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 .

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 , 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 .


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.



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.



Nature’s manifesto on physics

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


Two, time-hose winds into 11 dimension space time.

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

Four, equation zero generates 48 fermions.

Five, the moving of time-hose expands the universe with acceleration.


Six, the measuring rulers {C (light speed), ħ (Planck constant) and e (electric charge)} of the time-hose are locked by a dimensionless number, Alpha. Then, universe is let-free (see )


Seven, the equation zero also gives rise to energy/mass distribution.

Eight, the bookkeeping of all (quantum) events is expressed as Cosmology Constant.

Nine, the spacetime sheet is defined with a vacuum energy with a vacuum boson.

Ten, bio-computer is provided.

Eleven, the beginning and the end.

Twelve, Gravity = {simultaneity,  instantaneity}


Thirteen, giving rise to hierarchy




Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity

Quantum Gravity is all about {From here (matter particles) to Eternity (fate of the Cosmos)}.

There are two facts about Quantum Gravity.

One, quantizing GR (general relativity) is a totally failed endeavor (such as loop quantum gravity).

Two, all other approaches (such as, string theory, asymptotically safe gravity, and causal dynamical triangulation, etc.) have also totally failed to address the issues of Quantum Gravity.

That is, “Quantum Gravity” is only a name in the mainstream physics, without any substance; that is, there is no ‘quantum gravity’ theory in the mainstream physics.

Sabine Hossenfelder (a theoretical physicist) gave a criterion for ‘quantum gravity’; she said, {The sought-after theory of quantum gravity is expected to solve these three problems:

  • tell us how to couple quantum matter to gravity,
  • explain what happens to information that falls into a black hole,
  • and 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.}
Her 2) and 3) are truly related. As GR is only a great approximation on gravity, the correct QG will not have the singularity issues and will not have the black hole information issue. I thus will define ‘quantum gravity (QG)’ in a much more precise manner.

First, QG is the backbone for the Final Theory (FT) for Nature. Yet, FT consists of the following Structure parameters:

One, Higgs mass: 125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev

Two, dark energy/dark mass/visible mass distribution

Three, Neff = ???

Four, Hubble constant (Ho)

Five, baryongenesis

Six, dark flow???

Seven, nature constants (Alpha, Cosmology constant, etc.)

That is, QG must play some important roles to address (derive/calculate) these parameters.


Second, there are at least three very precisely defined issues for QG.

One, giving rise to fermion mass/spin and SM zoo

Two, expansion and acceleration of the Cosmos

Three, every particle is interacting with ALL particles simultaneously.


Section one: giving rise to fermion mass/spin and SM zoo

This is all about Nature’s symmetry: why is fermion different from boson? There are two choices for this quation.

First, fermion and boson are different in essence, and there is a physics to distinguish them.

Second, their difference is superficial, as there is a ‘symmetry, SUSY’ to smooth out that difference.

But, SUSY is dead, see

The fermion/boson difference is fundamental, and it is the result of the Real/Ghost symmetry.




One: giving rise to mass and spin

Fermion mass: arises from bouncing between Real universe (matter, a finitude) and Ghost sphere (a point, an infinity)

Boson mass: arises from bouncing between fermions

Fermion spin: seeing two copies of universe (Real/Ghost)

Boson spin: residing in Real (matter) universe only

How about the Higgs mechanism? See



Two: giving rise to SM zoo via line-g-strings


This G-string model is based on ‘Time Hose’ which produces 11 dimensions.


The spatial dimensions is just a subset of ‘QG dimension’ which means ‘CODEs’; that is, seven of the 11 dimensions are ‘color codes’.

Seven dimensions: {nothingness (white, 1), time hose internal (3 quark colors), time hose external (3 generations)}


That is, Neff = 3


Section two: Expansion and Acceleration of Cosmos





Section three: every particle is interacting with ALL particles simultaneously.





#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant, see

#how2CalculateAlpha, see

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata, see

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass, see


Now we have a QG (quantum gravity) which not only is able to meet the three criteria:

One, giving rise to fermion mass/spin and SM zoo,

Two, expansion and acceleration of the Cosmos,

Three, every particle is interacting with ALL particles simultaneously,


but is addressing all the Structure parameters issues below:

One, Higgs mass: 125.09 +/- 0.24 Gev

Two, dark energy/dark mass/visible mass distribution

Three, Neff = ???

Four, Hubble constant (Ho)

Five, baryongenesis

Six, dark flow???

Seven, nature constants (Alpha, Cosmology constant, etc.)


Note: this article is a part of presentations

One, Criteria for new physics,

Two, String (M-) theory as quantum gravity is officially dead,

Three, The dark flow,

Four, David Gross (Nobel Laureate) on Cosmology Constant,

Five, Is {137.0359… = 137.0359…}?

