘Inflation theory’ and to advocate the cyclic multiverse (CM), see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-war/ . CM was the key point of the G-theory.



See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/guth-and-gefter-welcome-for-quoting-the-g-theory/

This web page also available as pdf file,  Nowhere To Run.

Note (added on May 20, 2017): the heavily promoted China 100 Tev p-p super collider is now killed, see China-Super-Collider-analysis

For Chinese copy, see China-Super-Collider-debate 2


Nature’s Manifesto on physics

The proton collisions at LHC was shut down in September this year (with recorded data over 40 fb−1−1), and a report was planned to be released in December. But, that was cancelled.

On 20 November 2016, CMS released a report which is based on 2015 data (13 Tev, with only 2.3 fb−1−1, a puny amount in comparison to the 2016 data) and without giving any hint about the 2016 data (where the beef is). It concludes that Gluino masses below 1.65 TeV and squark masses below 1.37 TeV are excluded at a 95% confidence level. See http://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public-results/publications/SUS-15-012/index.html .

Without releasing the true beef, the SUSY devotees are still hoping for their parousia, the returning and resurrection of the SUSY god. And they are now launching a major campaign to con Chinese government in to build a super-collider (with 100 Tev), just to delay their ultimate demise for another 30 years.

{Note (added on May 15, 2017): the heavily promoted China 100 Tev p-p super collider project is now officially killed, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/05/china-super-collider-part-three-a-misled-hype-or-dishonesty/ , end note.}

If the current CMS conclusion holds, there will not be any new discovery before a super-super-super-collider (with over one-hundred-million Tev.) which is beyond the reach with Earth’s size.


Fortunately, there is no need for waiting the CMS beef nor that super…super-collider; the “Nature’s Manifesto” has given the answer. A new book {Nature’s Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcraps (560 pages)} will be published in January 2017. The following is its “Introduction”.

Chapter twelve: Nature’s manifesto on physics

One, First principle — > Perfect (real/ghost) symmetry — > time-hose


Two, time-hose winds into 11 dimension universe.

Three, measuring rulers are locked by Alpha.

Four, quantum gravity expands universe

Five, universe accelerates.

Six, energy/matter interaction (dark flow).

Note (add on May 20, 2017): It was predicted (about 4 years ago) that a 9% dark flow must be the direct consequence in the {matter (30%)/energy (70%)} universe in comparison to the {energy (100%) CMB} universe. The PREDICTION of 9% dark flow, verified with new Hubble constant, ends the ‘inflation-war’. See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/comment-on-adam-riess-talk/ .


Seven, energy/matter distribution.

Eight, the emergent of fermions.

Nine, setting the base (vacuum).

Ten, the emergent of dominions.

Eleven, the bookkeeping.

Twelve, the fate of universe.


In G-theory, the Cyclic multiverse expands exponentially (a x 2 ^ N), a is the initial condition which is set = 1, and N is the number of bounces.

The TQA (total quantum actions of THIS universe at the Big Bang) = (a x 2 ^ N) = [1/CC (3 x 10^-122)]/T, T (life time of this universe) = 4.34 x 10 ^ 17 (seconds). CC is the Cosmology constant.

Thus, TQA = 7.6 x 10 ^ 103; N = 345

Pre-this-Big Bang, the universe has bounced at least 345 times. These pre-THIS-big bang bounces look very much like the ‘inflation’.


The clarifications/denouncements




Real/ghost symmetry produces quantum (1/2) spin. Bouncing between real/ghost universes generates mass for fermions.


Bio-computer is provided.

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.rk29ib17v

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong

Table of Content



Now the pdf version of this book [Nature’s Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcraps,  natures_manifesto ] is available here for a limited time.