The proof of the abc conjecture

The abc conjecture: there are a finite number of c (= a + b), for

c > rad (abc)^ (1+ ε)

Or

c < K ε x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) for ALL c.

Let a = d +/- d1 = (p^n x dp) +/- d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.

Example: a = 17 = 18 – 1 = (3^2x 2) -1; 18 = d, d1 = -1, p = 3, n = 2

Doing the same for b and c;

    b = e +/- e1 = (q^m x ep) +/- e1

    c = f +/- f1 = (w^k x fp) +/- f1

The +/- can be replaced with + only while push – into the d1 (or f1, e1) if necessary.

So, the rad (abc) = rad (a) rad (b) rad (c)

For rad (c) >= c, f1 ≠ 0 is the necessary condition.

For c >= rad (abc), f1 = 0 is the necessary condition; that is, c cannot be a prime.

The sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < c

Some scenarios can be evaluated for this sufficient condition.

Scenario 1: if d1 = e1 = 0 and there is a h1 (a natural number) while 1 < h1 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 2: if d1 = 0 and there is a h2 (a natural number) while 1 < h2 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 3: if e1 = 0 and there is a h3 (a natural number) while 1 < h3 < min {n, m, k}, then SC = true

Scenario 4: all other cases (the uncertainty).

All four cases, the SC = true.

For any give c (with f1 = 0, not a prime), there are S1 (meeting scenario 1), S2, S3 and S4.

Let S = S1 + S2 + S3 + S4

Now, {rad (abc) < c} = {for any c (not a prime, f1 = 0), is S finite?}

A cop-out way for the answer is by tossing a coin (selecting an arbitrary c): head = true; tail = false.

Then, the P (S) = {tail (50%), head (50%)} after infinite many tosses.

Now, we can make a cheating weight (ε > 0, a real number) and add it to rad (abc) side as {rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε)}.

With this cheating weight on the rad side as {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) < C}, the P (S) = {tail (< 50%), head (> 50%)} of each toss.

After N tosses, P (S, N) = {tail (~ 0), head (~100)}; that is, for any c (a real number while a + b = c) there is always a N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that

{N (ε) x rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) > c}, N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).

The above process can be proved in four steps: induction (operational) progressive process.

First, making the above simple tossing (selecting an arbitrary c doing the actual search) process into a game, as follow.

Every game consists of T (=10) tosses, which produces (i tails, j heads), T = i + j = 10 in this case.

So, P (SC = true) = j/T, P (SC = false) = i/T, P the possibility of SC

   ΔP = P (SC = false) - P (SC = true),

   If ΔP > 0, abc conjecture is false.

   If ΔP < 0, abc conjecture is true

Let G = 1 when ΔP < 0; G = 0 when ΔP > 0

This game will be repeated N times.

When N = 1, G1 = (0 or 1)

N = 2, G2 = (0 or 1)

…

N = n, Gn = (0 or 1)

Let G’n = (number of 1) – (number of 0); {(number of 1) + (number of 0) = n}

Theorem 1: If G’n > 0 for all n > N (ε), (N (ε) a large number > 0), then abc conjecture is true.

Second, the cheating: a cheating weight ε is added on one side of the tossing coin.

That is:    ΔX = {rad (abc)^ (1+ ε) - rad (abc)} = rad (abc)^ε

First principle (the indeterminacy): when ΔX = 0, the average of ΔP = 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is a large number.

Theorem 2: when ΔX > 0, the average of ΔP < 0 after n games (n x T tosses) when n is large. (This can be proved by actual calculation and search with a finite n).

Third, the induction proof of theorem 1 and 2: in the above, we have proved n = 1 and n = n. Now, by proofing that n = n + 1 is true, the theorem is proved with induction.

Fourth, going beyond the induction: is there a math ghost rascal which can sabotage the above induction proof?

The answer is no: a cheating game cannot be sabotaged even by a ghost rascal; see the ghost rascal conjecture.

      Ghost-rascal conjecture --- For a coin flipping (tossing) game (head vs tail), T is the number times flip as one ‘game’, N is the number times that that ‘game’ is played. If T >= 10 and N >= 10^500, then no amount of sabotage from a Ghost can change the outcome of this game.

See, Ghost-rascal conjecture and the Ultimate Reality

http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2014/02/ghost-rascal-conjecture-and-ultimate.html

That is, the induction proof of theorem 2 with a large n cannot be sabotaged by any math ghost rascal.

