分类目录归档:转发博客

Nowhere to run! 主流物理(BSM)逃脱不了最终的失败

这些日子,物理世界惶恐不可终日,最终都逃脱不了失败的命运!

最新数据,这两日正在发布中。LHC发现超大粒子团,似乎又可以唤起新的希望!我们认为:不可能有真正本质的新发现,那只不过是夸克粒子团类似夸克化学反应聚合物而已。

理论物理的四个柱子理论都已经死了,由此支持的主流物理必然崩塌!无处可逃!

NOWHERE TO RUN!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the mainstream theoretical physics:

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

Two, BSM (Beyond Standard Model):

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

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

First, some facts are established.

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

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

Three, dark-flow (about 9%)?

Second, the on-going research directions:

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

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

Three, with astrophysical observations

Four, with direct detection of WIMP

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

One, Higgs mechanism

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

Three, SUSY

Four, inflation

Five, with WIMP

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

First, direct production at LHC: No.

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

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

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

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

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

For WIMPs (dark particles):

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

Second, via direct production at LHC: No.

Third, via AMS02 or cosmic gamma rays: No.

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

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

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

For Higgs mechanism, the following issues must be addressed.

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

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

First, there must be neutrinoless Double Beta Decay.

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

Third, neutrinos can have inverted mass-hierarchy.

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

eggcarton413

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

Four, HM cannot account for the dark energy.

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

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

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

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

No neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,

No inverted mass-hierarchy for neutrinos.

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

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

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

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

Told you so

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

No Higgs mechanism

No Majorana neutrino

No WIMPs

No SUSY

No sterile neutrino

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

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

Neutrino masses

Dark energy/dark mass

BaryonGenesis

Mass Hierarchy

Gravity, etc.

eggcarton431

Thus, SM needs:

SUSY (for dark mass, hierarchy, etc.)

WIMP (for dark mass)

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

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

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

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

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

eggcarton422

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

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

First, there must be ‘neutrinoless double beta decay’

Second, neutrinos could have inverted mass hierarchy.

Third, neutrinos MUST be their own anti-particles.

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

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

eggcarton493

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

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

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

Three, NO SUSY

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

eggcarton419

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

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

eggcarton424

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

Four, NO WIMP

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

darkmass02

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

darkmass05

eggcarton432

 

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

 

 

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

eggcarton430

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

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

eggcarton421

Six, other important data:

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

eggcarton423

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

eggcarton425

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

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

Note (added on May 18, 2017):

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

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

 

eggcarton489

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

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

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

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

 

IT IS REALLY MISFURTUNE fOR THE  MAINSTREAM:

Nowhere to run!!!

by tienzengong

 

 

Nowhere to run!!!

 

物理学的未来,David Gross 13年前的观点

物理学的未来, David Gross–2004

NATURE’S MANIFESTO ON PHYSICS 2(大自然的宣言2–龚先生出新书了)

Nature’s Manifesto on physics 2

by tienzengong

 

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 reported 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 conclude that Gluino masses below 1.65 TeV and squark masses below 1.37 TeV are excluded at a 95% confidence level. See http://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public-results/publications/SUS-15-012/index.html .

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

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 (700 pages)} will be published in January 2017.

Nature’s Manifesto — Nature vs Bullcraps (700 pagess)

Table of Content

Preface                                                                                     …..  p 4

Introduction                                                                         …..  P 15

Volume one: Physics-TOE

Chapter one: #how2CalculateAlpha                                 …..  p 27

Chapter two: #how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata         …..  p 42

Chapter three: Where is the beef?                                      …..   p 61

Chapter four: the First Principle                                          …..  p 77

Chapter five: the Expansion and Acceleration of the universe                 …..  p 103

Chapter six: #how2CalculateCosmologyConstant                                        …..  p 110

Chapter seven: Why not SUSY (s-particle)                                p 119

Chapter eight: Quantum Gravity — from here to eternity                       …..  p 141

Chapter nine: New Science Epistemology                        …..  p 180

Chapter ten: the String-M theory Bullcrap                      …..  p 256

Chapter eleven: Higgs Bullcrap                                                …..  p 292

Chapter twelve: Nature’s manifesto on physics            …..  p 348

Chapter thirteen:  Nowhere to run!                                     …..  p 377

Volume two: Life-TOE

 Chapter fourteen: about intelligence                                 ….. p 413

Chapter fifteen: the seeds (bases) of life                           ….. p 429

Chapter sixteen: the Darwinism bullcrap                       …..  p 452

(See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/ )

Chapter seventeen: the Death of two Gods                  …..  p 454

Chapter eighteen: The Human Intelligent Brain         …..  p 475

Chapter nineteen: the sexevolution                                  …..  p 491

Volume three: math-TOE

Chapter twenty: the internal structure of number ZERO                            …..  p 512

Chapter twenty-one: giving rise to physics laws        …..  p 520

Chapter twenty-two: Unification of physics and mathematics               …..  p 532

Chapter twenty-three: Fermat’s last theorem             …..  p 544

Chapter twenty-four: law of creation                               …..  p 554

Chapter twenty-five: the Final Total TOE                     …..  p 569

Volume four: Social-science-TOE

Chapter twenty-six: A new Economics Theory          …..  p 601

Chapter twenty-seven: Politics in TOE                          …..  p 612

Chapter twenty-eight: Linguistics in TOE                     …..  p 685

 

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/12/10/natures-manifesto-on-physics-2/

NATURE’S MANIFESTO ON PHYSICS(大自然的宣言–创新物理学)

NATURE’S MANIFESTO ON PHYSICS

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

eggcarton388

 

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, quantum gravity expands universe

Five, universe accelerates.

Six, energy/matter interaction (dark flow).

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.

The clarifications/denouncements

eggcarton327

eggcarton351

 

eggcarton105

Bio-computer is provided.

eggcarton188

Summary

 

eggcarton351

 

eggcarton327

 

 

 

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/natures-manifesto-on-physics/

Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity(量子引力:从这到永恒)

Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity

by tienzengong

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 http://vixra.freeforums.org/why-not-susy-t828.html

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? Seehttps://medium.com/@Tienzen/redemption-of-nobel-physics-12d625f6a03f#.qsl4o7ngj

 

 

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.

 

Conclusion:

 

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant, see http://vixra.freeforums.org/david-gross-nobel-laureate-on-cosmology-constant-t824.html

#how2CalculateAlpha, see http://vixra.freeforums.org/is-137-0359-137-0359-t825.html

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata, see http://vixra.freeforums.org/a-magic-numerological-formula-baryongenesis-t826.html

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass, seehttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong

 

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, http://vixra.freeforums.org/criteria-for-new-physics-t822.html

Two, String (M-) theory as quantum gravity is officially dead,http://vixra.freeforums.org/string-m-theory-as-quantum-gravity-is-officially-dead-t821.html

Three, The dark flow, http://vixra.freeforums.org/the-dark-flow-t823.html

Four, David Gross (Nobel Laureate) on Cosmology Constant,http://vixra.freeforums.org/david-gross-nobel-laureate-on-cosmology-constant-t824.html

Five, Is {137.0359… = 137.0359…}? http://vixra.freeforums.org/is-137-0359-137-0359-t825.html

Six, A magic numerological formula/baryongenesis,http://vixra.freeforums.org/a-magic-numerological-formula-baryongenesis-t826.html

Seven, Where is the BEEF? http://vixra.freeforums.org/where-is-the-beef-t827.html

Eight, Why not SUSY? http://vixra.freeforums.org/why-not-susy-t828.html

Nine, Quantum Gravity: From here to Eternity,http://vixra.freeforums.org/quantum-gravity-from-here-to-eternity-t830.html

Ten, Nature’s manifesto on physics, http://vixra.freeforums.org/nature-s-manifesto-on-physics-t837.html

Eleven, The cyclic universes (C-multiverses),http://vixra.freeforums.org/the-cyclic-universes-c-multiverses-t839.html

 

THE DAWN OF A NEW PHYSICS PARADIGM (新物理学范式的黎明)

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, seehttps://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/why-trust-a-theory-part-i/ ), 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 https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160915-string-theorys-strange-second-life/ }

eggcarton307

#StringTheoryOfficiallyDead is now a worldwide consensus.

eggcarton295

Massimo Pigliucci (very prominent philosopher/biologist) was a speaker at the Munich conference (Why Trust a Theory), see https://platofootnote.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/why-trust-a-theory-part-i/ .

eggcarton300

https://selfawarepatterns.com/ a very popular blog.

eggcarton296

Admitting that String (M-) is not physics per se by the mainstream physics community.

eggcarton301

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 https://4gravitons.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/the-parable-of-the-entanglers-and-the-bootstrappers/

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”? http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/09/dear-dr-b-what-do-physicists-mean-by.html }

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:

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

 

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 http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/06/02/universe-expanding-faster-than-expected/ ).

