At Live Science: Are black holes wormholes?

Astrophysicist Paul Sutter writes:

In science fiction, space explorers routinely zip through wormholes in space-time that are connected by two black holes — celestial objects so dense that not even light can escape their clutches.

But are black holes really doorways into wormholes? And would these wormholes look anything like their counterparts in “Star Trek”?

The short answer is probably not, though the mathematics of the universe doesn’t quite rule it out.

By themselves, the only thing at the center of a black hole is a singularity — a point of infinite density.

In theory, however, a black hole may be paired with a mirror twin, called a white hole, to form a wormhole. Still, these theoretical wormholes would look nothing like the ones depicted in science fiction — traditional wormholes are predicted to be incredibly unstable, meaning they’d collapse the moment a single particle of matter entered them.

Some physicists predict that a wormhole could become more stable if it was formed from a spinning black hole, but our understanding of what happens in that scenario is murky at best.

Einstein-Rosen bridges

Scientists first discovered black holes not through observations in the universe, but through the mathematics of Einstein‘s theory of general relativity. Those equations showed that if you crunch down enough matter into a small enough volume, then gravity overwhelms every other force and shrinks the matter down into an infinitely tiny point, known as the singularity.

Black holes are one-way trips. Once someone crosses their boundaries, known as event horizons, they can’t ever escape. While black holes were once considered just a trick of Einstein’s equations, astronomical observations eventually revealed that black holes do exist in the universe.

But that same mathematics also allows for the exact reverse of a black hole: a white hole. A white hole still has a singularity at its center and an event horizon surrounding it. But instead of falling in and finding it impossible to escape, with a white hole a person could never reach the event horizon from the outside, because it’s constantly flinging its contents out into the universe faster than the speed of light.

Connecting the paired singularities of a black hole and a white hole together forms the simplest kind of wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen bridge.

Not very useful

Unfortunately, Einstein-Rosen bridges aren’t very useful for traversing the cosmos. For one, the entrance to the wormhole sits behind the event horizon. As a person can’t get in on the white hole side, they’d have to fall into a black hole to enter. But once someone crosses an event horizon, they can’t ever escape. That means that if you enter the wormhole you’re stuck inside for eternity.

The other problem with Einstein-Rosen bridges is their stability. “This bridge is a kind of wormhole, but it is transient: it pinches off before any object can use it to pass from one side to the other. So in this sense one does not really have a wormhole, since one cannot traverse it,” Samir Mathur, a physicist at The Ohio State University, told Live Science in an email.

This instability exists because creating a wormhole requires a very precise and careful arrangement of matter. Anything that disturbs this delicate balance — even a single packet of light, or photon — would trigger the instant collapse of the wormhole. The wormhole would tear itself apart like an overstretched rubber band faster than the speed of light, preventing anything from traveling down it.

In addition, physicists largely think white holes don’t exist in our universe. Unlike their siblings, white holes are fantastically unstable. According to the math, once even a single bit of matter falls towards them, they instantly explode. So even if white holes naturally formed, they wouldn’t last very long.

The combination of the uncertainty of the existence of white holes, the instability of Einstein-Rosen bridges, and the relative non-utility of them means that if wormholes exist, they probably aren’t Einstein-Rosen bridges.

A spinning singularity

There may be a way to build a wormhole from a more complicated kind of black hole: take their spinning into account. All black holes spin, but New Zealand mathematician Roy Kerr was the first to solve the math for spinning black holes.

In the center of a rotating black hole, the extreme centrifugal forces spread the point-like singularity into a ring. It may be possible for this “ring singularity” to become an entrance to a wormhole, but once again the problem of stability crops up.

As you can imagine, this is not a very comfortable situation, and things are likely to go haywire very quickly. The situation is so unstable that it may even prevent the formation of the singularity altogether. In this case, many physicists believe that the concept of the “ring singularity” from a spinning black hole will be replaced by a more concrete idea once we gain a better understanding of these objects.