With this ghost-rascal guarantee, there is always an N (ε) for each ε (a real number) to ensure that {N (ε) x rad (abc) ^ (1+ ε) > c} for ALL c (= a + b), N (ε) is the number of toss needed for that (ε).

The abc conjecture is now proved.

But what does this abc conjecture mean in the number (or physics) system?

Equation of Wonder: bigger the ΔX, smaller the ΔP < 0.

For every c (= a + b)

Let a = d +/- d1 = (p^n x dp) +/- d1; dp is the largest prime for d; d1 is the smallest integer for a to have a d.

      b = e +/- e1 = (q^m x ep) +/- e1

      c = f +/- f1 = (w^k x fp) +/- f1

Then {p, q, w, dp, ep, fp, d1, e1, f1, n, m, k} are the players for the dynamics of rad (abc).

 Let Q be the dynamics of rad (abc) on those players.

With ΔX (on rad (abc)), there will be a ΔQ.

Corollary 1: ΔQ = | h/ ΔP |; the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the stronger the possibility that abc conjecture is true. That is, the larger |ΔP < 0| is, the smaller ΔQ is.

Now, the equation of wonder can be rewritten as:

        ΔQ = h/ ΔX or (ΔQ x ΔX = h), h is a real number and should be a constant.

|ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ is the possibility of whether there is infinite SC {sufficient condition (SC): rad (abc) = pqw (dp x ep x fp) < c} for an arbitrary c (= a + b).

That is, |ΔP < 0| = h/ ΔQ really defines the internal radical/prime dynamics for SC?

The equation {ΔQ x ΔX = h} shows that ΔP (internal radical/prime dynamics) is confined by ΔX (the cheating weight). 

More info about this Equation of Wonder, see the derivation of physics uncertainty equation via the number system at {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 }.

Mainstream physics: rescued from the Hellfire dungeon

Mainstream physics: rescued from the Hellfire dungeon

The mainstream physics was imprisoned in the hellfire dungeon by four guarding curses:

How to calculate Alpha?

How to calculate (and account for) Planck CMB data?

How to calculate Vacuum (wrongly named as Higgs) boson’s mass?

How to calculate Cosmology Constant?

The mainstream’s hope relies on finding some new particles (SUSY, WIMPs, Extra dimensions, sterile neutrinos, etc.), but that hope was crushed by the 2016 data from {LHC, LUX, IceCube, etc.}. Furthermore, any more data from LHC will help very little, as the discovery rate will decrease exponentially, see graph below.

That is, the entire mainstream BSM is now dead. There is no hope of any kind for the mainstream physics to escape from the imprisonment of the Hellfire dungeon via the help from mainstream BSM.

Fortunately, all those four curses are removed by the G-string quantum-gravity.

One, Calculating Alpha:

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

Two, calculating (accounting for) Planck CMB data:

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

Three, calculating Vacuum (wrongly named as Higgs) boson’s mass:

G-string beta decay

Step 1: picking up a (d, -d) vacuum to form a five-quark blob

Step 2: vacuum transformation {(d, -d) to (u, -u)} via a vacuum boson

Step 3: exchanging prequarks, W-like weak current

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

Four, calculating (accounting for) Cosmology Constant:

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/entropy-quantum-gravity-cosmology-constant/

This G-string rescue was presented at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )} held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016), by my Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian.  The key points of this presentation is available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ .

My Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) discussed This “G-string rescue” with Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) on August 5, 2016; see photos below. 

About “The Final Total TOE”: see, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ 

About the new LHC 2016 data: see, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2016/07/before-cern-lhc-2016-data-release-three.html and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/before-the-cern-lhc-2016-data-release-7fdb0eba4ace#.tceeg69lr 

About the physics epistemology: see, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/ 

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

The current (2016) mainstream physics status is this: #PostCheckmateTTF (Post Checkmate temper tantrum fit).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

M-string claims that the low-energy string vibrational patterns (wavelength and amplitude) on Calabi-Yau space correspond to our familiar elementary particles (fermions and bosons).

Where is the list for this {particle/music note} description?

Is this just a hot air hype?

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/the-era-of-hope-or-total-bullcrap/

The PDF version of my new book {Nature’s Manifesto --- Nature vs Bullcraps, https://tienzengong.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/natures_manifesto2.pdf } is available at for a limited time. 

