Wednesday, December 18, 2013

The great divide

The *mainstream human physics* (MH physics) is now facing some unresolved questions. A short list is as below.

a.      The derivation of Standard Model particle zoo (string unification)
b.      The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy
c.        The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants (the theoretical base for the free parameters {the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, Alpha, mass-charges, etc.})
d.      Superunification (Quantum / gravity unification)
e.      The Baryongenesis
f.        The rest mass rising mechanism
g.      Many others (lives, numbers, etc.)

That is, there is a great divide between this MH physics and the Nature physics. Can the MH physics at its current *standing* ground jump over this great divide? Even if SUSY (with s-particles) were true, it would still not be able to resolve all issues above. The M-string theory with many hypes cannot even reproduce the Standard Model particle zoo but invented a copout (the other-universes) for its failure.

Those are failures. Repeating failures will not make them into successes. Yet, those unresolved issue can be discussed theoretically, though the steps of human physics development.

First, collecting data --- knowing the phenomena.
Second, finding the pattern (with equations to best fit the data) --- these equations have *variables* and *parameters*.
Third, finding the underlying causes (dynamics) for the equations (especially for the variables).
Fourth, finding the underlying framework for the *parameters*, deriving parameters from an axiomatic system.

Thus, any success in the step four (4), {The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants (the theoretical base for the free parameters [the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, Alpha, mass-charges, etc.])}, it will be an indicator for a promising pathway to get over this great divide. Yet, the evolution of the Nature physics {from axioms (deriving parameters, step 4) to phenomena (step 1)} goes opposite from the steps of human physics development.  And, such an indicator is available at . In fact, from here, the entire known human physics can be reproduced. However, instead of showing only the reproductions, I would like to show the divide which is in fact the place that the bridge is needed. Yet, this great divide can be discussed as four sub-divides.

The great divide one: the issue of gravity.

In the MH physics, the gravity was understood as Newtonian gravity (an instantaneous force) and as General Relativity (space-time curvature or the graviton). Today, the Newtonian gravity is abandoned as a proper gravity theory although it is still a good tool for calculating the orbits of launching rockets. The instantaneity issue is beyond the rational understanding, and the General Relativity has provided a good description for the cosmos. Thus, the instantaneousness is no longer an issue, viewed as a nonsense issue now. In analogy of Standard Model of particle physics, the *graviton* was invented as the gravitational force carrier. Of course, there must be *gravitational wave*, being predicted by the GR. With these two great inventions (graviton and gravitational wave), MH physics has gone nowhere for the past 80 years on this issue of gravity.

In the Nature physics, the gravity force is an instantaneous force. By abandoning the instantaneity, it will of course forever block the MH physics to deal with this gravity issue. Gravity is a *LONG* distance force, significantly different from the other three forces which are *Contacting* forces, that is, asserting the force by *shaking-hands* (force carriers as the hands). Electromagnetic force has a *long-hand* (the photon) which forms the *causal universe*.  Yet, the gravity can assert its force beyond the causal horizon (that is, travelling fast then light speed if it is done with a particle carrier or a wave).

Nature starts with three steps (ready, get set, go). That is, it will not invent two *sets* of law. If the fast-than-light speed is not allowed for the other three forces, how can gravity get a special privilege?  Of course, not. Thus, the graviton and the gravitational wave must be nonsense. There must be a different mechanism for the instantaneity. This is done by “The Real-Ghost symmetry mechanism ( ).

That is, there is a *ghost POINT* (only a topological point) as the symmetry *partner* of this material universe. Every particle of this material universe is bouncing between the two (ghost point and the material universe) with light speed. For two particles A and B, B is beyond the causal horizon of A, that is, A and B can never shaking-hands directly. But, they are still connected via the ghost point. The force between A and B is (see ),

                                   F (gravity force) = K ħ / (delta T * delta S) , K the coupling constant

The intrinsic (rest) mass is, in fact, arising from this real-ghost mechanism (see ).

Thus, Nature has two types of force,
1.       the contacting type by shaking hands with force carriers, limited by light speed
2.       the non-contacting type via ghost point connection and is instantaneous

The coupling strength of each force is determined by the *pie* sharing. For the contacting type, the way of sharing is about the *particle types* in the particle zoo which gives rise to the Cabibbo, Weinberg angles (see “Theoretical calculation of Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, ( )”) and Alpha. For the non-contacting type, the sharing is among *all* particles in the universe. With this understanding, those couplings can and were calculated (derived).