Europe’s Gaia space telescope data: Ho = 73.0 km s−1 Mpc−1 (see http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37438458 ).

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.

eggcarton312

But, it can still not describe the SM particles with an M-string language (the so called string-unification). Where is the BEEF?

eggcarton299

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:

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

The detail of this offer is available at http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-thumbs-up.html .

 

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.

 

Conclusion:

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.

 

The era of hope or total bullcrap(希望之时代或是完全胡扯的时代)

The era of hope or total bullcrap

by tienzengong

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 (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.

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

 

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 fail. 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.

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).

 

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.

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.qugm959un

 

Three, Gordon Kane’ moving sign post fallacy: seehttp://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7964

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html

 

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.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/

 

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.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/

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 music air fallacy

M-string-vibration

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

#how2CalculateAlpha

#how2CalculatePlanckCMBdata

#how2CalculateHiggsbosonMass

#how2CalculateCosmologyConstant

 

Thus, I have offered a prize award of $10,000 for anyone who is able to derive those nature constants, seehttp://tienzen.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-thumbs-up.html

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.

 

tienzengong | September 11, 2016 at 10:13 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p3PVI2-9j

Vision eulogy: the Post Checkmate Temper Tantrum fit (视觉悼词:被将军后症状)

Vision eulogy: the Post Checkmate Temper Tantrum fit

by tienzengong

Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) gave a “Vision speech” on August 5, 2016 at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ ) held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China}.

It not only is a great eulogy for String theory but is an ‘unconditional surrender declaration’ for the mainstream physics. This eulogy/declaration consists of only three simple points.

Point one, a framework is a hodgepodge, can rot but not be falsified.

 

Point two, String-theory is a framework, a big hodgepodge.

 

Point three, mainstream physics is trapped in a triangle hellfire dungeon, with no way out.

 

The first two points are the compliments of String theory in a nice eulogy. The last point is the total surrender declaration for the mainstream physics.

Indeed, the only way to rescue the mainstream physics is by solving these three hellfire dungeon curses: {(initial/boundary conditions), (essence of spacetime), uniqueness/unification}}.

One, uniqueness/unification: locked up the measuring rulers of this universe; the calculation of Alpha.

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

Two, essence of spacetime: the rising of SM zoo and mass; calculating the Planck CMB data and Vacuum boson’s mass.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/

About the Higgs: see, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/before-lhc-run-2-begins-enough-jeh-tween-gong

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

Three, One, initial/boundary conditions: the calculation of Cosmology Constant.

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/you-are-superficially-right-but-totally-wrong-in-the-deepest-point-188143a8b228#.80vcfsz3a

Now, the guarding curses of the hellfire dungeon which imprisons the mainstream are removed. The mainstream physics is now rescued, seehttps://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/mainstream-physics-rescued-from-the-hellfire-dungeon/ .

Yet, on a {15 year old “SUSY Bet” settlement event in Copenhagen on August 22, 2016}, most of the “SUSY Bet” losers (including Dr. David Gross) are still clinging on their SUSY-undead.

{“In the absence of any positive experimental evidence for supersymmetry,” Gross said, “it’s a good time to scare the hell out of the young people in the audience and tell them: ‘Don’t follow your elders. … Go out and look for something new and crazy and powerful and different. Different, especially.’ That’s definitely a good lesson. But I’m too old for that.”}

Gross is obviously going through the {first stage of grief}, the denial and giving up. Other deniers are more aggressive, proclaiming the {underdetermination} of the current situation. But, with the removing the three curses, the {underdetermination} of physics is no more, seehttps://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/underdetermination-of-physics-is-no-more/ .

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/13/mainstream-physics-rescued-from-the-hellfire-dungeon/

After the {anger and depression}, David Gross (and all others) will definitely get a upward turn, as my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) had showed this “G-string rescue” to Dr. David Gross and others.

 

This post checkmate temper tantrum fit will soon be over for sure.

 

THE FINAL TOTAL TOE (THEORY OF EVERYTHING)终极全统理论

The Final Total TOE (theory of everything)

For a Final total TOE, it must consist of, at least, three pillars:

One, physics-TOE

Two, life-TOE

Three, math-TOE

It must arises from a single FIRST PRINCIPLE.

And, it must make contact to ALL known facts (not theories).

This criteria is simple enough and is verifiable by every street walking person.

Section one: the philosophy

Wigner (in a 1969 essay) argued that {“the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious”, and that “there is no rational explanation for it”.}

Wigner’s statement shows the current status of math which has a BASE totally disjoined from NATURE. The modern math INVENTed a set LANGUAGEs and plays a language game internally. Language by definition is recursively defined and is a machine for producing paradoxes and riddles.

Furthermore, the key point here is that the math-universe is a multiverse, with infinite many sub-universes while THIS physical universe is unique with many known attributes: nature constants, Planck CMB data, SM particle zoo, etc.

So, the key issue here is that:

One, is math ONLY as a great tool and language for describing physics? Or,

Two, {math universe} is totally isomorphic to the {physics universe}, the total universal structural realism.

Or, three, THIS unique physical universe of ours is just a happenstance in the physics-multiverse.

The answer from nature is {Two}, and this was the key point in the book {Super Unified Theory, US copyright TX 1-323-231} which describes this issue with three Chapters:

Chapter Seven – Colored numbers (page 53 – 61)

Chapter Eight – Chromology (page 62 – 69)

Chapter Nine – Unilogy (page 70 – 74)

Some of discussions of this issue were also post online over 20 years ago, see,

Unification of physics and mathematics, http://www.prequark.org/Mlaw.htm

and, Law of Creation, http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm

As the criteria is that all these three TOEs must arise from a single ‘First Principle’, there is no way to prove that the third TOE (math) is correct if we cannot show the details of two other TOEs. Thus, I will show the validity of math-TOE by showing the two other TOEs first.

Section two: physics-TOE

One, the first principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}

Two, definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}

Three, manifestation of timelessness: at every t, it must be ‘timelessness’ in essence.

 

 

Four, the equation of this ‘timelessness’: {Delta S = (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) x C x Delta T} … Equation zero

S, space; T, time (real); C, light speed. (n1, n2, n3) take the value of {0, 1, 2, or 3}

Five, Equation zero generates 48 SM fermions, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html

 

Six, the manifestation of ‘immutability’: via Ghost-rascal, see  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2014/02/ghost-rascal-conjecture-and-ultimate.html . Again, it generates 48 SM fermions.

Seven, the manifestation as force(s):

F (unified) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant … Equation one

 

This force (gravity) has two parts:

First, it moves the entire universe from {[here (now), now] to [here (next), next]}, and it causes the expansion of universe with acceleration.

Second, every individual particle interact with ALL particles in this universe via the {Real/Ghost symmetry}, with the strength measured with Newton’s gravity equation (distance is measured in the world (real) sheet).

See http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm

This physics-TOE has the following consequences:

Consequence one: universe expands with acceleration. See, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html

Consequence two: uncertainty principle is the emergent of Equation one.

Consequence three: calculation of Alpha

See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/totally-blind-deaf-googlefacebookblogosphere-era-jeh-tween-gong

Consequence four: calculation of Planck CMB data

See, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/

Consequence five: calculation of Cosmology constant, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/

Consequence six: the Hierarchy problem

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/why-making-something-easy-so-difficult-aae8e3715b6d#.6ko3u5dlf

Consequence seven: the physics-TOE,

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/the-final-toe-theory-of-everything/

 

Section three: life-TOE

The highest EXPRESSION for life is {intelligence and consciousness}.