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

Before the CERN LHC 2016 data release: three predictions

LHC will release its 2016 data on or about August 5, 2016. I will make some pre-release comments (predictions) here.

One, about the 750 Gev bump of 2015 data.

In 2015, LHC collected about 4 fb(-1) amount of data and saw a 750 Gev bump by both groups (Altas and CMS).

This year so far, LHC has collected about 13 fb(-1) amount of data (more than 3 times the last year).

Everyone else viewed the last year bump as a new ‘particle’ while I see it as an excited vacuum state. There are some major differences between the two.

First, a particle can only decay while the excited state can ‘dissipate’. It can dissipate by mimicking as a particle decay. It can dissipate to a lower state (not as a particle decay), etc.

Second, the excited state has a value of 738 Gev, not 750. So, the better data should show that there is no bump for 750.

Third, a new particle should not change the production rate for the vacuum boson while the excited state would. This will be the key (litmus) test for both the vacuum boson and the new bump (if any).

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

With these three points, the 750 bump should be gone (disappear) in the new data set.

Two, about SUSY

There is no mainstream-SUSY in G-string physics. That is, in the new data should not show any sign of SUSY. SUSY is strongly related to M-strings.

Originally, SUSY has nothing to do with M-strings. It is an ‘extension’ for SM which has a ‘naturalness (fine tuning)’ issue.

Naturalness (fine tuning): in SM, many constants (especially Alpha) cannot be calculated but must be placed into equations by hand (called as free parameters). Furthermore, with the gauge symmetry, those nature constants do not work well with the gauge symmetry framework, being too small. So, if gauge symmetry is correct (as guiding principle), those constants are wrong (not nature). So, those constants are not ‘nature’ in accordance with the gauge symmetry; that is, there must be a fine-tuning to get them. {Naturalness} means that those nature constants are not ‘nature’ but are the results of some {fine-tunings}.

So, SUSY was invented as that fine-tuning machine. The small mass of the so-called Higgs boson further demands the requirement of fine-tuning, in order to cancel out the large mass demanded by the gauge symmetry.

Then later, SUSY was the consequence of M-string calculation, and this became the greatest String-discovery. From that point, SUSY and M-string become a shared-body twin. The {no show} of any SUSY at this new upcoming LHC data will be a big blow to the M-string.

Of course, there cannot be any SUSY signal as the calculation of Alpha is clearly shown below, and there is no {naturalness} issue. SUSY is dead.

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

Three, LHC is able to search for the dark matter. As the current dark matter are mainly produced during the Big Bang period, LHC should produce some dark matter as some collisions could reach the condition similar to the Big Bang. This is the direct search.

If LHC is unable to produce dark matter directly, its collisions are still surrounded by existing dark matter. That is, the bystander test can be performed. If there is no roadblock (blockage) for ALL the decaying pathways, there is no bystander (no dark matter particles).

Dark mass is now totally accounted for in the graph below. That is, no dark matter of WIMP kind can be in the new LHC data.

See https://medium.com/@Tienzen/final-toe-theory-of-everything-9b12ec7c0c9f#.76ic1tji0

The recent LUX data has put WIMPs on the death row. The {no show} of dark matter in the upcoming LHC data will condemn it once more. Yet, only the correct {dark energy/dark mass} model buries WIMPs properly. 

No Stay of execution for WIMPs.

My Protégé Dr. Li xiaojian (Professor of North China University of Technology, Beijing, 100144, China) discussed my predictions and my “The Final Total TOE” with Dr. David Gross (Nobel laureate) on August 5, 2016; see photos below.

My “The Final Total TOE” was presented at {Strings 2016 conference (http://ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn:8090/strings/ )} held at Tsinghua University, Beijing China (from August 1 to 5, 2016), by Dr. Li xiaojian too.  The key points of this presentation are available at https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-final-total-toe-theory-of-everything/ .

About the new LHC 2016 data: see, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2016/07/before-cern-lhc-2016-data-release-three.html and https://medium.com/@Tienzen/before-the-cern-lhc-2016-data-release-7fdb0eba4ace#.tceeg69lr 

About the physics epistemology: see, https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/paul-steinhardts-remorse-popperianism-and-beauty-contest/ 

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

Ghost-rascal conjecture and the Ultimate Reality

Byron Jennings (a physicist at TRIUMF, Canada) wrote an article “Reality and the Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics” which in my view is the most important issue of physics today. I thus wrote a comment on it (at, http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2014/02/07/interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/#comment-172443 ).  The following is a deeper elaboration of that comment.