15 Replies to “At Live Science: Are black holes wormholes?”

1. 1
AaronS1978 says:

No

2. 2
bornagain77 says:

As to: “As a person can’t get in on the white hole side, they’d have to fall into a black hole to enter. But once someone crosses an event horizon, they can’t ever escape.”

As to falling into a black hole, there are also a few other problems for a person to consider besides the fact that they can’t ever escape.

One problem is “spaghettification” of the person’s body

Spaghettification
In astrophysics, spaghettification (sometimes referred to as the noodle effect)[1] is the vertical stretching and horizontal compression of objects into long thin shapes (rather like spaghetti) in a very strong, non-homogeneous gravitational field. It is caused by extreme tidal forces. In the most extreme cases, near a black hole, the stretching and compression are so powerful that no object can resist it. Within a small region, the horizontal compression balances the vertical stretching so that a small object being spaghettified experiences no net change in volume.
Stephen Hawking described the flight of a fictional astronaut who, passing within a black hole’s event horizon, is “stretched like spaghetti” by the gravitational gradient (difference in gravitational force) from head to toe.[2] The reason this happens would be that the gravity force exerted by the singularity would be much stronger at one end of the body than the other. If one were to fall into a black hole feet first, the gravity at their feet would be much stronger than at their head, causing the person to be vertically stretched. Along with that, the right side of the body will be pulled to the left, and the left side of the body will be pulled to the right, horizontally compressing the person.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification

What Would Happen If You Fell into a Black Hole? (spaghettification!) – video

And on top of that ‘minor’ problem, “the atoms which his (the astronaut’s) body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed”,

“Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.”
Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
Of note: Kip Thorne and Charles Misner, and John Wheeler wrote Gravitation (1973), considered a definitive textbook on general relativity.

And as if all that was not bad enough, another problem is that the temperature around a black hole is “heated to a billion degrees or more”,

Scientists gear up to take a picture of a black hole – January 2012
Excerpt: “Swirling around the black hole like water circling the drain in a bathtub, the matter compresses and the resulting friction turns it into plasma heated to a billion degrees or more, causing it to ‘glow’ – and radiate energy that we can detect here on Earth.”
https://phys.org/news/2012-01-scientists-gear-picture-black-hole.html

And whereas the entropy associated with the black holes of General Relativity is found to be “infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed”, on the other hand, the entropy associated with special relativity, (i.e. associated with the creation of light and therefore of the universe itself), is found to be extremely orderly, i.e. 1 in 10^10^123.

“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989)

“The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).”
– Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

It is interesting that Roger Penrose, a staunch agnostic, would feel compelled to use the word “Creator”. I hold that Penrose, a staunch agnostic, simply would never use the word ‘Creator’ unless the extreme nature of the fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe, i.e. 1 in 10^10^123, compelled him to do so.

“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ”
– Dr. Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video
https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

This extreme fine-tuning for the initial entropy of the universe creates some fairly embarrassing problems for atheistic naturalists when they try to explain, purely by chance, the origin of such fine-tuning for entropy,

As Dr. Bruce Gordon further commented, “In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.”

Bruce Gordon: Hawking’s irrational arguments – Washington Times – 2010
Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

Moreover, beside the fact that we are dealing with two very different ‘qualities of entropy’ in Special Relativity and General Relativity, we also find that Special Relativity can be mathematically unified with quantum mechanics whereas General Relativity can not.

Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity
Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.
In the 1960s and ’70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you’ve already been introduced to.
If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you’ll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity (i.e. General Relativity).

And although special relativity and quantum mechanics were, via the mathematical sleight of hand of ‘renormalization’, mathematically unified with one another in order to produce the very successful theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, no such mathematical sleight of hand exists for unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”

Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.
https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

3. 3
bornagain77 says:

And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

And thus, since the entropy associated with special relativity is extremely orderly, i.e. 1 in 10^10^123, and yet the entropy associated with General Relativity is ‘”infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed”, then I hold those two very different entropies to be a fairly obvious reason, (besides the ‘infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for why QED (i.e Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity), can never be unified with General Relativity into a purely mathematical theory of everything.

And yet, although Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity give every indication of being forever beyond mathematical reconciliation with each, all hope is not lost in our search for a ‘theory of everything’.