Six, A magic numerological formula/baryongenesis,

Seven, Where is the BEEF?

Eight, Why not SUSY?

Nine, Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity,

Ten, Nature’s manifesto on physics,

Eleven, The cyclic universes (C-multiverses),


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.














Why NOT SUSY (s-particle)?

The ORIGINAL (before adding any lifesaving patchworks with religious prayers) SUSY has been ruled out by the 2016 LHC data. A while back, most of M-string theorists were still insisting that the failure of SUSY will have zero implication on the validity of M-string theory.

Yet, on September 15, 2016, Quanta Magazine published an article: The Strange Second Life of String Theory, which states,

{String theory has so far failed to live up to its promise as a way to unite gravity and quantum mechanics.

At the same time, it has blossomed into one of the most useful sets of tools in science. }.


However, {why not SUSY (s-particle)?}

Unless this question is answered THEORETICALLY (not just by any CURRENT test data), we cannot truly rule out the SUSY.


In order to answer this question theoretically, I should first ask a different question, {Why SUSY?}


Section one: Why SUSY?

There are two good motivations, one {why not?}, one {why shouldn’t?} and most importantly {what else?}


First, two great motivations:

One, Standard Model is 100% unambiguously incomplete, {not encompassing gravity, dark energy/dark mass, cosmology constant, naturalness issues, etc.}

Two, quantum mechanics and General Relativity are totally incompatible.

That is, SUSY can be the crack filling answer for these issues.


Second, {why not?}

Standard model is totally successful on describing the ‘particle world’ by using a base of {gauge symmetry + Poincare group}. Then, a simple (one step) extension of this base to Super Poincare (SUSY) not only is mathematically valid but is also the most logically sound step for a stop cracks design to mend the incompleteness of SM. If nature does not make this choice, why not?


Third, {why shouldn’t?}

The fermions and bosons are totally different in SM. But, why? There can be two answers.

One, the difference between fermions and bosons is INTENSIONAL and fundamental. Then, there must be a mechanism to produce that difference. But, no such mechanism was and still is on the horizon in the mainstream physics.

Two, the difference between fermions and bosons is superficial, not fundamental. Then, there should have a mechanism to smooth out that superficial difference. And, SUSY does this job perfectly.

If SUSY is already a good (great) answer for the question, why shouldn’t it be?


Fourth, {what else?}

In the mainstream physics, SUSY is {the only game in town}.


Section two: a brief history

The CALLING for SUSY is for a SM cracks filling measure. With this calling, SUSY should appear at weak-scale; that is, SUSY particles are supposed to be discovered over 20 years ago (at LEP).

When that failed, the SUSY devotees moved their goal post to higher energy and swear for its inevitable discovery at Tevatron.

When that failed, they swear again for its appearances at LHC run 1.

After that failed again, they moved the goal post to the LHC run 2.

Of course, they failed on that too.

Now, they are moving the goal post all the way to China, putting their fantasy wish on the not yet build ‘Great Collider’.

This ‘goal post moving show’ not only becomes a big joke for science but is the greatest SHAME for physics.


Section three: why NOT SUSY, one:

Can SUSY move the goal post to higher energy indefinitely? The answer is a big NO.

Simply, SUSY is totally (100%) useless for fulfilling its ORIGINAL calling, filling the cracks of Standard Model.

One simple (very simple) crack is the naturalness/fine tuning issue.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.


The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): the slightest change on electron and/or proton masses will change this number dramatically.

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


These issues can be written out with 4 simple hashtags, as below.






Yet, SUSY of any kind (with it hundreds of varieties) cannot QUANTITATIVELY derive those (four) numbers. That is, SUSY is wrong and useless at the beginning. Even if nature implemented SUSY of any kind at very high energy, it is still not the answer for the current questions.


Section four: why NOT SUSY, two:

Yes, there is an ‘ELSE’. Those four ‘#how2’ are PRECISELY calculated (derived), see


Section five: why NOT SUSY, three:

Some detailed PHYSICS discussions about {why no SUSY} are available below: , ,


Finally: the second life of M-string theory

As SUSY is the SOUL of M-string theory {except bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric}, how can M-string theory survive as a PHYSICS theory while SUSY is dead?



Of course, CONGRATULATION on its rebirth as hammer life, but the greatest condolence for the DEATH of M-string physics.




The era of hope or total bullcrap

The 2016 data (from LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.) has very much ruled out the dominant paradigms of the theoretical physics of the past half a century: the {SUSY, WIMPs, sterile neutrino, extra-large dimensions, etc.}.