One, definition of ‘intelligence’:

Necessary condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

Sufficient condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

See http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm

Two, definition of ‘consciousness’:

Necessary condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

Sufficient condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

eggcarton184

More about this ‘Theorem of Consciousness’, see Metaphysics of Linguistics, http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr018.htm

More about this ‘Theorem of Consciousness’, see Metaphysics of Linguistics, http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwr018.htm .

 

Now, intelligence and consciousness are SEEDed in physics. Yet, the utmost EXPRESSION of life has a structure as a topological torus, having 7 color-codes.

eggcarton190

With embedded intelligence and consciousness, life evolves INTELLIGENTly, see DEATHS OF TWO GODS,https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deaths-of-two-gods/ and, INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION,https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/

With embedded intelligence and consciousness, life evolves INTELLIGENTly, see DEATHS OF TWO GODS,https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deaths-of-two-gods/ and, INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION,https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/intelligent-evolution/ .

With {intelligent evolution}, life-TOE is complete, and it unifies with the physics-TOE.

 

Section four: the math-TOE

There are three key points for the current mainstream math:

One, number line has the cardinality of continuum; that is, between any {two points}, there are ‘infinite’ numbers between them.

Two, there is ONE ‘number’ for each ‘point’ of the number line.

Three, Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable.

 

On the other hand, this math-TOE must have the followings:

One, number line has the cardinality of continuum; that is, between any {two points}, there are ‘infinite’ numbers between them.

Two, there are at least ‘TWO’ numbers for each ‘point’ of the number line. This is the key for the math-TOE.

Three, Continuum Hypothesis is false. I will not prove it here in a traditional way but will give an example (the bridge between two cardinalities).

First, we should renormalize the Godel’s incompleteness to regain the completeness in TOTALITY, seehttp://www.prequark.org/Create.htm . More detailed discussion is available at http://www.prebabel.info/lifesys.htm, completeness is regained in life-system via a renormalization process.

See http://www.prebabel.info/lifesys.htm

 

Second, there are at least two NUMBERs in each number-line POINT.

eggcarton182a

In the above graph, the ‘X’ point is the point A = 0. The point B is a moving point. When B moves to ‘X’, B = 12. That is, the point ‘X’ in fact has two numbers (0, 12)

In the above graph, the ‘X’ point is the point A = 0. The point B is a moving point. When B moves to ‘X’, B = 12. That is, the point ‘X’ in fact has two numbers (0, 12).

eggcarton197

Third, Continuum Hypothesis is false; there is a bridge between two infinities.

See http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm

Fourth, more entanglement:

One: 1/3 = 1/2 – 1/4 + 1/8 – 1/16 + 1/32 – 1/64 + 1/128 – 1/256 + 1/512 – 1/1024 + 1/2048 -… +…

For 1/3 (with an odd number as the denominator), it can only be “reached” with the sum of a sequence of numbers with only the even numbers as the denominators, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_13.html and http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm

Two: prime numbers cannot be reached via multiplication with nature numbers.

Three, Fermat’s last theorem: the sum of two nature number cannot be reached via the same algebra operation.

 

Each point (number) is in fact entangled with (or reachable by/from) infinite number of other numbers. For example, 3 is linked to 1/3, {3^n, integers}, {3 ^ (-n), irrational}, etc.

This ‘number entanglement’ is the base for the third cardinality.

 

Fifth, the ‘HOLE’ point contains infinite number of geometrical points.

See http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm

 

With the above, we can reconstruct the NUMBER line as follow:

One, with the “number entanglement’, there are three cardinalities: countable, uncountable, the bridge (pseudo-uncountable).

 

Two, there are three ‘zeros’, in correspondence to the three infinities.

0 (c) = 1/countable

0 (u) = 1/uncountable

0 (p) = 1/pseudo-uncountable

 

Three, every POINT on the number line has three different NUMBERS.

4 + 0 (c) = C4

4 + 0 (u) = U4

4 + 0 (p) = P4

Yet, these three different ‘4’ cannot be distinguished algebraically or by any known math operations. That is, for some numbers A < > (not the same as) B, {A – B = 0}.

Now, there are two theorems:

Theorem 1: between two ‘points’ of number line, there are infinite ‘numbers’.

Theorem 2: between two ‘numbers’, there could have either infinite or finite numbers.

 

Four, this ‘number entanglement’ does show up by having three different kind of numbers:

First, with countable digits, such as 3 = 3.0000… (the c-number).

Second, with uncountable digits, such as Pi = 3.14… (the u-number)

Third, with pseudo-uncountable digits, such as 2 ^(1/2) = 1.414… (the p-number)

 

Five, with a seed number {1}, we can construct the entire number line (including three infinities) with a 7-color code system.

See http://www.prequark.org/Fermat.htm

 

Section five: The map of Final TOE

I have constructed the physics-TOE from the first principle together with two manifested equations, as below.

The first principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}; definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}

 

{Delta S = (i^n1, i^n2, i^n3) x C x Delta T} … Equation zero

F (unified) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant … Equation one

 

At this point, there is seemingly a major difference between math and physics.

Physics manifests IN time/space (the equation zero), and thus it is constrained in Energy (an expression of space/time). Thus, physics universe is a FINITUDE.

On the other hand, math manifests IN nothingness {the union of zero(s) and infinities)}.

Thus, the evolution of math has no physical constrain and can have infinite expressions while physics universe is unique (no multiverse). The physics-multiverse is denounced at here,http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html

While math evolution can lead to multi-math-universe (arbitrary constructions, such as the Grassman, Quaternion and Octonions numbers), its BASE (the basic lego pieces) is totally NATURE (total Platonism: basic math lego pieces are timeless entities, independent of the physical world and of the symbols used to represent them.) while the human-math is all about the ‘construction’ of ‘structures’.

As the Continuum Hypothesis is undecidable in the set theory, it is valid to select a third cardinality as a new axiom. But, no. This third cardinality is not a humanly selected axiom but is a part of nature’s math basic lego pieces. The reason for the insistence of this is that it is the only way to DERIVE the physics universe from math-universe.

By knowing the difference between the two, the only way to DERIVE the physics universe from math-universe is by transforming infinities into FINITUDE (same as creating something from nothing).

 

In math universe, the finite numbers are produced by the INVERSE operation of infinities. Yet, transforming infinites into physics-universe (a finitude), they (infinities) must be transformed into CONCRETE objects. And, this was done with two Platonic equations.

One: 1/3 = 1/2 – 1/4 + 1/8 – 1/16 + 1/32 – 1/64 + 1/128 – 1/256 + 1/512 – 1/1024 + 1/2048 -… +…  (trisecting an angle, taking countable steps); countable infinity is now transformed into a concrete object (A: angultron, a trisected angle)

 

Two: pi / 4 = 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – 1/11 + 1/13 – … + … (with “countable” infinite steps to reach ‘uncountable digits’); uncountable infinity is now transformed into a unit circle (which gives rise to space/time equation zero; the 64 subspaces: 48 fermions and 16 dark energy).

See, http://www.prebabel.info/newmath.htm ,

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_13.html   and

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_11.html

 

That is, the math-universe (infinities) gives rise to the physics-universe. Of course, I will give more evidences to show this point.

One, the generalization of a circle is elliptic curve, and the fermion is described with elliptic curve.

eggcarton175

 

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/ .

 

Two, In addition to this {infinite to finitude} transformation, the key essence of these two equations is the {number entanglement: odd numbers can only be reached by even numbers, and vice versa}. This number entanglement is also the source for quantum (gravity) entanglement.

The essence of the math-universe to physics-universe transformation is all about infinities and the pathways of their concretization. That is, the key equation is,

A – b = 0, but A is not b.

This means that most of numbers are unreachable by finite means (arithmetic and algebra operations), as every *finite* number is the concretization of infinities, and it does carry a tail with infinite digits. That is, for any selected number *A*, it is surrounded by zillions (at least two) neighborhood numbers which are not distinguishable from the number *A* by all means. Thus, all those unreachable (indistinguishable from the number *A*) numbers must be color-coded, such as, b = A (red), = A (blue) or = A (green), etc.; that is, A (x) – b = 0.