If we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

In regards to gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the following article states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’

Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.

And in the following video, Isabel Piczek states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’

“When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
Isabel Piczek –
Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains the ‘event horizon’ on the Shroud of Turin) – video

Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
Discussion
Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
Theoretical model
It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
Discussion
The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics, (QED), itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
Comment
The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.

So thus in conclusion, when, and if, we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally held), then a very plausible, and fairly compelling, solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

Colossians 1:15-20
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

4. 4
bornagain77 says:

Of related note,

“Here is the problem (with black holes), right there, when ‘r’ (radius) is equal to zero, The point at which physics itself breaks down. So 1 over ‘r’ equals 1 over 0 equals infinity. To a mathematician infinity is simply a number without limit. To a physicist it is a monstrosity. It means first of all that gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole. That time stops. And what does that mean? Space makes no sense. It means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world there is no such thing as infinity. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein’s theory.”
(And in the video Michio Kaku then further notes, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics) “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
– Michio Kaku – The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? – video – 4:15 minute mark
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x

5. 5
relatd says:

A black hole is a matter to energy converter. That’s it. It dissipates like a candle burning down. Gravity is not infinite at the center of a black hole. If it were anywhere near that, it should have exploded.

I believe that a working theory connecting all forms of electromagnetic energy exists. However, whoever has this information would keep it highly secret.

6. 6
chuckdarwin says:

“Spaghettification”
Being on the edge of a black hole reminds me of a great scene from Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid. Butch and Sundance are being relentlessly pursued by some Pinkertons (Who are those guys?). They run into a dead end at the lip of a canyon that drops straight down to a river about 100 feet. They are getting ready to jump and Sundance has a panic attack and freezes. Butch asks, What’s wrong, Kid? The Kid says I can’t swim. Butch breaks out laughing and says So you can’t swim? Why you worried about swimming–it’s the fall that’s gonna kill you….

7. 7
Seversky says:

Bornagain77/2

As to: “As a person can’t get in on the white hole side, they’d have to fall into a black hole to enter. But once someone crosses an event horizon, they can’t ever escape.”

They can’t but, if they’re wearing The Shroud, it can, although it gets a bit singed by UV radiation, wherever that comes from.

8. 8
bornagain77 says:

Seversky, “wherever that comes from”,,,

Photocount distribution of photons emitted from three sites of a human body – 2006
Excerpt: Signals from three representative sites of low, intermediate and high intensities are selected for further analysis. Fluctuations in these signals are measured by the probabilities of detecting different numbers of photons in a bin. The probabilities have non-classical features and are well described by the signal in a quantum squeezed state of photons. Measurements with bins of three sizes yield same values of three parameters of the squeezed state.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520060

Strange! Humans Glow in Visible Light – Charles Q. Choi – July 22, 2009
Schematic illustration of experimental setup that found the human body, especially the face, emits visible light in small quantities that vary during the day. B is one of the test subjects. The other images show the weak emissions of visible light during totally dark conditions. The chart corresponds to the images and shows how the emissions varied during the day. The last image (I) is an infrared image of the subject showing heat emissions.
http://www.livescience.com/779.....light.html

Reversal of fortune for Turin Shroud – 13 Apr 2004
Excerpt: Although the front of the Shroud has been extensively studied, its back has remained hidden beneath another piece of linen, which was sewn on by nuns to cover up damage caused by a fire in 1532. However, this protective layer was removed in 2002, allowing the back of the cloth to be photographed.
They found that the face of the man that can be seen on the reverse of the Shroud matches that observed on the front. The image shows faint details of a nose, eyes, hair, beard and moustache (figures 2 and 3). The Italian duo was also able to make out weak images of the man’s hands, but could not produce images of his shoulders or back.
https://physicsworld.com/a/reversal-of-fortune-for-turin-shroud/

The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
http://cab.unime.it/journals/i.....802004/271

Matthew 17:2
There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.

Exodus 34:29-30:
“Moses didn’t realize as he came back down the mountain with the tablets that his face glowed from being in the presence of God. Because of this radiance upon his face, Aaron and the people of Israel were afraid to come near him.”