The Higgs mechanism is the reverse-engineering from the weak-process (mainly for the W and Z boson masses) which is by all means not dealing with the mass-giving in general. His idea came from the superconductor condensation phenomenon, that is, an asphalt lake-like *field*, slows down the massless particle and gives it an initial (apparent) mass. Two weeks ago, Peter Higgs received Nobel Prize on physics for this idea. He is of course deserve it, as many others who stood on his shoulder had received Nobel before him. Furthermore, for the past 40 years, the HEP of MP physics is driven by his idea, that is, in the human terms, Higgs deserves the Nobel 10 times more than anyone else. But, his idea is an analogy (or the shadow) of the Nature at best (see “Higgs Boson, a shadow of the Prequark field ( )” and has nothing to do with the *gravity*.

Andrew (at ) commented, “Your preon-string theory is interesting (I've explored the literature on them at some length and was an important contributor to several of the Wikipedia articles on preons) but this theory is too speculative to attract my attention unless it has testable phenomenological consequences.”

By resolving the rest mass rising mechanism (see ), all unresolved questions above are resolved automatically, as it can *predict* or *produce* (as the direct consequences) the followings.

a.      The derivation of Standard Model particle zoo (string unification), see G-strings at
b.      The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy, see
c.        The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants  (the theoretical base for the free parameters {the Cabibbo and Weinberg angles, Alpha, mass-charges, etc.}), see
d.      Superunification (Quantum / gravity unification), see

What kind of phenomenological consequences should be demanded in addition to the above?

The great divide two: the issue of lives.

Even the above divide is bridged, there are still more divides for the MH physics. Although all lives obey the laws of physics, the rock bottom MH physics laws cannot describe the life-rising mechanism. In the past, this failure was covered up by expelling it out of the scope of physics. Recently, a new idea (Multiverse) was invented, saying that this universe which we are live in is a special variety among zillions of other-universes. That is, the physics law in general does not demand the rising of life, and the life arises as a happenstance, not prohibited by the zillion possible universes. We can examine this multiverse idea in three ways.

First way, reality vs theory --- for multiverse as a reality, it has produced one special variety which gives rise to lives. Yet, for multiverse as a theory, it has failed to pin point a pathway of finding the nature’s way of generating this special variety *theoretically*, that is, without any physical restriction. That is, even if the multiverse ides were a good idea, the current multiverse idea is a failed theory.

Second way, there are three ways to produce different universes.
1.       With different physics laws, P-multiverses
2.       With different nature constants, NC-multiverses
3.       With different boundary conditions
And, there are also three ways for the emerging of those different universes.
i.                     Emerging vertically, one after another.
ii.                   Emerging horizontally, zillions co-exist simultaneously.
iii.                  Emerging both vertically and horizontally.

For the Cycling Universes ( , C-multiverse), their boundary conditions are different, and the zillion pre-big-bang universes can be described with the *Inflationary Model*. This C-multiverse needs not having different laws and different nature constants. On the other hand, the horizontal type of multiverse (H-multiverses) cannot be distinguished if they do not have different laws or different nature constants. Yet, if those H-multiverses were emerging from a same source, it has theoretical difficulty to construct a way of emerging out different laws from the different initial conditions (forming different bubble, so to speak) while it might be reasonable for evolving out different nature constants. Thus, the nature constants of each universe should be bubble-depend. Then, if we can show that the nature constants of *this* universe is not bubble-depend, there is no reason for the nature constants of the other universes to be bubble-depend. And, these NC-multiverses should be all connected as one universe. This proof is available in the article “Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature”, at ( ).

Third way, showing that the physics laws of *this* universe does give rise to lives, not a happenstance. Life has three special attributes.
1.       It needs a computing device (an abacus, a counting straw or a Turing computer)
2.       Its members have a special feature, the *individuality*, that is, it needs *four codes (or colors)*, such as, the (A, G, T, C) of the DNA codes.
3.       It species wants to be immortal. Then, it needs *seven codes (colors)*, such as, (A, G, T, C, F, M, K). F is female, M – male and K- kids.

In the G-string representation, both proton and neutron are Turing computers, see ( ). And, there are 4-colors (red, yellow, blue, white) and 7-colors (red, yellow, blue, white, G1, G2, G3) in G-strings. These (4-, 7-) colors forms a Ball-Donut transformation, see ( ). For more detail of these, they are available in the article “KEY MISSION OF LIFE”, at ( ).

That is, the physics laws of *this* universe carries the strong anthropic seeds. The lives in *this* universe do not arise with happenstance but is an expression of the anthropic seeds which are embedded in the physics laws (the G-strings) of *this* universe. Thus, regardless of the issue of multiverse, there is a giant divide between the MH physics and the fact of *this* universe. More details are available in the article “Physics laws must give rise to biological lives directly”, see ( ).

The great divide three: the numbers.

For the past 100 years, physics is very successful while *ignoring* some other obvious *facts*, the life and the math (using it only as tools). The exclusion of these two facts from the scope of physics was necessary tactically, as the laws of physics were, thus far, seemingly unable to encompass them two. But, by excluding them in *principle* (such as using Boltzmann Brain as a possible cause for the rising of life), physicists are then fooling themselves, as this Nature consists of, at least, three parts.
a. The physical universe (not including life),
b. Lives,
c. Numbers.

Then, there are two possibilities. There are three different sets of laws for these three parts. Or, those three are governed with a set of unified laws. For the current physics paradigm, it has chosen the former. On the other hand, I have selected the later (they are unified), as I already showed that the *seeds of life* are embedded in the laws of physics when it is described with the G-string representation. Yet, with this choice, both facts (lives and numbers) must be the *check points* for forming the physics theory. That is, the laws of math must be isomorphic to the laws of physics.

Different from life’s attributes (computing device, individuality and immortality), the math universe (encompassing infinities) is seemingly intrinsically different from the *physical* universe (a finitude). Thus, the first task of this physics/math unification is about concretizing the infinities to finites.  The two concretizing processes are described in detail in the article “The creation before the big bang and before the inflation ( )”. These concretizing processes give rise to *space, time and mass*.

Then, from a *new* math, the Quantum Principle was *derived*. The detail is available in the article “The emerging of Quantum Principle ( )”.

Then, we must reproduce the entire Standard Model particle zoo from math too, and this is done with the following articles,  a) “Computability and the internal structure of zero ( )”, b) “The source of the “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, part 3 ( )”, c) “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles ( )”.

The following articles are also available for giving more analysis on this divide.
Unification of physics and mathematics ( ).
The Philosophical Meanings of Fermat's Last Theorem ( ).
                     Law of Creation -- If B is created by "creating something from nothing process," B (the something) must remain to be "nothingness" in essence.
Law of Creation, part 2 ( ).

The great divide four: the MH physics itself

The three divides above are created by Nature. That is, even Martians will face those same divides in their Martian physics. However, human has created another great divide by the human’s own works and choosing, taking the wrong pathways. It will not be a big deal if both SUSY (with s-particles) and M/F-string theories are not supported by any test data while they can provide answers for the three nature-divides above. But, not only they did not, their arrogance has declared two strong anti-nature statements.
1.        The nature is un-nature. Two articles, a) “Nonsense of the un-nature Nature ( )” and b) “CAN NATURE BE UNNATURAL? ( )”, have discussed this issue in detail.
2.       The Nature (this universe) is only a small part of a big whole (the multiverse), that is, the observed physics laws in this universe is not universal (according to the M/F-string theories) but is an odd-ball with no significance in the universal physics laws. Of course, I have showed that this is not the case, as the lives, the numbers are all isomorphic to one another with the laws of physics of *this* universe.

In fact, there are three wrong pathways in this MH physics. The first wrong pathway is SUSY (with s-particles). After many deadly blow by the recent data, the SUSY devotees are becoming *religious*. They have turned SUSY into the religious hope of SUSY parousia {see  “The hope of SUSY parousia ( )”, “NATURE’S MASTER-KEY CUTS OUT SUSY THE UNDEAD ( )”. With this great religious power, they even declared that Nature is un-nature.

The second wrong pathway is built by M/F-string theories. I have showed that their hideout haven (the Multiverse) is nonsense in the anthropic physics above (“Multiverse bubbles are now all burst by the math of Nature”, at ( ) and in the argument of Newtonian methodology (Model building, paradigm and Truth, ). Yet, M-theory is not all wrong and can be a TOE if it adds two points, see “M-theory, a TOE if and only if it adds two points ( )”.

Two more articles below discuss more issues about M/F-string theories.

Although the two wrong pathways have done some great damages on the advancement of the MH physics, they are still labeled as *Speculative*. The worst wrong pathway (which will hinder the advancement of human physics for generations to come) is the Higgs idea which is now viewed as *verified* physics.

*After* the greatest discovery of mankind, the new 126 Gev boson, it is viewed as a useless burble if it is a Higgs, and this point was expressed by many prominent physicists after that new particle was *named* Higgs.

A.      In the article “What *Should* We Be Worried About? ( ), the Higgs connotes a great crisis of physics.
B.       Jester (Résonaances, ) showed his trademark pessimism and frustration in August 2013.
C.       In the article “the crisis in modern physics,  ( ), Turok (Director of Perimeter Institute) said, "Theoretical physics is at a crossroads [after the Higgs] right now…In a sense we’ve entered a very deep crisis.

That is, the Higgs does not and will not make any help on resolving the unresolved issues. It is useless. The only chance for the MH physics to get out of its failure-cycle is that the new boson is *NOT* the Higgs, and this might take a generation or longer to conclude that. Fortunately, this newly discovered 126 Gev particle can be accounted for by many other models, see .  If we cannot find out that the new 126 Gev particle is not a Higgs very soon, the MH physics will be stuck for another long while. The Higgs analogy of an asphalt lake-like vacuum is wrong and can be replaced by the G-string vacuum, and this is discussed in detail in the article “Higgs chicken, Higgs egg and Higgs hallucination ( )”.

While those SUSY (with s-particles) and multiverse devotees are *religious* when they are talking about their babies, they uphold the Newtonian methodology for all other models, that is, observation or else. In fact, *all* observations are not correct per se, although they might not be totally wrong.  Aristotle’s observations were the greatest at his time but are mostly not accurate now. It is the same for Newton. The greatest observation effort of mankind produced the Standard Model. Yet, it is the *rationale* which rules that SM is not complete. It will take a while for observations to find out that the Higgs-vacuum is only a *shadow* of the G-string space-time, but we can rule out Higgs with two rationales.
a.       Higgs is useless for any issue of these three Nature divides.
b.      G-string has built bridges for all those three Nature divides.

That is, by all means, Higgs is not needed as it is simply useless.

Searching and discovering the secret of Nature is the dream of all physicists. Yet, most often, they will not accept other’s answers even if they know that those are true, as they still try to find a different way to get those same answers in their own way. But, for these three great Nature divides, they sit here silently, blocking all detour attempts, cannot go over, go under and cannot go around it.

Furthermore, these are indeed the great divides in the literal sense, that is, I know all too well that this article will not move those SUSY and Multiverse devotees one bit. I simply just *MARK* my words here as the witness for the future of mankind.

Note (added on August 29, 2016):
The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

 Copyright © December 2013 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Model building, paradigm and Truth

Byron Jennings (at TRIUMF, Canada) wrote, “I do not believe that truth, in this context, is meaningful. In science, we just build models. The ultimate nature of reality is forever beyond reach. (see ). This view is not his personal opinion but is widely accepted by the mainstream physicists. Yet, there are many different models, for Bobbie doll, for airplane, for Empire State Building, etc.. Every model is modeling an *object* (the reality or the underlying Truth). For scientific model which has no underlying truth (or not sure about what it is), it could often turn out to be a model for Mickey Mouse.   How can anyone build a model while not knowing what he is modelling? Even if the truth is very elusive, the modeler must make a wild-guess for it.

Jennings (on December 6th, 2013,) wrote another excellent article “Has there ever been a paradigm shift?” (see ). He wrote, “… used the word paradigm to refer to the set of practices that define a scientific discipline at any particular period of time. A paradigm shift is when the entire structure of a field changes, not when someone simply uses a different mathematical formulation. … The archetypal example, and I would suggest the only real example in the natural and physical sciences, is the paradigm shift from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics. …  Newtonian physics was driven by observation. While Aristotelian physics is broadly consistent with observation it is driven more by abstract concepts like perfection. Their epistemology was not based on careful observation. … [Newtonian paradigm] must  make testable predictions that are confirmed by observation. … Or if you like, the demarcation criteria for a paradigm shift is that the before and after are incommensurate.”

This paradigm issue is in fact the most urgent one today in physics, more important than the Higgs, the dark mass, dark energy, baryongenesis, etc. . I did comment it at his blog (see ). The following is an expanded response to this very important issue.

Although I do agree with his view and *definition* in principle, I would like to paraphrase it with four point list definition; thus, I can go beyond his definition. *Paradigm* encompasses 4 points (or parts).
i.                     It has a preconceived *Belief* which is the foundation for the epistemology. For Aristotelians, they believed that the *new* knowledge can be judged by the *reasoning* (logic and a body of old knowledge) power alone. For Newtonians, they *Believe* that the new knowledge is accepted if and only if it is observational testable (by man with gadgets).
ii.                    It is exclusive (my way or the highway). Thus, Newtonian paradigm kills *rationale* by crowning it with a title of *Speculative*. For example, the Alpha (electron fine structure constant) is only a pure simple number. The equation below can calculate it precisely, and its correctness can be verified by any 8th grade kids who know no physics. But, it will simply be ignored by the physicists as they lack the ability to come up an observational test for it.   
 Beta = 1/alpha = 64 ( 1 + first order mixing + sum of the higher order mixing)
           = 64 (1 + 1/Cos A(2) + .00065737 + …)
           =  137.0359 …
 A(2) is the Weinberg angle, A(2) = 28.743 degree 
 The sum of the higher order mixing = 2(1/48)[(1/64) + (1/2)(1/64)^2 + ...+(1/n)(1/64)^n +...]     
                                                                  = .00065737 + … 
iii.                  It is a sociological-dependent-reality, that is, it is not absolute but is *selective*. The M-string theory and SUSY are all *speculative* but are still all viewed as the great physics, a big part of the current *Paradigm*.
iv.                 It must be accepted by the mainstream community, regardless of it being right or wrong.

In addition to being a conceptual terminology in Philosophy of Science, *paradigm* is a living organism (with birth, youth, aging and death). The preconceived belief is its DNA, distinguishing its species type.  The attributes of exclusiveness, selectiveness and must-be-consensus are the life-force during its youth for a very healthy growth and are also the force for its aging, especially by growing the malignant cancerous growths.  Then, there are external forces which give the aged paradigm a deadly blow to end its life.

For the Aristotelian paradigm, its nutrients (the body of old knowledge) were too weak and often not correct. Thus, it was easily killed by the new external force of Newtonian methodology. Yet, although the Newtonian paradigm ousted the *Aristotelian rationale* by crowning it with a title of *Speculative*, *rationale* itself remains as the key engine in the Newtonian methodology.

Besides a foundation (the DNA, the backbone and its nutrients), a paradigm does fill up with fleshes (the contents, such as the General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Standard Model, etc.).  Yet, at the same time, it can have some growths which are beyond the reach by its foundation. For the Newtonian paradigm, there are at least three such malignant cancerous growths.
A.       Multiverse --- Multiverse is not yet a new paradigm but is a major *flesh* of the current physics paradigm. But, multiverse as a *reality*, it articulated or manipulated an observable universe which we are living in. But, multiverse as a *theory*, it *fails* to pin point the nature’s way of manipulation. Thus, Multiverse is either a new coming paradigm (believing untestable and unprovable) or a failed theory. Furthermore, by definition, multiverse is beyond the reach of the Newtonian methodology.
B.       SUSY ---  it was the center *flesh* of the current physics paradigm for over 40 years. After receiving many deadly blows recently, its devotees are desperately transforming it into a religious-like “the hope of SUSY parousia”, by pushing it out of the reach of this Newtonian paradigm.
C.      Model sub-paradigm --- most of physicists today do not believe in *truth* as it is too elusive, and they claims to be only the *model builders*.  As this model building is now a major part of the physics epistemology (accepted by the Review Journals without any observational proof), this Model sub-paradigm is slowly drifting away from the Newtonian paradigm.

With the three malignant cancerous growths above, the Newtonian paradigm is at its last breath and is about ready to kick the bucket.