The basic of atheism is of against the concepts of ‘supernatural (being)’ and the ‘design’ of the universe. Of course, the Christian cosmology is total nonsense in terms of the modern physics. But, what is the difference between {un-naturalness, tuning} and {supernatural, design}? This neo-atheism is now falling into a trap of no return in its own making. Yet, thus far, the issue of the ‘ultimate nature of reality’ is still elusive in all disciplines.

In Buddhism, it searches the ‘Ultimate’ with a methodology, the ‘negation’ (emptying out the non-eternal). In Science, it searches the ‘Ultimate’ also with a methodology, the ‘falsifiability’. Now, Buddhism has taken its ‘methodology’ as the ‘Ultimate’ (a total confusion), and physicists have also mistaken the ‘falsifiability’ as the Gospel.  For a given destination, it could have many different pathways. Furthermore, the two pathways of above cannot reach the destination by definition, as the true ‘Ultimate’ (if any) must not

a.       be emptied out,

b.      be falsified.

In a sense, the ‘Ultimate’ is already defined above, but it is operational useless. Thus, I will try to give it an operational definition. The ‘Ultimate’ (if any) must consist of two parts.

A.      It must be ‘eternal’, that is, it is time-independent; not created in-time and cannot be destroyed at the end of time.

B.      It must give rise to ‘this’ universe; an itemized list of realities, such as,

1.       gives rise to nature constants {Alpha, e (electric charge), c (light speed), ħ (Planck constant), etc.},

2.       gives rise to the particle zoo of the Standard Model,

3.       gives rise to quantum principle,

4.       gives rise to unified force equation (including gravity),

5.       gives rise to dark mass and dark energy, the Planck data,

6.       gives rise to life,

7.       gives rise to arithmetic,

8.       gives rise to baryongenesis,

9.       gives rise to cosmological constant (Λ),

10.   gives rise to the Quantum-Spin,

11.   gives rise to … everything in ‘this’ universe.

Then, is the ‘Ultimate’ a reality? How to verify a theory to be the ‘Ultimate’ theory? Both questions can be answered, as the definition of ‘Ultimate’ is now super clear. A failure of any one of the ‘gives rise to …’, it cannot be the Ultimate theory.

In the book ("Linguistics Manifesto", ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1), its central issue is one statement (or thesis), as follow,

     “Every chaotic system can always be described with an ordered system (from a Formal system to Godel to Life system)”.

That is, any chaotic system is a ‘shadow’ of an ordered system. Note: a biological system is a Life system, but the Life system is much bigger than a bio-system by definition in that book.

This statement is truly time-independent. Yet, its direct consequence is that any chaotic system (such as the quantum system) can arise from a simple ordered formal system. The argument of this statement in the book is very complicated, thus I will only give a simple example here to show the point. A system of two persons (I and a ghost) and one game (flipping an American quarter 10 times as a game).

By playing alone (me only), the probability of the outcome patterns (one head/9 tails; …, 9 heads/one tail, etc.) should all be the same after played a large number (such as 10^500) of times. Now, a ghost (not visible by me) comes in and tries to mess up my play either randomly or with a planed-system (of sabotages); yet, he is unable to change the outcome when the played number of times is as large as the 10^500 (a very large but finite number). On a first glance, this seems not logic. Yet, when we change ‘a game’ from flipping coin 10 times to 20 times, it becomes obvious that the Ghost’s task becomes much harder. When we change that number from 10 to one million, the Ghost will probably give up on this sabotage task. Of course, without providing a mathematical proof, I call this the “Ghost-rascal conjecture”: that is,

Ghost-rascal conjecture --- For a coin flipping game (head vs tail), T is the number times flip as one ‘game’, N is the number times that that ‘game’ is played. If T >= 10 and N >= 10^500, then no amount of sabotage from a Ghost can change the outcome of this game.

With this “Ghost-rascal conjecture”, the words of ‘eternal’ and ‘immutable’ are no longer the terms of philosophy and theology only, as this conjecture is a concrete game which can be played even by a first grader. Yet, if it cannot meet the second part of the definition of ‘Ultimate nature of Reality’ above (a long list of ‘gives rise to …’), then it becomes an absolutely useless nonsense. Thus, if this game cannot make any contact to ‘this’ physical universe, it will be just a meaningless game for physics although it can still be a fun game in math.