Yet, there is always a number C, and

A – C > 0

The largest C cannot truly be determined with finite means. But, in principle, there is always *a* largest C in the physical universe *with* finite means (by measurement). That is,

A – C = g

Although we do not know the exact value for g, g is larger than 0 (g > 0). In the math universe, g is un-determined and can approach the concept of *continuity*. Yet, in the finite (physical) universe, this g becomes the smallest *deterministic unit*, distinguishing the number *C* from the number *A*. Indeed, for the *physical* universe, the g can actually be determined. Let,

X-axis as space, thus, the (delta S > =g).

Y-axis as momentum, the (delta P >= g).

So, (delta P) x (delta S) >= g^2

 

In physics, the photon is the medium for causality (see Constants of Nature, http://www.prequark.org/Constant.htm). Thus, the smallest *deterministic* unit (for causality) in the physical universe is (photon / c), c is the light speed.  That is, in the physical universe, g^2 = (photon / c).

 

Yet, photon is the result of the interaction of e (electron).

So, g^2 = (photon /c) = (e^2/c), e is electric charge.

In the article “The Rise of Gravity and Electric Charge, (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm )”, the e-charge is,

 

e (charge) = (L * C)^(1/2) = [(1/2) ħ * C]^(1/2); L the angular momentum, C light speed, ħ (Planck constant).

So, g^2 = ħ * C / C = ħ,

Thus, (delta P) x (delta S) > = g^2 >= ħ

Now, the uncertainty principle of physics is the direct consequence of the *Nature math*, the essence of infinities and of unreachable of numbers (the number entanglement), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html

With this *derivation*, this new paradigm is fully verified. Yet, there is one very important additional point. That is, this major essence of the *unreachable numbers* is swept away in the human math by the concept of *continuity*. That is, the human math is completely unaware of this *Nature math*.

 

Three, this {number entanglement} is also the source for Fermat’s last theorem and abc-conjecture, and they are closely related to the elliptic curves. Fermat’s Last Theorem was proved by using elliptic curves but still not knowing the essence of the theorem: the entanglement caused by the colored numbers. In fact, this colored number is the SOURCE for the Fermat’s last theorem, see The Philosophical Meanings of Fermat’s Last Theorem,http://www.prequark.org/Fermat.htm .

 

Four, topologically a complex elliptic curve is a torus (can be defined with 7 color-codes) which is the BASE for consciousness via the Theorem of consciousness (Ringel-Youngs theorem).

eggcarton207

 

Section six: conclusion

One: Physics TOE

First principle: {The essence of THIS universe is ‘NOTHINGNESS’, and it must remain to be nothingness}; definition of ‘nothingness’: {timelessness and immutability}

Consequences:

First, Nature constants: Cosmology constant (https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ ), Alpha = (1/137.03599…), etc.

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

Third, expanding universe with acceleration

Fourth, SM fermion zoo

eggcarton211

See, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html ,https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ andhttp://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html

 

Two: Math-TOE — First principle in math as {nothingness = 1/infinit(ies)}

Consequences:

First, {colored number/number entanglement: 0 (c) = 1/countable; 0 (u) = 1/uncountable; 0 (p) = 1/pseudo-uncountable} with 7 colors {1, c-numbers, p-numbers, u-numbers, countable, uncountable, pseudo-uncountable}.

Second, Fermat’s last theorem, ABC conjecture, etc.

Third, describing physics TOE

Fourth, as a base for life TOE

eggcarton213

Math-universe is built up with arbitrary constructions by using a “lego base”, but this {Lego Base} is not a construction but is totally nature, expressed from the {First Principle} which gives rise to physics-universe too.

Math-universe is built up with arbitrary constructions by using a “lego base”, but this {Lego Base} is not a construction but is totally nature, expressed from the {First Principle} which gives rise to physics-universe too.

 

Three: Life TOE — Intelligence + Consciousness

First, definition of ‘intelligence’:

Necessary condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

Sufficient condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

 

Second, definition of ‘consciousness’:

Necessary condition: the ability to distinguish self from others.

Sufficient condition: there is a ‘counting’ device (counting strews, abacus or Turing computer).

See http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm

 

Four, on a deeper level, physics TOE is derived from math by concretizing infinities.

eggcarton208

 

Five, physics/math/life are totally unified.

eggcarton210

Total-TOE-D2

See http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm

See http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm

 

Note 1: in 2014, Max Tegmark published a book “Our Mathematical Universe” which promotes an idea of {the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH)} with the central point as: {Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and “in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world”.} His key idea is similar to mine but with the following giant differences.

One, Tegmark does not and did not know any physics-TOE; so, his idea is just a philosophy, no way to unify physics and math.

 

Two, this math-TOE is totally based on the colored numbers (the third cardinality) and the number entanglement, and Tegmark does not have any idea of these.

Three, Tegmark reached his conclusion for multiverse from two confusions:

First, (1/Alpha) is not computable, at least not in countable steps, and this is absolutely wrong.

Second, that there are unlimited (if not infinite) math-structures in comparison to a unique physical universe. In my math-TOE, math and physics have the same BASE lego set while physics manifests in the arrow of time (being constrained by energy) while math manifests in the essence of nature (the timelessness). The multiverse bullcrap is denounced in the article {Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature,http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html }.

 

Note 2: this article is written as a part of presentation {(Modeling universe by G-string theory) at “Strings 2016 (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )” held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016)} and will be handed out as handout at {The 7th International Congress of Chinese Mathematicians (ICCM 2016),  held from Aug. 6 to Aug. 11, 2016 in Beijing} by my colleague Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China).

 

 

黑洞理论,霍金你错了N回!/Bob paradox = Sum {wrong (i)}

一、定义真正的悖论和错误的悖论:
任何真正的悖论(g-paradox),它必须有两个事实,并导致出矛盾的结果。
每一真正的悖论(如,自体同源的悖论,康托悖论,如罗素悖论等)可以以两种方式解决。
第一,必须有更高的对称性,才能统一矛盾的双方。
第二,可以通过进一步的对称性破缺消除矛盾。
然而,对于一个错误的悖论,它是用下面的方式定义的:
错误的悖论=总和(事实(i))+ 总和(错误(i))
例如:黑洞信息悖论=爱丽丝/鲍勃悖论:

N=错误次数求和 {错误的悖论(i),i-physcists =1,2,3,4。。。}

I   一段简史
有了这个定义,我们现在可以回顾{爱丽丝/鲍勃(黑洞信息)佯谬}。
首先,有一些事实:
一、根据GR(广义相对论),有些恒星(大约3倍太阳的质量,3米☉(托尔曼–奥本海默–沃尔科夫限制))崩溃的恒星黑洞会在一个区域,甚至光都无法摆脱或逃避其强大的引力,因此有事件视界,或具有史瓦西半径。
二、这个恒星黑洞应该是“无毛”,也就是说,只有三个宏观参数(质量,电荷,角动量)没有任何其他变量(毛)。
以上这些事实,没有矛盾。这样的恒星黑洞是一颗曾经活着的恒星的埋葬地,而恒星的所有量子信息作为一个恒星遗骨都被埋葬了,但并没有丢失。
然而,有I = 1(Stephen Hawking),他提出以下声称。
第一:黑洞是一个黑色的物体,因此,它应该有黑体热辐射(光子)。
第二:黑洞的热辐射会导致黑洞最终的总蒸发。
第三:这种热辐射不是任何恒星遗骨(信息)的载体。
因此,结论是,当这个恒星坟场(黑洞)被完全蒸发时,应该有恒星遗骨存在!这个恒星遗骨莫名其妙地消失了,恒星遗骨不是由热辐射或光子传出被蒸发掉了。所以,恒星遗骨丢失了就是黑洞信息丢失了。但是,这个结论与量子力学定律是矛盾的,因此构成黑洞信息悖论。
现在,我们有第一个版本的“黑洞信息”悖论。

然后,i= 2(李奥纳特•苏士侃和Larus Thorlacius,和其他一些人),他们提出了以下要求。
第一,新的蒸发过程是在黑洞视界附近不断产生的虚粒子对:爱丽丝和鲍伯,而不是热光子。其中一个爱丽丝掉进黑洞,而鲍伯逃逸。
第二,逃逸的鲍勃最终会导致黑洞的全部蒸发。
第三,由于爱丽丝和鲍伯是纠缠的双胞胎(只有不同的性别),爱丽丝的所有信息都可以从鲍伯那里得到。
结论:虽然黑洞蒸发掉了一切,包括爱丽丝的遗骨也永远消失了,但她的灵魂在她的孪生兄弟鲍伯身上被量子纠缠所保存。所以,没有黑洞信息丢失的悖论。