9. 9
Seversky says:

I love the way we are all opining about – or “holding” positions on – issues in quantum physics which quantum physicists themselves can’t agree on.

Neither BA77 nor I are quantum physicists. Sabine Hossenfelder is so I’m sure you can guess whose opinion I think should carry the greatest weight on questions in quantum physics. That is not to say she can’t be wrong or that there aren’t equally competent quantum physicists out there who disagree with her but she has a better chance of being right than commentators here and even just understanding the issues better.

I can live with the fact that other people know a lot more than I do about various issues. Others seem to have a problem with that.

10. 10
chuckdarwin says:

Seversky/9
I think you could generalize that to 80% of what gets discussed on this blog. What was that quip by Richard Feynman to the effect that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics….

11. 11
bornagain77 says:

Seversky, “Neither BA77 nor I are quantum physicists. Sabine Hossenfelder is so I’m sure you can guess whose opinion I think should carry the greatest weight on questions in quantum physics.”

Sabine Hossenfelder, since she is only a theoretical physicist and not an experimental physicist. can’t hold a candle to Anton Zeilinger’ as far as experimental breakthroughs in quantum physics are concerned,

Thus will Seversky rightly give Zeilinger’s opinion more weight than Hossenfelder’s as he ought to do if he is to use his own metric consistently?

Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
– Anton Zeilinger – a leading experimentalist in quantum mechanics
http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

49:28 mark: “This is now my personal opinion OK. Because we cannot operationally separate the two. Whenever we talk about reality, we think about reality, we are really handling information. The two are not separable. So maybe now, this is speculative here, maybe the two are the same? Or maybe information constitutive to the universe. This reminds me of the beginning the bible of St. John which starts with “In the Beginning was the Word”.,,,
Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2969

But hey Seversky, opinions are dime a dozen, and in science we are SUPPOSE to value experimental evidence over what ANYBODY”S opinion may be,,,,

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
– Richard Feynman
https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

And on the score of experimental evidence, Sabine Hossenfelder has shown herself willing to ignore experimental evidence when it conflicts with her apriori belief in Atheistic Naturalism. (exactly like you ignore any and all evidence that conflicts with your atheism Seversky)

Sept 2022 – To call such a move on the part of Sabine Hossenfelder, (i.e. the rejection of experimental results that conflict with her apriori philosophical belief in Atheistic Naturalism), unscientific would be a severe understatement. It is a rejection of the entire scientific method itself. She, in her appeal to ‘superdeterminism’, is basically arguing that we cannot trust what the experimental results of quantum mechanics themselves are telling us because events in the remote past ‘conspired’ to give us erroneous experimental results today.
As should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us, then empirical science is, for all practical purposes, dead.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/natural-sources-of-information/#comment-765261

,,,, Opinions detached from any experimental mooring are, as far as science is concerned, worthless

Of note,

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)

“it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
– Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

“The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

“The thesis of my book ‘Being as Communion’ is that the fundamental stuff of the world is information. That things are real because they exchange information one with another.”
– William Dembski –The Thesis of Being as Communion – video

“The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.
– Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

12. 12
relatd says:

I find any objections to documented comments here, such as those posted by Bornagain77, to be nonsensical. Any book or article that cites references made by qualified individuals advances knowledge. I post on another forum that studies a particular historical period. Posters are generally careful to cite their sources, which often include archived documents or images of actual documents from the period. So, instead of buying a book on a subject that some may never have heard of, on this forum, people can learn. Ideally, when done correctly, that is one important use of an internet forum like this one.

As Ba77 often does, there is a connection to verses from the Bible. Those references are important to me.

The conflict here is between those who see order in the universe and living things, and those who prefer to see blind, unguided luck bringing living things to their present state.

13. 13
JVL says:

Relatd: I post on another forum that studies a particular historical period.

Which historical period?

14. 14
relatd says:

No comment.

15. 15
JVL says:

Relatd: No comment.

I was just curious. I do like history. Especially English history but i’m learning more European history all the time.