The Aristotelian paradigm was ousted because of its weak *body of knowledge*, but its *rationale* is still the engine (not criterion) in the Newtonian paradigm. In a sense, the *rationale* is immortal, much more powerful than the Newtonian methodology which has run out of its breaths as the technology *might be* no longer able to reach the last courtyard of nature (in addition to its malignant cancerous growths). On the other hand, today, the *body of knowledge* (General Relativities, Quantum Mechanics, Standard Model, Planck data, etc.) is weak no more. This solid body of knowledge forms a set of anchors. Matching those anchors from a *rational framework* (its base MUST contain no known physics, see “CONVERSATIONS ON PHYSICS EPISTEMOLOGY, BEAUTY-CONTEST”, ) can become the criterion of a new paradigm.

In fact, there are four steps for the growth of physics.
First, collecting data --- knowing the phenomena.
Second, finding the pattern (with equations to best fit the data) --- these equations have *variables* and *parameters*.
Third, finding the underlying causes (dynamics) for the equations (especially for the variables).
Fourth, finding the underlying framework for the *parameters*, deriving parameters from an axiomatic system.

While the *human physics* goes from the first to the fourth order, the *Nature physics* must go from the fourth to the first (from axioms to phenomena). In Christian cosmology, it took seven (7) days for God to create the universe. Yet, Nature has no design committee and no steering committee. Nature created *this* universe with three steps (ready, get set, go), that is, starting with an axiom system and going without predesign or any trial-and-error (the fine-tuning) in its evolution history.  

Thus, an axiom system which can derive the known parameters (such as, Cabibbo/Weinberg angles and Alpha, ), it will form the foundation for this new paradigm. Then, from this base, it must *derive* all known physics {see “Litmus test for the final physics” ( ) and }.

Thus, today, we have two new paradigms around the corner. Either one will replace the Newtonian paradigm.
One --- the hope-of-parousia paradigm, pushing SUSY and multiverse beyond the reach of Newtonian methodology. In this paradigm, physicists believe in models, not truth.

Two --- the axiomatic physics/anchor-matching paradigm. In this new paradigm, there is *truth* in addition to models.

We have discovered a new particle (with 126 Gev.) and *named* it Higgs boson. There are many models which can account for this new particle. Can Higgs provide any insight for the step four (4) above? This will be the new paradigm question for it. This question will be the Occam’s razor.

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

BaryonGenesis, the master-key of all mysteries

In the article “Fundamental Physics 2013: What is the Big Picture? (by Philip Gibbs, on November 26, 2013, )”, it wrote, “The discovery of the Higgs boson marks a watershed moment for fundamental physics. The standard model is complete but many mysteries remain. Most notably the following questions are unanswered and appear to require new physics beyond the standard model:

What is dark matter?
What was the mechanism of cosmic inflation?
What mechanism led to the early production of galaxies and structure?
Why does the strong interaction not break CP?
What is the mechanism that led to matter dominating over anti-matter?
What is the correct theory of neutrino mass?
How can we explain fine-tuning of e.g. the Higgs mass and cosmological constant?
How are the four forces and matter unified?
How can gravity be quantized?
How is information loss avoided for black holes?
What is the small scale structure of spacetime?
What is the large scale structure of spacetime?
How should we explain the existence of the universe?”

This list shows the predicament of current status of physics. But, if we can resolve some key issues, all other issues will fall into its right spot automatically. One such a key issue is the baryongenesis.

In the standard cosmology, it roughly has three periods.
i.                    Inflationary period
ii.                  Big bang (opaque) period
iii.                Matter dominant (transparent, dark mass/dark energy) period

In fact, by resolving the baryongenesis, all other issues will be resolved automatically. In the article, “More Cosmic Accounting And Some Speculations On Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry (by Andrew, on November 27, 2013, )”, it wrote, "The trouble is that if you start with B=0 and L=0, as you would expect to in a Big Bang comprised initially of pure energy, it is hard to determine how you end up with the observed values of B and L in the universe which are so far from zero. …
we should pay more attention to possibilities in which baryon asymmetry exists in the initial conditions of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. Baryon asymmetry at that moment supports, for example, scenarios in which there is a cyclical Big Bounce with SM sphaelron process taking place each cycle ...".

At here, Andrew points out two very important points.
a.      The period of zero (0) to non-zero transformation (the creation)
b.      The possible solution as the cycling universes.

Andrew indeed has a good intuition. But, it is easier to show the answers with a reverse order, beginning from the issue of baryongenesis, then back to the creation. In G-strings ( ), the ordinary matter and anti-matter are having G-string representations as below.

One M-string (a, b, c) has eight (8) strings.
String 1 = (V, A, A 1) = {1st , red, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red up quark.
String 2 = (A, V, A 1) = {1st , yellow, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = yellow up quark.
String 3 = (A, A, V 1) = {1st , blue, 2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue up quark.

String 4 = (A, V, V 1) = {1st , red, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red anti-down quark.
String 5 = (V, A, V 1) = {1st , yellow, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = yellow anti-down quark.
String 6 = (V, V, A 1) = {1st , blue, 1/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue anti-down quark.

String 7 = (A, A, A 1) = {1st , colorless, 1 e, ½ ħ} = positron.
String 8 = (V, V, V 1) = {1st , colorless, 0 e, ½ ħ} = positron-neutrino.

Obviously, these eight (8) strings are unable to produce neither proton nor neutron. That is, the nature needs another string, the anti-M-string [-(a, b, c)]. Again, it has eight (8) strings.

String  9 = - (V, A, A 1) = {1st , red, -2/3 e, ½ ħ} = red anti-up quark.
String 10 = - (A, V, A 1) = {1st , yellow, -2/3 e, ½ ħ} = yellow anti-up quark.
String 11 = - (A, A, V 1) = {1st , blue, -2/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue anti-up quark.

String 12 = - (A, V, V 1) = {1st , red, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = red down quark.
String 13 = - (V, A, V 1) = {1st , yellow, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = yellow down quark.
String 14 = - (V, V, A 1) = {1st , blue, -1/3 e, ½ ħ} = blue down quark.

String 15 = - (A, A, A 1) = {1st , colorless, -1 e, ½ ħ} = electron.

String 16 = - (V, V, V 1) = {1st , colorless, 0 e, ½ ħ} = electron-neutrino.

With this G-string representation,  one Line-string (a, b, c), it can produce “8” distinguishable strings, {3 up-quark-like, 3 “anti”-down-quark-like, one positron-like, one positron-neutrino-like}. That is, the up quark and down quark must come from two different Line-strings (one matter-string and the other anti-matter-string).  Thus, if we want to produce a proton-like string (a ring-string), we need “8” more “anti”-strings which produce the *down quark". Now, we have two very important consequences.

i.                     The matter-like/anti-matter-like strings are not divided by a “mirror”. That is, they are not symmetry partners but are complimentary partners. And, the anti-matter is the necessary partner co-exist with the matter simultaneously, such as, there are zillions of quarks and anti-quarks co-exist in proton simultaneously.
i.                     In order to form a proton-like string, we need “16” strings as the “domain”. That is, Line string (a, b, c) and Line string -(a, b, c) must produce “16” strings (with matter-like/anti-matter-like). In fact, the matter and anti-matter are entangled in this G-string representation. Furthermore, Neff = 48/16 =3.

As the anti-matter is a co-existing partner of matter, the dark mass calculation must account the anti-matter together with the matter in the equation, and that calculation fits the Planck data perfectly (see the “Pimple Model” at ). Furthermore, the cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants can also be understood (see “Litmus test for the final physics” at ).

For the issue of “Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate?” (see ).

For the issue of inflation, it can be explained with the “Cycling Universes ( )”, as the universe expands exponentially during each cycle (which lasts only one over gazillions a second).

For the issue of zero (0) to non-zero transformation, see “Law of Creation ( )”.

Note: The most comment critic on my articles is that it lacks testable phenomenological consequences. I will rebut it with two points.

One: The G-string is an axiom system.  And in its axiomatic base, it contains *NO* known physics, neither theoretical physics (such as, quantum principle or General Relativity) nor any experimental data (such as Standard Model particle zoo, or its free parameters).

Two: Yet, this G-string representation has *predicted* or *produced* (as the direct consequences) the followings.
a.      The Standard Model particle zoo
b.      The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy
c.       The cryptic relationships between the experimentally measured Standard Model constants
d.      The Baryongenesis
e.      The rest mass rising mechanism (see )
f.        Many others

What kind of phenomenological consequences should be demanded in addition to the above? Nature sits here silently, blocking all detour attempts. No one can go over, go under and go around it. There is no other pathway to enter into the courtyard of Nature. Yet, we get one *KEY*, we unlock all locks. This baryongenesis key is such a master-key.

Note (added on September 1, 2016):
The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

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