于是,有了有第二个版本的“黑洞信息”悖论。
没完,还有i= 3(Ahmed Almheiri,Donald Marolf,Joseph Polchinski,和James Sully),他们宣称。
第一,爱丽丝没有被白白地杀死,因为她在最后一口气(当然是按照GR定律)吐出一点蓝光,而那小小的蓝光使黑洞的视界变的更蓝了。
第二,经过足够的(在大约一半的黑洞蒸发)蓝光积累,事件视界成为任何新的下落的爱丽丝谁将油炸和永远无法进入黑洞防火墙。也就是说,在所有的实际意义上,这个洞已经消失了(没有东西能掉进去)。
问题:联合蒸发的半黑洞还存在吗?没有任何证据判别!
如果它还在那里,它还会从这一点一点地蒸发掉吗?
如果它不停地蒸发,最后,剩下的遗骨会发生什么?由于防火墙封闭的修补方案不能挽救黑洞继续蒸发,那么,剩下的遗骨是否也都丢失了呢?
我们有第三个版本的“黑洞信息”悖论。

嗯,演出必须继续下去。所以,i= 4(Stephen Hawking,Andrew Strominger,Malcolm J. Perry)。当然,所有这些错误的最简单的方法就是谴责“无毛发”定理。所以,他们现在宣称所有的黑洞都有‘毛’。
但是,但是,但是,其刚刚宣布它观察到的“引力波”是由两个黑洞碰撞产生的。然而,在计算中(从观察到的引力波来看),这两个碰撞的黑洞没有“毛发”。此外,霍金的阻塞毛发的数量可能不足以携带所有的死亡骨架。
对于任何一个恒星黑洞来说,它实际上并没有任何实际意义上的霍金热辐射,因为黑洞的表观温度比周围的温度要冷得多(大约2.7欧凯文)。也就是说,一个恒星黑洞不会向外辐射,而是吸收周围环境的热辐射。由超新星过程形成的恒星黑洞不会蒸发到现在或在可预见的将来(至少是宇宙的两倍)。
那么,为什么“黑洞信息”悖论还在继续呢?

嗯,可能有一些原始黑洞(大爆炸的结果,不是超新星过程的结果),它们有更小的质量。黑洞的温度与它的质量成反比。要使黑洞的温度大于2.7 K(并且能够蒸发),它需要比Moon少的质量,这样一个黑洞的直径将小于第十毫米,现在它可以蒸发。在最后一个蒸发阶段,一个原始黑洞会发出伽马射线,这应该是可以探测到的。对这种闪光的搜索已证明是不成功的,并对存在低质量原始黑洞的可能性提出了严格的限制。然而,NASA在2008发射的费米伽马射线太空望远镜将继续搜寻这些闪光。

如果原始黑洞的前景不太好,为什么这个“黑洞信息”悖论还在继续呢?
根据M理论,应该有一些微型原始黑洞。对于一个质量1 TeV/C2的黑洞,大型强子对撞机(I)它可以检测到。但是,迄今为止还没有发现这样的微小黑洞,包括迄今为止的LHC(II)数据。
再说一遍,为什么这个毫无道理的黑洞信息悖论还在继续?

他们说:在上述历史上有一些重大的发现。
发现一种新的熵:
霍金在一般情况下表明,任何一系列经典黑洞视界的总面积不会永远减少,即使它们碰撞合并。这就成为黑洞力学的第二定律,与热力学第二定律极为相似。以质量作为能量,表面重力为温度,面积为熵,有一种新的熵。

这是一个黑洞的Bekenstein––霍金熵(S),这取决于黑洞的面积(A),光速常数(C),玻尔兹曼常数(K),牛顿常数(G),和约化普朗克常数(ħ)。
在经典熵中,黑洞应该具有近零熵。但这种新型的熵,Bekenstein认为黑洞是最大熵的物体,他们有比相同体积的东西更多的熵。
其二,这个新的熵,热拉尔’t Hooft和李奥纳特•苏士侃发现了全息原理,这表明任何一个时空发生的过程可以通过对该时空的边界数据描述。
其三、与全息原理,Juan Maldacena在1997发现的AdS/CFT对应性。这个AdS/CFT成为M理论问题的大救星。
今天,这个AdS/ CFT对应性是主流物理学的超越标准模型物理唯一有效的方法。

II:详细审查

以上是近40年来现代物理学的简史。这段历史能带来美好的未来吗?或者,这是完全错误的吗?
如果我们没有一个与上述错误的不同的道路,我们就没有权利说它错了。如果我们的途径不正确,我就没有权利去说别人的错误。

我们可以简单地比较:谁能得到所有的自然常数(Cabibbo角/温伯格,Alpha,宇宙学常数,等)和普朗克CMB数据?
(主流)历史上没有人可以,但龚学可以。
Paul Steinhardt’s remorse, Popperianism and Beauty-Contest
有了这些的比较,谁对谁错就很显然了:也就不再有关于科学方法论的争论了。现在,我们有权直言不讳:这种“黑洞信息悖论”的历史完全走错了道路。

Note: Stephen Hawking conceded for stirring up this ‘dead-skeleton lost’- paradox at this point.
在显示正确的路径之前,必须先指出上面历史上的一些错误。

错误一:霍金辐射都是关于热光子的,热光子无静止质量,说辐射带走质量实际上毫无意义。
错误二:黑洞不会演出爱丽丝与鲍勃消失戏剧。在任何黑洞的物理学原理中,鲍伯和爱丽丝是由真空能产生的粒子对,没有任何原理只让鲍勃逃脱而爱丽丝留下。在这个爱丽丝/鲍勃的戏剧中,即使是用黑洞的能量来支付鲍勃的逃跑,也没有任何一种物理定律要求爱丽丝必须始终携带负能量。没有任何原理让黑洞的“质量”减少,也就是说,鲍伯的逃脱不会从黑洞中带走任何质量。爱丽丝是一个粒子(不仅仅是光子),她也携带一些静止的质量。所以,如果爱丽丝不给黑洞提供更多的质量,这个爱丽丝/鲍勃的戏剧至少也不会引起黑洞的蒸发。
错误三:如果黑洞蒸发,其最终的史瓦西半径将变为零,其熵的区域将成为零。也就是说,霍金的黑洞面积定律是错误的。

正确的道路只有一个问题:什么是重力?
重力很简单,它可以把百事可乐(坐在我休息的桌子上)从{这里,现在]转到[这里,下一个] }。而且,它需要一个力F(重力)来完成它。
F(重力)= K *ħ/(ΔS×Δt),k是一个常数。
然后,量子原理从这个F(重力)中出现。当然,我们可以对重力做更详细的定义,如下所示。
第一,重力必须基于粒子物理学,因为只有粒子携带质量(重力的唯一参数)。牛顿引力和广义相对论与粒子物理学无关,因此它们是错误的引力理论。seehttps://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/
第二,用牛顿引力方程描述了任意两物体间的万有引力(2)。
第三,重力必须 瞬时 和 同时 作用 (在这个宇宙中的所有粒子)。重力绝对不会以光速传播,尽管重力波(重力的属性)是。万有引力不是“局部的”。但是,我坐在桌子上的百事可乐罐的重力是:
F(百事重力)=Gm{求和[M(i)/ R(i)^ 2 ] } …..A方程
i代表整个宇宙的粒子,除了百事可乐。m是百事可乐的质量。

百事可乐可就放在我的桌子上(世界床单上的一块地)静止休息,它(百事可乐罐)与宇宙中所有其他粒子相互作用。{这是由两个部分组成的:世界表(真宇宙)和鬼点}。也就是说,百事可乐可以通过两条途径与宇宙的所有其他粒子联系在一起:
在物质世界中,它与其他粒子之间的距离是r(i)>0。因此,用牛顿重力方程计算了它们之间的引力相互作用强度。
因为,它(百事可乐)通过幽灵点与所有其他粒子相连,它与所有其他粒子之间的距离为所有“i”的R(I)={普朗克长度}。
因此,百事可乐的重力强度可以用A方程来计算。
重力传输的时间是{普朗克时间},几乎是瞬时的。
当一个物体的重力(比如百事可乐)的重力是用A方程式计算出来的,重力传输是通过“普朗克时间”,重力的真正定义是它把整个宇宙从现在移动到下一个}。参见, HTTP:/ / www.prequark.org /gravity.htm 详情。

III:悖论不再!

