1

Nowhere to Run!!! Copyright © March 17, 2017 by Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong

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):

2

SUSY, a wild guess without any empirical support, and it is a total stupidity.

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.

Inflationary scenario, another wild guess trash.

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)

3

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.

4

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.

5

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

6

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:

7

Neutrino masses

Dark energy/dark mass

BaryonGenesis

Mass Hierarchy

Gravity, etc.

Thus, SM needs:

SUSY (for dark mass, hierarchy, etc.)

WIMP (for dark mass)

8

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.

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

9

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

No inverted neutrino mass hierarchy:

see https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03425 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.03328

10

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.

11

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.

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).

12

13

See http://xenon1t.org/

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).

14

15

See http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys4109.html

16

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).

17

see https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/03/cosmic-collisions-lhcb-experiment

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

18

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

19

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

enough-jeh-tween-gong

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.

20

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.

21

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 .

22

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:

23

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

silent-truth/

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.

24

See http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/10/multiverse-bubbles-are-now-all-burst-

by.html

25

See https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/guth-and-gefter-welcome-

for-quoting-the-g-theory/

26

see https://tienzengong.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/the-end-of-the-inflation-

war/

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