Science is supposed to be a truth-searching machine. But, in the past 45 years, physics (especially the theoretical physics) has been dominated by the M-string theory and its derivatives, SUSY, extra-large dimensions, etc.

This dominance is motivated and supported by the following issues.

One, the super successful of the Standard Model and its obvious incompleteness.

Two, the discovery of dark mass and dark energy.

Three, the discovery of a positive Cosmology Constant.

Four, the totally incompatibility between Quantum principle and General Relativity, while both of them are totally empirically valid  (without a single failure on their predictions).

Five, the hierarchy issue.

Six, the naturalness issue.

Section one: the naturalness and fine-tuning issues

In physics, naturalness is defined as the dimensionless ratios between free parameters or physical constants appearing in a physical theory should take values “of order 1”. That is, a natural theory would have parameter ratios with values like 2.34 rather than 234000 or 0.000234.

This ‘naturalness’ criterion is obviously not discovered in nature but is a human cooked-up desire. This desire came from the failure that the mainstream physics model must hand-put in many parameters in its equations; that is, the desire to avoid the ‘fine-tuning’ any of those parameters.

The ‘naturalness’ and ‘fine-tuning’ are thus closely related but can still form some subgroups.

The obvious ‘naturalness’ issues are:

Hierarchy issue: the difference between weak coupling and gravity is over 30th order of magnitude.

Cosmology Constant: it is over at least 120th order of magnitude smaller than 1.

Higgs boson mass: it is too light for the M-string quantum gravity.

The obvious ‘fine-tuning’ issues are:

Alpha = 1 / (137.0359…): there is no way of calculating this value in the mainstream physics.

Planck CMB data (DE=69.22 % 、D=25.90 % 、V=4.86 %): again, there is no way of calculating these numbers in the mainstream physics.

These are facts. In summary, the ‘naturalness’ issue is all about the following four issues.





Section two: SUSY, fulfilling the ‘naturalness-desire

With all the known incompleteness {no gravity, no dark energy, no dark mass, no Cosmology Constant, Hierarchy issue, etc.} of Standard Model, it is totally successful in its own domain, without a single failure. Standard Model is based on ‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’. So extending {‘gauge symmetry’ + ‘Poincare group’} to Super Poincare (SUSY) is mathematically valid. And, it can well be the play dough needed to fill up the cracks of the Standard Model. Why should nature not take such a simple step, especially while SM is very much incomplete? This simple question can easily turn SUSY into a religion.

In addition to some minor successes, SUSY was vindicated by Super String theory. The original String theory is all about the bosonic string. After ‘adapting’ SUSY kid, Super String theory becomes capable of addressing the fermionic string. If Super String theory is correct, how can SUSY not be?

Section three: the revolutions and great successes of the Super String theory

The claimed successes:

One, all the known string theories included a massless spin-two particle that obeyed the correct Ward identities to be a graviton. That is, string theory can be the candidate of quantum gravity, a TOE.

Two, only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity.

Three, super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

Four, the maximum spacetime dimension in which one can formulate a consistent supersymmetric theory is eleven.

Five, Calabi–Yau manifolds are the compactifications that preserve a realistic amount of supersymmetry.

Six, the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton. The hole in the Calabi-Yau space represents the family of particles, 3 holes, 3 generations.

That is, {Super string theory, SUSY and Calabi–Yau manifolds} are mutually vindicating one another.

The first revolution:

The confirmation that the 10 dimensional theory is the only valid theory, with superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. Two dualities (S and T) were discovered.

S-duality: a relationship which says that a collection of strongly interacting particles in one theory can, in some cases, be viewed as a collection of weakly interacting particles in a completely different theory

T-duality: a string propagating around a circle of radius R is equivalent to a string propagating around a circle of radius 1/R in the sense that all observable quantities in one description are identified with quantities in the dual description

The second revolution:

D-branes were discovered to represent the higher-dimensional objects.

The compactification of extra dimensions must use Calabi–Yau manifold.

Then, AdS/CFT correspondence was discovered:

First, to relate string theory to another type of physical theory, such as a quantum field theory.

Second, to relate 11-dimension supergravity to 10-dimension superstring.

Finally, it unified all different superstring theories into an M-string theory.


{Note: M-string unifies those six string theories in SPIRIT, not in formal formalism (no unified equation).}

Furthermore, the AdS/CFT correspondence leads to the discovery of holographic principle which became the dominant tool for dealing with the ‘black hole’ issue.

The third revolution (Not yet claimed):

The large number of possibilities (about 10 ^ 500) arises from different choices of Calabi–Yau manifolds (together with Monstrous moonshine) and different values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles leads to the great idea of ‘multiverse’ physics. As this large number is NP complete, no practical (or theoretical) chance of any kind to find the answer {which vacuum corresponds to our (this) universe). That is, ‘multiverse physics’ is now by definition a ‘theology’ which is deemed true regardless of the empirical evidences, as there cannot be any evidence at all (guaranteed by the NP completeness).