现在,我们可以通过两种途径来解决“黑洞信息”悖论问题。
一、宇宙自诞生以来的每一点信息(大爆炸)都是用一个详细的簿记记录的,宇宙学常数(cc)。通过比较计算CC和测量,我们将知道是否有任何信息丢失。我的计算表明,没有信息丢失,看到 https: / / tienzengong.WordPress.COM / 2016 / 04 / 24 /熵量子引力宇宙学常数/ 。
两个黑洞不是通过爱丽丝/鲍勃戏剧形成的。这个“边缘”戏剧怎么能深入到黑洞的本质?只有知道黑洞是如何形成的,我们才能讨论黑洞最终的死亡(如果有的话)。
总的来说,我们说当物体的内部压强不足以抵抗物体自身的引力时,就会发生重力坍缩。这种说法没有错误,但却是误导性的,而且确实误导了。

它的内部压力是多少?
它自身的引力是什么?
我将用两个概念来澄清这些问题。
一,{自由粒子}:
其内部的压力是什么?
什么是其自身的重力?
我想有两个清晰的概念基础。
一个粒子,{自由粒子}:
以我们的太阳为例:整个空间(一箱)一个给定的原子(氢原子等),在它的一生中被作为一个roamed自由粒子(一个原子箱)。这个自由的粒子(盒)可能是一个在其面立方体100英里,它包含数十亿原子。为每一个粒子(无盒),它可以作为一个粒子(静止不动)。
定义:如果一个净力为零的粒子,这是一个自由的粒子。
这是a {自由},粒子在其余条件总是在盒子的盒子),AS是不接收任何外部的力和力不出任何项目。
定理:一个粒子在一个紧凑的对象A,它是一个自由的粒子
corollary:水分子在一个冰格是一个自由的粒子。
因此,中子在中子星A A是一个自由的粒子。
二,潮汐力:
一杆(或箱)有一英尺长(RA,RB,[米] = 1),有一个在潮汐力杆(或盒(箱)),如果它不是一个自由粒子一紧凑的对象(源的潮汐重力)
潮汐力(a,b)= f(r)-(的R – 1)= f(a,b)的TF
在A和B是重力为:
f(a)= F(R,R)是一个长途的中心点,填充的对象。
f(b)= f(r + 1),不要一米远离中心。
如果重力潮汐力一紧凑的对象在一个盒(a,b),小(的)结构的结合力比盒子(氢原子),它可以形成恒星,它无法通过原子分开。
如果重力潮汐力一紧凑的对象在一个盒(a,b)较大(>)的结合力比结构盒子(氢原子)的原子将被终止,然后分开。本案例中,它可能变成一个中子星。
当重力潮汐力在一箱一紧凑的对象(中子)是更大的比(>)结构结合力(中子,中子和拉除了它变成黑洞。当然,我们没有去成黑洞是通过中子星的舞台。
因此,基本上,这是,至少,三类型的恒星。
一,“质子星”(PS):星状如我们的太阳是由99.99%的氢原子(含质子)”
二,“中子星(NS)
三、“黑洞(BH)
质子星主要是由质子(氢原子)构成。太阳的潮汐力是不足以大的分开氢原子的。然而,核融合产生足够的热能量平衡对太阳的引力。因此,它有一个大的直径。
它的崩塌,有几个途径。
结果I型超新星的白矮星的明星:a,a:碳融合的支持7000km半径(约是地球的大小)。然而,它仍然是一个质子的明星。
结果II型超新星:当足够大的潮汐力是分手的氢或氦原子的中子星,它崩塌collapses作为一个平均半径(1到10英里),一个小城市的大小。所有原子的质子是从中间隔断,和没有人可以活下去。
如果潮汐力是足够强的分手的“中子”,成为“IT黑洞的史瓦西半径约10英里’for a 3太阳质量的黑洞。把所有强子的粒子是分开的。
两个Schwarzschild黑洞的描述,有一个奇点在Schwarzschild球面中心。但是,在这个环的G弦的描述,每个字符串是一个“奇点”的准备,没有奇点,在中心的地方。
三串,每个环是一个自由的粒子内部的黑洞。这是更长的时间,没有任何自由落体或潮汐重力在这个环的字符串时,它的事件视界的护照。
四,事件视界是本面条化spaghettification innermost圈区。
因此,“量子引力”是一个关于重力之间的中子在中子星?
重力是整个宇宙的一个动作力这是量子单位,参见:http:/ /  prebabel.blogspot.com /2013-11 -为什么是黑暗能量的补充性原则universe.html 量子重力。
再次,每一个粒子在紧凑的对象(A固体球,明星等)是一个自由的粒子。
因此,粒子在重力作用下紧凑对象互相相等,equals对象的所有粒子是按照光盘的Freundlich方程。
中子在中子星的中心湖与中子在中子星边缘具有一样的重力。

当g-quark /轻子弦(线)卷曲成环的字符串,夸克的色荷和代中和(不破坏)。所以,当一个粒子(中子,质子,电子或其他)落入黑洞,它成为一个环串,所有的电荷中和而保守。当它们被辐射出去以后(如果有的话),环重新拉直以恢复它们的电荷。也就是说,没有信息丢失,也没有获得。

这是龚弦的描述和经典之间的差异。
一,而不是与史瓦西半径视界,有一个面条拉伸(spaghettification)区。当一个粒子(或其他)是面条拉伸spaghettified,它分解成g-ring-strings。
二,黑洞的史瓦西描述在史瓦西球中心的一个“奇点”。但是,在这个龚学描述,每一环的龚弦本身是一个“奇点”,并没有在任何地方出现任何奇异的中心。
三,每个环串是黑洞内部的一个自由粒子。也就是说,当这个环弦穿过事件视界时不再有自由落体或潮汐重力。
四,事件视界是面条拉伸spaghettification区核心圈。
所以,“量子引力”并不是中子星中中子之间的引力。
重力是整个宇宙的量子单位产生的力!参见http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html,量子原理是重力的显现。

同样,致密物体(实心球、恒星等)中的每一个粒子都是自由粒子。
因此,在一个紧凑的物体中的粒子的重力等于根据这个方程A在这个致密物体中的所有粒子。中子星中心的中子与中子在边缘的引力相同。
IV:结论
这个信息悖论问题有两种解决方法。
一、簿记、宇宙学常数的计算。
二、是黑洞的内部结构,所有的环弦仍然带有质量和电荷,但所有其他信息都被储存起来。

最后,全息原理是宇宙物理运动(从现在(t1)到下一个(T2))产生的直接结果。

原文见附:

Alice/Bob paradox = Sum {wrong (i)}

by tienzengong

For any genuine paradox (G-paradox), it must have two FACTs which lead to CONTRADICTORY results.

In Chapter three of {The Divine Constitution (ISBN 0916713067,9780916713065, see https://books.google.com/books?id=8MMzPwAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Gong+Jeh-Tween%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9oDyT9z8E-PO2wWznf2fAg )}, it states: every G-paradox (such as, the Grelling autological paradox, Cantor’s paradox, Russell set paradox, etc.) can be resolved in two ways.

One, there must be a higher symmetry which is able to unify the contradiction.

Two, the contradiction can always be removed by further symmetry breaking.

However, for a wrong-paradox, it is defined with the following equation:

Sum (fact (i)) + sum (error (i)) = wrong-paradox

For, i = {physcists}

I: A brief history

With this definition, we can now review the {Alice/Bob (black hole information) paradox}.

First, some facts.

One, according to GR (general relativity), some stars (with about 3 times of Sun’s mass, 3 M☉ (the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit)) would collapse into a stellar black hole (a region that even lights cannot get out or escape) which has an event horizon (having Schwarzschild radius).

Two, this stellar black hole should be ‘hairless’, that is, having only three macro-parameters (mass, electric charge, and angular momentum) without any other variables (hairs).