As stated above, the bigger the T is, the smaller the N is needed. If we choose T >= 100, this immutable power is much stronger, but it becomes a too big a game for a grade school kid to play, although it is not too big for a computer programmer. When T = 1, the conjecture could fail unless the ‘N’ goes to infinite. When T = 2, the Ghost’s hand can still be very powerful, and the conjecture needs a very large ‘N’. When T >= 3, the power of immutable becomes strong, and my-hand becomes dominant.  In fact, when T >= 3, the conjecture can be easily empirically proved. But, the key point here is not only to play a game of immutability but to meet the long list of ‘gives rise to …”.  Thus, I will show a game with T = 3 and get three games, as below.

Game 1: (tail, head, head)

Game 2: (head, tail, head)

Game 3:  - (tail, tail, head)

Can these three games make contact with this physical universe? When we make this game a bit spicier, we can truly surprise ourselves. Let’s add three more spices (hot, color, and twister) for this game.

One, hot-juice: the head carries 1/3 of electric charge, the tail with zero (0).

Two, color: the first flip (or spin) is red, yellow the second and the blue the third. Then, every game carries a color-tag which is the color of the ‘single’, such as the Game 1 is red; Game 2 is yellow; Game 3 is blue.

Three, twister: flipped by the left hand (sabotaged by the Ghost) is marked with a negative sign. Flipped by the right-hand carries a positive sign for the game.

With these additional spices, this game can actually describe all the Standard Model particles (excluding the bosons) symbolically.  That is, this game has made one ‘gives rise to …’ of the above list.

Then, when we make the three-game (1, 2, 3) as a compound game, it actually is the symbolical description of ‘proton’. Yet, for a color-blind person who is unable to see (the color), to feel (the hot juice) or to know (the twisting), he sees that the three games above are as below.

Game 1: (# * *)

Game 2: (* # *)

Game 3: (# # *)

This new compound game is, in fact, a glider of Conway’s Life game which can be the base for building a Turing computer. That is, there is a chance for this game to ‘give rise to life’.

Then, for this Ghost-rascal game, the probability of each game-pattern should all be the same at a number N (z). Then, we can define a special function Λ ,

Function Λ =  P (top, the largest probability of a game-pattern) – P (bottom, the smallest probability of a game-pattern) at any given N

By the definition of the conjecture, the probability of each game-pattern should all be the same at a number N (z), that is Λ (z)= 0 (exactly) at N (z). For a number N (i) < N (z),  Λ (i) > 0. When this N (i) is very large, this Λ  (i) should be almost to be zero. And now, zero (0) is precisely defined operationally in a finite {N (z) is very large but finite} ‘physical’ game, in addition to be only as a math concept. Furthermore, a Λ function must be a part of ‘this’ universe.

In summary, this game has the following attributes.

            i.  It is time-independent, not created in time and will not be destroyed at the end of time.

ii. It is immutable; no amount of sabotage can change the outcome of this game. Furthermore, it is a ‘concrete’ thing, not a philosophical or theological ‘speculation’.

iii.  It can devour all types of order (systematic sabotage). That is, it can, in fact, puke up all types of order too.

iv.  The left-hand game (sabotaged by the Ghost, marked with a negative sign) is the ‘source’ of ‘orderliness’, not a true symmetrical partner of the right-hand game. That is, there is a right-hand-genesis which is similar to the baryongenesis (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html ).

Now, we have a definition for the ‘Ultimate Nature of Reality’ and have a concrete thing which meets that definition. I also showed a few examples about the ‘gives rise to …”, but it must meet ‘all’ of them in the above list. In order to that, I must introduce the ‘gives rise to Quantum-Spin’ first (see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/visualizing-the-quantum-spin/ ). The Quantum-Spin arises via a Perfect Symmetry (the Real/Imaginary Time symmetry). By adding this new symmetry on the Ghost-rascal conjecture, it will give rise to three structure numbers (64, 48, 24) which give rise to Cabibbo, Weinberg angles, and Alpha. The explanation of this is available via the links below.

