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.