Note 1, at this point, there is no paradox. This stellar black hole is a burial site for a once living star while all the quantum information of the star were buried (as a dead skeleton) but not lost.

Yet, there is i = 1 (Stephen Hawking), and he made the following CLAIMs.

One, black hole is a black body, and thus it should have THERMAL-radiation (photons).

Two, this thermal radiation of black hole will lead to the eventual TOTAL evaporation of the black hole.

Three, this thermal radiation is not a carrier for any dead-skeleton (information).

So, the conclusion is that when this burial site (black hole) is totally evaporated, no dead-skeleton can be found while they were not carried out by the outgoing vapors (the thermal radiation, the photons). So, the dead-skeleton is simply lost (the black hole information paradox). But, this conclusion is in conflict (contradicting) with the laws of quantum mechanics.

Now, we have a ‘dead-skeleton lost’ paradox.

Then, there are i = 2 (Leonard Susskind and Larus Thorlacius, and some others), and they made the following CLAIMs.

One, the vapors are virtual particle pairs (Alice and Bob, not thermal photons) which are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, and one of them (always Alice) falls into the hole while Bob escapes.

Two, the escaping Bob will eventual lead to the TOTAL evaporation of that black hole.

Three, as Alice and Bob are entangled twins (only different in sex), all information of doomed Alice can be recovered from Bob.

The conclusion: although Alice’s dead-skeleton was lost forever, her SOUL is preserved in her twin-brother Bob via the quantum entanglement. So, there is no ‘dead-skeleton (information) lost’ paradox.

 

 

Note: Stephen Hawking conceded for stirring up this ‘dead-skeleton lost’- paradox at this point.

Finally, there is i = 3 (Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, and James Sully), and they CLAIMed the followings.

One, Alice was not killed in vain, as she puffs out a bit blue light during her last breath (of course in accordance to the law of GR), and that little blue light made the black hole’s event horizon a bit bluer.

Two, after enough (when about half of the black hole has evaporated) blue light accumulated, the event horizon becomes a firewall for any new infalling Alice who will be fried and never be able to go into the hole. That is, in all practical senses, the HOLE has disappeared (nothing can fall in anymore).

Question:

Is the un-evaporated half-black hole still there (as a reality)?

If it is still there, how can it evaporate from this point on?

If it keeps evaporating somehow, what happen to the remaining ‘dead skeleton”? As the complementarity scheme can no longer work for firewall enclosed black hole, is the remaining ‘dead skeleton” lost or not?

Well, the SHOW must keep going. So, there is i = 4 (Stephen Hawking, Andrew Strominger,  Malcolm J. Perry). Of course, the easiest way out for all those wrongs is to denounce the ‘no-hair’-theorem. So, they now CLAIM that all black holes have ‘HAIRs’.

But, but, but, LIGO just announced that it observed ‘gravitational wave’ which was produced by the collision of two black holes. Yet, in its calculation (from and with that observed gravitational wave), these two colliding black holes have ‘NO-HAIRs’. Furthermore, the amount of Hawking block hole hairs might not be ENOUGH to carry all the dead-skeleton.

For a (any) stellar black hole, it has in fact NO Hawking THERMAL radiation in any practical sense, as the apparent temperature of black hole is much colder than the ambient temperature (about 2.7 Kelvin). That is, instead of radiating out, a (any) stellar black hole will absorb thermal radiation from its surroundings. No (absolutely not) stellar black hole formed from the supernova process can evaporate up to now or in a foreseeable future (at least twice the life time of this universe).

Then, why is this ‘dead-skeleton’ paradox still going?

Well, there could be some primordial black holes (result of Big Bang, not from the supernova process) which have much smaller mass. And, the black hole temperature is inversely proportional to its mass. To have a black hole temperature larger than 2.7 K (and be able to evaporate), it would need a mass less than the Moon, and such a black hole would have a diameter of less than a tenth of a millimeter, and it can evaporate by now. During its last stage of evaporation, a primordial black hole can give out burst of gamma rays, which should be detectable. Searches for such flashes have proven unsuccessful and provide stringent limits on the possibility of existence of low mass primordial black holes. However, NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope launched in 2008 will continue the search for these flashes.

If the prospect of the primordial black holes is not good, again, why is this ‘dead-skeleton’ paradox still going?

Well, there should have some kind of micro-black holes according to the M-string theory. For a black hole of mass 1 TeV/c2, it could be detected at LHC (Run I). But, no such a micro-black hole was found thus far, including the LHC (Run II) data thus far.

Again, why is this ‘dead-skeleton (information)’ paradox still going?

They said: there are some great discoveries during the above history.

One, a new kind of entropy:

Hawking showed under general conditions that the total area of the event horizons of any collection of classical black holes can never decrease, even if they collide and merge. This becomes the second law of black hole mechanics, remarkably SIMILAR to the second law of thermodynamics. With the mass acting as energy, the surface gravity as temperature and the area as entropy, there is a new type of entropy.

This is the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy (S) of a black hole, which depends on the area of the black hole (A). The constants are the speed of light (c), the Boltzmann constant (k),Newton’s constant (G), and the reduced Planck constant (ħ).

In classical entropy, black holes should have near-zero entropy. But with this new type of entropy, Bekenstein claimed that black holes are maximum entropy objects—that they have more entropy than anything else in the same volume.

Two, with this new entropy, Gerard ‘t Hooft and Leonard Susskind discovered the holographic principle, which suggests that anything that happens in a volume of spacetime can be described by data on the boundary of that volume.

Three, with the holographic principle, Juan Maldacena discovered the AdS/CFT correspondence in 1997. This AdS/CFT correspondence becomes lifesaver for M-string theory on its issue of compactification.

Today, this AdS/CFT correspondence is the only pathway for the beyond the Standard Model physics for the mainstream physics.

II: A detailed review

The above is a brief history for the modern physics in the last 40 years. Is this history leading to a great future? Or, is it totally wrong?

If I do not have a different PATHWAY from the above wrong one, I will not have the right to call it wrong. If my pathway is not correct, I will not have the right to call other’s wrong. The comparison is very simple.

Who can derive all nature constants (Cabibbo/Weinberg angles, Alpha, Cosmology Constant, etc.) and the Planck CMB data?

No one in the above history (the mainstream) can, but I can: see,

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/dark-energydark-mass-the-silent-truth/ and

https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/

With these comparisons, there is no more argument about, the scientific methodology or else. And now, I have the right to call a spade a spade. The history of this ‘information paradox’ is totally on a wrong path.

Before showing the correct PATHWAY, I will point out a few Errors in the above history first.

Error one, Hawking radiation was all about thermal photons, and it is practically meaningless.

Error two, black hole will not evaporate with the Alice/Bob drama. Bob is not a part of the ‘PRINCIPLE’ in any black hole’s bank account; that is, the escape of Bob will not take any energy away from black hole. Even if this Alice/Bob drama were paid for with the ‘principle’ of the black hole, there is no physics law demands that Alice must always carry the ‘negative’ energy (which reduces the ‘principle’ of the black hole). Alice being a particle (not just photon), she carries some rest mass. So, if she does not provide more mass to the black hole, this Alice/Bob drama will at least not cause evaporation of black hole at all.

 

Error three, if the black hole does evaporate, its final Schwarzschild radius will go to zero, and its entropy ‘AERA’ will become zero too. That is, Hawking’s ‘area’ law of black hole is wrong.

The correct path is only about one issue. What is gravity?

Gravity is very simple; it moves the Pepsi can (sits on my desk at REST) from {[here, now] to [here, next]}. And, it takes a force F (gravity) to do it.

F (gravity) = K*ħ/ (delta S*delta T), K is a coefficient constant.

Then, quantum principle emerges from this F (gravity). Seehttp://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html for details.

Of course, we can make more detailed definition for gravity as follows.

One, gravity must be based on particle physics, as only particles are carrying mass (the only parameter for gravity). Both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity have nothing to do with particle physics, and thus they are wrong gravity theories. Seehttps://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/nothingness-vs-nothing-there-the-quantum-gravity/

Two, the strength of gravity between any TWO objects is described with Newtonian gravity equation (GmM/r^2).

Three, gravity must be both instantaneous and simultaneous (to ALL particles in this universe). Gravity is DEFINITEly not transmitted with light speed, although the gravitational wave (an attribute of gravity) is. Gravity by all means is not ‘local’. But, the strength of gravity for the Pepsi can which sits on my desk at rest is:

F (Pepsi gravity) = Gm {sum [M(i)/r(i)^2]}  ….. Equation A

i represents the particles of the entire universe, except the Pepsi.

 

The Pepsi can is sitting on my desk (a spot on the world sheet) at rest, and it (Pepsi can) is interacting with ALL other particles in this universe {which consists of two parts: the world sheet (real universe) and a Ghost point}. That is, this Pepsi can is linked to all other particle of this universe in two pathways:

One, in the real (matter) world, the distance between it and other particles is r(i) > 0. So, the gravitational interaction strength between them is calculated with the Newtonian gravity equation.

Two, it (Pepsi can) is linked to all other particles via the Ghost point, and the distance between it and all other particles is R(i) = {a Planck length} for all “i”.

So, the gravity STRENGTH for Pepsi can is calculated with Equation A.

The TIME for the gravity transmission is a {Planck time}, practically instantaneously.

While the gravity of ONE object (such as a Pepsi can) is calculated with Equation A, and the gravity transmission is via ‘Planck time’, the true definition for gravity is that it moves the entire universe from {now to next}. See graph below and http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm for details.

 

 

Note: this AdS/CFT correspondence is the direct consequence of the above mechanism.

III: Paradox no more!

Now, we can address the ‘information’ issue in two ways.

One, every bit of information of this universe since its inception (Big Bang) is recorded with a detailed bookkeeping, the Cosmology Constant (CC). By comparing the calculated CC and the measurement, we will know whether there is any information loss. My calculation shows that there is no information loss at all, see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/ .

Two, black hole is not formed via the Alice/Bob drama. How can a ‘fringe’-drama dig into the essence? Only by knowing exactly of how black hole is formed, we can then discuss its eventual death (if any).

In general, we said that gravitational collapse occurs when an object’s internal pressure is insufficient to resist the object’s own gravity. This statement is not wrong but is misleading, and it did mislead.

What is its internal pressure?

What is its own gravity?

I will make these more clear with two concepts.

One, {free particle}:

In the case of our Sun, the entire space (a BOX) that a given atom (hydrogen atom, etc.) in its lifetime roamed in is viewed as a free particle (the box, not the atom). This free particle (the box) might be a cube with 100 miles on its sides, and it contains billions atoms. For every free particle (the box), it is viewed as a at rest (not moving) particle.

Definition: if a NET force on a particle = zero, it is a free particle.

That is, a {free particle} is always at rest (in terms of the box), as that box does not receive any external force and does not project out any force.

Theorem one: for a particle in a compact object, it is a free particle

Corollary one: the water molecular in the ice-lattice is a free particle.

So, a neutron inside of a neutron star is a free particle.

Two, tidal force:

For a rod (or a box) with one meter long, [(rB – rA) = 1 meter], there is a tidal force on this rod (or box) if it (the box) is not a free particle of a compact object (the source of the tidal gravity),

Tidal force of (A, B) = F(r) – F(r-1) = Tf(A, B)

The gravity force for A and B are:

F(A) = F(r), r is the distance of point A to the center of the packed object.

F(B) = F(r + 1), one meter farther away from the center.

If the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (A, B) is smaller (<) than the structure binding force of the box (hydrogen atom), it could form stars, as it cannot tear atoms apart.

If the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (A, B) is larger (>) than the structure binding force of the box (hydrogen atom), then the atoms will be pulled apart. In this case, it most likely becomes a ‘neutron’ star.

When the gravity tidal force of a compact object on a box (neutron) is larger (>) than the structure binding force of neutron, it pulls neutrons apart and becomes a black hole. Of course, most of black holes are formed without going through the neutron star stage.

So, basically, there are, at least, three types of stars.

One, ‘proton’ star (PS): like our Sun which is 99.99% composed of ‘hydrogen atom (containing proton)”

Two, ‘neutron’ star (NS)

Three, ‘black hole’ (BH)

The diameter of PS (like Sun) is in average of ‘one million’ miles, and mostly composed of protons (hydrogen atom). The tidal force of Sun is not big enough to break up the hydrogen atom. Yet, the nuclear fusion produces enough ‘thermal-energy’ to balance the gravitation force of the Sun. So, it has a huge diameter.

When the hydrogens are all burnt out, the helium fusion produces much less thermo-energy, the gravitation force will get the upper hand and pull the matter inward. It collapses, with a few pathways.

Type I Supernova: results a white dwarf star, the carbon fusion begins to support a radius about 7000km (about the size of Earth). Yet, it is still a ‘proton’ star.

Type II Supernova: When the tidal force is big enough to break up hydrogen or helium atoms, it collapses as a neutron star with the average radius of (1 to 10 miles), a size of a small city. All atoms are pulled apart, and no proton can survive.

If the tidal force is strong enough to break up ‘neutron’, it becomes ‘black hole’ with Schwarzschild radius about 10 miles for a 3-solar-mass black hole. All hadron particles are pulled apart.

Then, what is inside of the black hole?

The wrong way of saying says that black hole converts the baryons and leptons in the collapsing body into entropy. Other wrong way says that there could be the quark/gluon plasma.

In the classic theory, black hole is defined with a Schwarzschild radius which marks an event horizon. However, in this G-string-gravity theory, black hole is formed by tearing apart all particles via the spaghettification.

 

 

After this spaghettification, all particles are torn apart and become strings.

In M-string theory, those strings form the branes.

In G-string theory, those quark/lepton-strings (line-string) curl up into ring-strings, which has zero area and zero volume.

The big difference between G-string and M-string is that G-string has ‘internal’ structure (described with A, V). Those quark/lepton G-strings are ‘line’-strings. When they become ring-strings, they are no different from the M-ring-strings, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/m-theory-toe-if-and-only-if-it-adds-two.html .

That is, all M-string’s formula do work for G-string. In the black hole, G-string will become an M-ring-string.

Note: without the internal structure, M-string is unable to describe the universe outside of the black hole and is a failed theory, seehttps://medium.com/@Tienzen/indeed-the-m-string-theory-is-a-total-bullcrap-for-the-following-reasons-ca9a44931938#.5lav4kdh8 .

When G-quark/lepton-string (line-string) curls up into a ring-string, the quark color charge and generations are neutralized (not destroyed). So, when a particle (neutron, proton, lepton or else) falls into a black hole, it becomes a ring-string, with all charges neutralized but conserved. When they are radiated out later (if any), the rings straighten back up to regain their charges. That is, no information lost, nor gained.

 

There are two differences between this G-string description and the classic one.

One, instead of an event horizon with Schwarzschild radius, there is a spaghettification zone. As soon as a particle (or else) is spaghettified, it breaks up into G-ring-strings.

Two, the Schwarzschild description of black hole has a ‘singularity’ at the CENTER of the Schwarzschild sphere. But, in this G-string description, each ring-string is a ‘singularity’ of itself, and there is no singularity at the center of anywhere.

Three, each ring-string is a free particle inside of the black hole. That is, there is no longer any free-falling or tidal gravity on this ring-string when it passes the event horizon.

Four, the event horizon is the innermost circle of this spaghettification zone.

 

So, ‘quantum gravity’ is not about the gravity between neutrons in the neutron star?

Gravity is the force which MOVEs this entire universe with quantum units, seehttp://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html and the quantum principle is the emergent of gravity.

Again, every particle in a compact object (solid ball, star, etc.) is a free particle.

So, the gravity of a particle in a compact object EQUALs to all particles in that compact object in accordance to the Equation A.

And, the neutron at the center of the neutron star sees the same gravity as the neutron at the edge.

IV: Conclusion

This information issue is addressed in two ways.

One, the bookkeeping, the calculation of the Cosmology Constant.

Two, the internal structure of the black hole, all ring-strings which still carry the mass and electric charge, but all other information is stored away.

Finally, the holographic principle is the direct consequence of the moving (from now (t1) to next (t2)) universe.

 

 

tienzengong | May 30, 2016 at 2:53 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:http://wp.me/p3PVI2-4u
Comment   

The Unified Universe,The Unified Theory!