1.       Gives rise to the cosmological constant (Λ),

2.       gives rise to Cabibbo and Weinberg angles (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html ),

3.       gives rise to  Alpha (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html ),

4.       gives rise to Neff = 3 (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html ),

5.       gives rise to Planck data (for dark energy, see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/ ).

6.       gives rise to the particle zoo of the Standard Model (see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/g-string-and-dark-energy/ ),

7.       gives rise to Baryongenesis (see link above),

8.       gives rise to quantum principle (see http://tienzen.livejournal.com/973.html ),

9.       gives rise to unified force equation (see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/why-does-dark-energy-make-universe.html ),

10.   gives rise to life (see http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm ),

11.   gives rise to arithmetic (see http://www.prequark.org/Mlaw.htm ),

12.   gives rise the Quantum-Spin (see link above).

13.   Why is there something rather than nothing? (http://tienzen.livejournal.com/1323.html )

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 issues 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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-fine-structure-constant-mystery.html . 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 an 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, traveling 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 (http://www.prequark.org/Mphy.htm#Real ).

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 http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/rise-of-gravitation-and-hierarchy.html ),

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

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, (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/theoretical-calculation-of-cabibbo-and.html )”) 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 in 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/09/higgs-boson-not-best-idea.html )” and has nothing to do with the *gravity*.

Andrew (at http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/11/more-cosmic-accounting-and-some.html?showComment=1386086144012#c1902146350263304331 ) 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 http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm ), 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 http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/g-string-and-dark-energy/

b.      The Planck data for dark mass and dark energy, see http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/dark-energy-mystery-no-more/

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

d.      Superunification (Quantum / gravity unification), see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/rise-of-gravitation-and-hierarchy.html

e.      The Baryongenesis, see http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/baryongenesis-master-key-of-all.html

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 living 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.

The 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 pinpoint 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.

The 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 (http://www.prequark.org/Initial.htm , 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 the same source, it has theoretical difficulty to construct a way of emerging out different laws from the different initial conditions (forming a 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html ).

The third way, showing that the physics laws of *this* universe do 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 (http://www.prequark.org/Biolife.htm ). 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 form a Ball-Donut transformation, see (http://www.prequark.org/Gravity.htm#Bal ). For more detail of these, they are available in the article “KEY MISSION OF LIFE”, at (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/key-mission-of-life/ ).

That is, the physics laws of *this* universe carry 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 the 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/physics-laws-must-give-rise-to.html ).

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 by 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 *checkpoints* 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 (http://tienzen.livejournal.com/584.html )”. 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 (http://tienzen.livejournal.com/973.html )”.

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 (http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/05/computability-and-internal-structure-of.html )”, b) “The source of the “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, part 3 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/source-of-spontaneous-symmetry-breaking_11.html )”, c) “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html )”.

The following articles are also available for giving more analysis on this divide.

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

The Philosophical Meanings of Fermat's Last Theorem (http://www.prequark.org/Fermat.htm ).

Law of creation (http://www.prequark.org/think03.htm#A08 ):

                     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 (http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm ).

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, the 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 to 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 (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/nonsense-of-the-un-nature-nature/ )” and b) “CAN NATURE BE UNNATURAL? (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/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 oddball with no significance in the universal physics laws. Of course, I have shown 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 blows 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-hope-of-susy-parousia.html )”, “NATURE’S MASTER-KEY CUTS OUT SUSY THE UNDEAD (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/natures-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 shown 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-by.html ) and in the argument of Newtonian methodology (Model building, paradigm, and Truth, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/12/model-building-paradigm-and-truth.html ). 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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/11/m-theory-toe-if-and-only-if-it-adds-two.html )”.

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

M-/F-STRING THEORIES, FAILED THEORIES (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/m-f-string-theories-failed-theories/ ).

BARKED UP THE WRONG TREES, M-THEORY AND SUSY (http://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/barked-up-the-wrong-trees-m-theory-and-susy/ ).

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? (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5465 ), the Higgs connotes a great crisis of physics.

B.       Jester (Résonaances, http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-about-b-to-k-star-mu-mu.html ) showed his trademark pessimism and frustration in August 2013.

C.       In the article “the crisis in modern physics,  (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6238 ), 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 in 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 http://www.prequark.org/Q2.htm .  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 (http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/06/higgs-chicken-higgs-egg-and-higgs.html )”.

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).

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2016/08/26/vision-eulogy-the-post-checkmate-temper-tantrum-fit/

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