This conclusion firmly states that the four tasks below are impossible.





On the question: {How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?}

Answered by Ed Witten: {I really don’t know. It’s very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It’s definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is. See }.

Section four: how can all these go wrong?

M-string theorists do admit a few shortcomings on their own.

One, it does not have a consistent formulation (such as Newton’s law or Einstein’s GR equation) to make contact (describe) this real universe. {Note: in this sense, it is not yet physics, but is claimed as the best HOPE.}

Two, it does not know how to define string theory in a single theory (regardless of the claim of M-string). It does also not know whether there is any principle by which string theory selects its vacuum state. Unlike in quantum field theory, string theory does not have a full non-perturbative definition, so many of the theoretical questions that physicists would like to answer remain out of reach.

Three, the goal of string theory is to find a solution of the theory that reproduces the observed spectrum of elementary particles, with a small cosmological constant, containing dark matter and a plausible mechanism for cosmic inflation. But, this goal is far beyond the horizon at this moment.

Four, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature.

Yet, all these shortcomings are just hiccups for growth pain. When these hiccups are over, then ‘Long Live the M-string’.

Can these hiccups go away?

The general critics has pointed out three fallacies.

One, pseudoscience fallacy: no prediction, emphasized by Peter Woit and Lee Smolin.

Two, self-failing fallacy: failed its stated missions, see Carlo Rovelli’s talk, slide 16.


Three, Gordon Kane’ moving sign post fallacy: see


I will add a few obvious fallacies.

One, the Hat-trick fallacy: without adding any additional ingredient, simply stretching a point into a string reaches (creates) the domain of gravity, becoming a TOE. This is a magic, not physics.


Two, the mirage fallacy:

One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton.

Only string theory is able to accommodate chiral fermions like the neutrino; that is, string theory is truly a consistent theory of gravity, the quantum gravity.

Super string theory naturally accommodate SUSY and extra dimensions.

But, what is graviton? What is quantum gravity? What is SUSY and extra dimension? These ALL are physics mirages NOW.


Three, long live the King fallacy: anything associated with M-string which failed has been and must be cut. SUSY failed, long live the M-string. Extra dimensions failed, long live the M-string.

Except Bosonic string theory (which encompasses no matter), all other consistent string theories are supersymmetric (see note). Yet, the total failure of SUSY is claimed to be no consequence on M-string.


Four, the greatness of math fallacy: the validity of a physics theory was never depending upon the math it was using. Yet, some new math was inspired by and from M-string theory, such as the {Calabi–Yau manifold and Monstrous moonshine}. How can M-string be wrong if its math children are valid?


Five, the squire victory fallacy:  the squire of M-string {Ads/CFT correspondence, holography principle, condensed physics, etc.} are all victorious. How can the squires be victorious while the master knight fails?


Six, hot air fallacy: M-string claims that the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons). Where is the list for this {particle/music note} description?


See, G-strings/particles at

See, G-strings/particles at

Seven, useful hammer fallacy: although the hammer (M-string) was wrong as the description of nature (should not be worshiped), it is still very useful tool for little chores.


However, all the above fallacies will be removed if the M-string can solve the ‘naturalness’ issue by deriving (or calculating) the followings:





Thus, I have offered a prize award of $10,000 for anyone who is able to derive those nature constants, see

Section five: era of hope or bullcraps?

If M-string theorists can claim this $10,000 prize, then the era of the past half a century is indeed the era of HOPE.

If M-string theorists claim the ‘only game in town’, then it is the era of BULLCRAP.

This ‘only game in town’ claim becomes ‘dishonesty fallacy’ if those four calculations were done long ago and are available online for long time.

All fallacies are excusable. But, this ‘dishonesty fallacy’ cannot be excused.

Here is one of the BEEF.


The cyclic universe (C-multiverses) with different initial conditions while having the same physics laws and nature constants is the central point in the book “Super Unified Theory; ISBN 9780916713010, US Copyright number TX 1-323-231”.

The simultaneous-coexist-multiverse (S-multiverse, with different physics laws and nature constants) is totally wrong.

See and


Type I: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with both open and closed strings, no tachyon, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type IIA: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions spin both ways (nonchiral)
Type IIB: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, massless fermions only spin one way (chiral)
Type HO: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is SO(32)
Type HE: Supersymmetry between forces and matter, with closed strings only, no tachyon, heterotic, meaning right moving and left moving strings differ, group symmetry is E8 x E8

 Copyright © September 2016 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong