The Mickey Mouse principle

After the EPR argument, the ‘quantum mechanics (QM)’ is known as incomplete. In recent years, Steven Weinberg has repeatedly voiced his complain about the incompleteness of QM, see , without giving a precise new proposal.

On the other hand, Gerard ‘t Hooft (a Nobel Laureate of physics) published a book {The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (by Springer in 2016)} and followed up with a new article {Free Will in the Theory of Everything (in September 2017)} to propose a complete new FRAMEWORK for QM.

A) The ‘t Hooft/ Maudlin debate

However, ‘t Hooft’s new QM is violently attacked by many, such as Tim Maudlin. The center of the battlefield is still about the EPR argument, especially about its derivative (the Bell’s theorem).

Bell’s theorem: {No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics}; rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables).

In the general consensus, Bell’s theorem is now verified by Alain Aspect (1981) and Hensen (2015) experiments.

However, even John Stewart Bell admitted that Bell’s theorem can be invalided under the condition of superdeterminism.

Superdeterminism: the apparent freedom of choice of an agent (Alice or Bob) is in fact the reenacting a predetermined screenplay; that is, there is not true free-will. Thus, Bell’s theorem depends on the assumption of “free will”, which does not apply to deterministic theories.


Now, the battle line is very clear:

For Maudlin:

One, Bell’s theorem has verified.

Two, the automata are 1) following deterministic rules and 2) reacting at any time to only local inputs. That is, cellular automaton lying on a grid are updated according to laws that only involve nearest neighbors, nothing else, so that deserves to be called “local”.

Three: so I hope we agree that neither the local indeterministic automata nor the local deterministic automata of this sort could be used in an empirically acceptable theory, even though producing the right empirical results is logically possible in each case.

Four (conclusion): cellular automaton QM is totally wrong.


For   ‘t Hooft:

One, my findings are so different from Bell’s. The core ingredient of my views is the existence of mappings of the states of a local, deterministic system onto orthonormal sets of basis elements of Hilbert space.  QFT is a local indeterministic theory that obviously predicts violations of Bell’s inequality, and it was described by Bell himself as “not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behaviour, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined”

Two, ‘t Hooft’s CA is a *quantum* cellular automata: “the local indeterministic automata should produce behavior that is indistinguishable from local deterministic automata that are all running different deterministic pseudo-random number generators; that is, there exists an automaton-like theory with quantum evolution laws, mimicking the Standard Model at large distances, that yields the same predictions as a deterministic automaton.

With the superdeterminism loophole remains open, the above argument is identical to the ‘chicken talk to duck’, singing their own songs without any meaningful conversation.

B) The verdict

So, ‘t Hooft concluded: {I still feel the burden of producing more precise models, ones that generate more precisely systems of particles resembling the SM. As long as that hasn’t been completed, you can continue shouting at me.}

Fortunately, there is a (the) precise model which generates particles exactly resembling (identical to) the SM zoo.


In Prequark Chromodynamics, both proton and neutron have the cellular automaton descriptions (as glider of Conway’s Life game, the base for a Turing computer), see . And, this is now widely known via Twitter.







C) Bell’s theorem revisited

With Prequark Chromodynamics, the ‘t Hooft/Maudlin debate can now be settled. But, I do not agree with the view that superdeterminism plays a major role in QM. Thus, I will revisit this ‘Bell’s theorem’ issue.

In addition to the superdeterminism loophole, there are two issues for the experimental verification for the theorem.

One, there are loopholes for the experiments, and some of them are intrinsic, having new loopholes in ad infinitum sense.

Two, all experiments are theory-based (biased). That is, all the experimental verification will not guaranteed the intended theory to be CORRECT. The two best examples are GR (general relativity) and SM (standard model of particles). GR has passed ALL experimental tests which we human can throw at it, but it is now known as an ‘effective theory’ at best if not all the way wrong (as a gravity theory). SM has also passed all tests which we human can throw at it, but no one in the whole world believes that it is a complete theory.

On the other hand, a theorem (not law) could be disproved logically or linguistically.

Bell’s theorem: {No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics}; rules out local hidden variables as a viable explanation of quantum mechanics (though it still leaves the door open for non-local hidden variables).


Is this theorem logically or linguistically sound?

It consists of only two linguistic (logic) terms: {local hidden variables theory} and {quantum mechanics}.

“Local hidden variables” = “”local realism”

Locality: means that reality in one location is not influenced by measurements performed simultaneously at a distant location; that is, no instantaneous (“spooky”) action at a distance.

Realism: means that the moon is there even when not being observed; that is, microscopic objects have real properties determining the outcomes of quantum mechanical measurements.

Yet, violation of Bell’s inequality implies that at least one of the two assumptions (locality or realism) must be false.

Determinism must be confined in the domain of {locality + realism}.

Superdeterminism (without free will) can roam outside of the deterministic domain.

Freedom refers to the physical possibility of determining settings on measurement devices independently of the internal state of the physical system being measured.

Non-locality: the signal involved must propagate instantaneously (or with superluminally signal), so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant.

If we can show that QM is totally local and real, then Bell’s theorem is invalid or simply moot.


QM is different from the local/real theory with only two major attributes: quantum uncertainty and superposition (Schrödinger’s cat).

One, quantum uncertainty: means that two noncommuting observables (such as position/momentum or time/energy) can never have completely well-defined values simultaneously, and this uncertainty is intrinsic, irremovable by the improvement of the measurements.

Two, superposition: the fate of Schrödinger’s cat.


In G-theory, these two mysterious QM wonders are totally deterministic.

First, QM is an emergent, not fundamental. QM uncertainty equation is the result of dark energy (the expansion of the universe).




See and see Note 2 below.


Second, there is a {deterministic attractor}: all superposed states converge to  deterministic macro-states, see


Third, quantum-ness cannot avoid the deterministic outcome.


In fact, all the Alain Aspect type experiments show only that quantum particles have a special attribute, the entanglement while the entanglement is 100% deterministic. There is no superluminally signal between the entangled particles as their states are superdetermined.


However, the superdeterministic feature of entanglement does not imply that the entire QM is superdeterministic. QM is completely deterministic (local and real) for three reasons.

One, the QM uncertainty is only the apparent effect of the expansion of the universe.

Two, the superposition is erased by the deterministic attractor.

Three, the entanglement is superdetermined.


Now, the Bell’s theorem can be mooted for three reasons.

One, there is a loophole (superdeterminism).

Two, all the experimental tests which support the Bell’s theorem cannot and will not guaranteed its validity (same fate as GR and SM).

Three, G-theory shows that 1) proton and neutron are Gliders (cellular automaton), 2) the expansion of the universe is 100% deterministic while the QM uncertainty is the emergent of it, 3) the superposition is erased by the deterministic attractor.


D) Clarifying the differences

I do agree with ‘t Hooft’s Cellular Automaton QM in principle as the G-theory (with proton/neutron as Glider) was developed 30 years before ‘t Hooft’s book (by Springer in 2016). I however do not agree with him about the ‘superdeterminism’ playing a MAJOR role in the case of completely excluding the ‘free will’.

Here, I would like to introduce the “Mickey Mouse principle”.

Mickey Mouse principle: Mickey Mouse and all Mickey Mouse-like entities are real.

At here, Mickey Mouse is an undefined term, understood in sociological sense. However, it has, at least, two attributes.

One, Mickey Mouse has no biological correspondence in terms of the ‘word’ mouse. That is, it is not real as a biological mouse.

Two, Mickey Mouse is observable as it is.


So, anything which encompasses the two attributes above will be a Mickey Mouse-like entity.

Example: if rhinoceros (or Saola, Narwhal, Unicornfish, Texas unicorn mantis, Okapi, Goblin spiders, Helmeted curassows, Unicorn shrimp, Arabian oryx, etc.) is clearly defined as not Unicorn, then Unicorn has no biological base, similar to Mickey Mouse, and it is a Mickey Mouse-like entity.

Yet, Unicorn is of course REAL in accordance to the “Mickey Mouse principle” as it is observable at many places, in arts (paintings, sculptures, animations, etc.).

The ‘free will’ is the backbone of the legal system (a subsystem of nature). Without IT, the entire legal system collapse. So, the ‘free will’ is at least a Mickey Mouse-like entity, and thus no law can exclude it.

On the same token, ‘superdeterminism’ cannot be excluded as it is the backbone for entanglement.

Of course, we cannot exclude the Bell’s theorem although it is a totally useless in the REAL world.


Note 1: the Mickey Mouse principle was first introduced here,


Note 2: in addition to change QM uncertainty to QM certainty, the EMERGENT QM equation also controls the evolution of the universe, also see .




This PREDICTED dark flow (by G-theory) is now verified,





And, all these was predicted in the book (Super Unified Theory)



Note 3: I discussed this issue in August 2012 already, at




Chances of Redemption for LIGO

LIGO claimed thus far for three DISCOVERIES for GW (gravitational wave). Without any independent verification, anyone (including LIGO) cannot make any claim for DISCOVERY by definition. LIGO’s three claims are not only wrong but are craps, and I made this point clear over one year ago, see and,


In addition to the scientific practice (moral) above, LIGO’s claims were logically wrong, as it did not detect any 2nd crest for any of the events. See,


The {spin and the masses} of those black holes, at this point, are just speculation craps. LIGO should just tell us about the wavelength and amplitude of those GWs.


On August 18, 2017, J Craig Wheeler (a member of LIGO collaboration) tweeted LIGO was verified with an optical counterpart, see


There are two concerning points.

One, neutron star by definition is a failed block hole, that is, its mass is smaller than an average black hole. So, the GW of twin neutron stars merging should be much smaller than the black hole cases, in two to three orders of magnitude.

Two, the Hubble telescope image of the neutron stars event on August 22 shows that the event is still in the merging process (not yet complete). So, any LIGO detection (on or before August 18) will be the pre-final waves for the event. Yet, why LIGO did not detect those pre-final waves for the so-called discovered twin black hole cases, while those BH pre-final waves should be much stronger than the neutron star case.


If LIGO can detect this neutron star event, it must be able to detect the other crests of the previous BH events. I truly hope that it could, as it has spent too much of my money on this.

This neutron star event can be the only chance for LIGO’s redemption. I am giving it my best wish.

Finally, I do want to complement LIGO’s manner on this occasion, as it did not make a crap claim right the way as it did before, and this alone is a redemption for LIGO, see its press-release below.


25 August 2017 — The Virgo and LIGO Scientific Collaborations have been observing since November 30, 2016 in the second Advanced Detector Observing Run ‘O2’ , searching for gravitational-wave signals, first with the two LIGO detectors, then with both LIGO and Virgo instruments operating together since August 1, 2017. Some promising gravitational-wave candidates have been identified in data from both LIGO and Virgo during our preliminary analysis, and we have shared what we currently know with astronomical observing partners. We are working hard to assure that the candidates are valid gravitational-wave events, and it will require time to establish the level of confidence needed to bring any results to the scientific community and the greater public. We will let you know as soon we have information ready to share. (See )}


I made the following statement in my book “Nature’s Manifesto”:

{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, (page 269, Nature’s Manifesto, see or ).}

For a whole redemption, LIGO must formally renounce its {three discovery claims}, as they were not independently verified. They should be renamed as {promising gravitational-wave candidates}.


Note (added on October 3, 2017): LIGO received Nobel physics 2017 today. But there are two points must be pointed out.

One, LIGO failed to detect a KNOWN GW event (see Hubble image of Binary Neutron Star merge of NGC 4993 on August 22, 2017).


Two, LIGO’s new claim GW170814 has a small enough patch for some non-LIGO verifications, but they are not done.


That is, all LIGO’s discoveries thus far (on this receiving Nobel physics day) are self-claims, without any verification from and with other astrophysics measurements.


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 ):

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 ). 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 . Furthermore, I politely informed Guth about this in 1993.



Also see

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


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 .



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 .

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.



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


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 (online since 1996)


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

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 

In addition to this post, I also commented at Gefter’s article, available at



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

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 and the book {Nature’s Manifesto, }.


The End of the “Inflation-War”


The “Inflation-War” between two groups of Cosmologists (and Physicists) was officially announced on May 9, 2017, see .

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


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 . 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 }.


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  ( ). 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 ).


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 .


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 .


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 }, 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 ).


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 .


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 .


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 .

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


Ten, without the first free social media , 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) ( ). 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 ( )} 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.