At Quanta: How gravity differs from the other three fundamental forces

8 Replies to “At Quanta: How gravity differs from the other three fundamental forces”

1. 1
   BobRyan says:

   June 17, 2020 at 1:49 am

   We know gravity exists as a fundamental law of physics, but almost nothing else. People can’t even agree on pushing or pulling. Perhaps one of the secrets lies in the probability that gravity pushes and pulls. Rather than a singular force, might I suggest something along the lines of gravitational balance.
2. 2
   awstar says:

   June 17, 2020 at 4:37 am

   Natalie Wolchover, “Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces” at Quanta

   Actually, gravity is EXACTLY LIKE the other forces.

   https://energywavetheory.com/forces/gravity/
3. 3
   polistra says:

   June 17, 2020 at 9:53 am

   @BobRyan: Interesting thought. The other forces have north vs south, positive vs negative. Magnetic monopoles are contrived, but gravitational monopoles seem to be universal. Maybe we should ask whether gravitational monopoles are also a contrivance caused by looking from the wrong perspective.
4. 4
   bornagain77 says:

   June 19, 2020 at 6:06 am

   I liked this following comment from the article since it, mathematically, gives us a very good picture of exactly why Gravity simply refuses to ever play ball with the other three fundamental forces:

   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/

   Likewise, 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.”

   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.

   General relativity simply refuses to be mathematically unified with quantum mechanics in any acceptable way. As the following article states, “Even after a sustained effort lasting more than half a century, no renormalized quantum field theory of gravity has ever been produced. Renormalization means a theory that’s free of infinities at zero distance or infinite energy because 2 point particles can interact with each other at zero distance. A non renormalizable theory has no predictive value because it contains an infinite number of singular coefficients.”

   Does quantum mechanics contradict the theory of relativity?
   Sanjay Sood, Microchip Design Engineer, Theoretical and Applied Physicist – Feb 14, 2016
   Excerpt: quantum mechanics was first integrated with special theory of relativity by Dirac in 1928 just 3 years after quantum mechanics was discovered. Dirac produced an equation that describes the behavior of a quantum particle (electron). In this equation the space and time enter on the same footing – equation is first order in all 4 coordinates. One startling by product of this equation was the prediction of anti matter. It also gave the correct explanation for the electron’s spin. Dirac’s equation treats an electron as a particle with only a finite degrees of freedom.
   In 1940s Dirac’s equation was incorporated into the relativistic quantum field theory that’s knowns as quantum electrodynamics (QED) independently by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. This is the theory that describes the behavior of electrons and photons and their interactions with each other in terms of relativistic quantum fields that have infinite degrees of freedom. QED allowed extremely precise calculation of anomalous magnetic dipole moment of an electron. This calculated value matches the experimentally measured value to an astonishing precision of 12 decimal places!
   The integration of Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics has proved to be far more difficult. Such an integration would give a quantum theory of gravity. Even after a sustained effort lasting more than half a century, no renormalized quantum field theory of gravity has ever been produced. Renormalization means a theory that’s free of infinities at zero distance or infinite energy because 2 point particles can interact with each other at zero distance. A non renormalizable theory has no predictive value because it contains an infinite number of singular coefficients.
   https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-mechanics-contradict-the-theory-of-relativity

   As to, “Renormalization means a theory that’s free of infinities at zero distance or infinite energy because 2 point particles can interact with each other at zero distance”, he is apparently referring to the zero/infinity conflict that arises between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

   THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
   Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
   http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

   This zero/infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics has some fairly disturbing theoretical implications. Specifically, when theorists try to combine the two theories, then the resulting theory predicts that spacetime, atoms, and even the universe itself should all be literally blown apart. Here are a few references that get this point across.

   “There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen.”
   – Gregory J. Chaitin , Francisco A. Doria, and Newton C. a. Da Costa – Goedel’s Way: Exploits into an Undecidable World

   “In order for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent [Seeking consistency between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is the major task theoretical physicists have been grappling with since quantum mechanics emerged], the physical vacuum has to contain 10^94 grams equivalent of energy per cubic centimeter. What that means is, if you take just a single hydrogen atom, which is one proton and one electron and all the rest of the atom is ‘empty space,’ if you take just that volume of empty space, … you find that you end up with a trillion times as much vacuum energy as all the electromagnetic energy in all the planets, all the stars, and all the cosmic dust in a sphere of radius 15 billion light-years.”
   To summarize, the subtle energy in the vacuum space of a single hydrogen atom is as great as all the electromagnetic energy found in everything within 15 billion light-years of our space-time cosmos.” ,,,
   Dr. William Tiller – Human Intention

   Cosmic coincidence spotted – Philip Ball – 2008
   Excerpt: One interpretation of dark energy is that it results from the energy of empty space, called vacuum energy. The laws of quantum physics imply that empty space is not empty at all, but filled with particles popping in and out of existence. This particle ‘fizz’ should push objects apart, just as dark energy seems to require. But the theoretical value of this energy is immense — so huge that it should blow atoms apart, rather than just causing the Universe to accelerate.
   Physicists think that some unknown force nearly perfectly cancels out the vacuum energy, leaving only the amount seen as dark energy to push things apart. This cancellation is imperfect to an absurdly fine margin: the unknown ‘energy’ differs from the vacuum energy by just one part in 10^122. It seems incredible that any physical mechanism could be so finely poised as to reduce the vacuum energy to within a whisker of zero, but it seems to be so.
   http://www.nature.com/news/200.....8.610.html

   The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics – Jessica Orwig – Jan. 14, 2016
   Excerpt: Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy
   ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there’s one gigantic problem with their answer:
   “Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy,” Cliff said. “This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it’s impossible to get your head around … this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it’s a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s a pretty bad prediction.”
   On the bright side, we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html

   And yet, despite both theories contradicting each other to the point of literally blowing the universe apart, quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to extreme levels of precision, (in fact, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are consider to be our most successful theories ever in the history of science),

   The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
   Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
   It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
   In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
   g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
   Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
   http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

   And since quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to such an extreme level of precision, (and we can thus have a very high level of confidence that both theories are, in fact, true mathematical descriptions of reality), and since Godel’s incompleteness theorem itself requires something to be ‘outside the circle’ of mathematics,,,,

   “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
   Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

   ,,, then it is fairly safe to assume that there must be something very powerful that must be holding the universe together in order to keep it from blowing itself apart. ,,,

   For the Christian this theoretical finding from our very best theories in science, (i.e. that something very powerful must be ‘outside the universe’ that is holding this universe together), should not be all that surprising to find out. Christianity, a couple of millennium before the zero/infinity conflict between the two theories was even known about, predicted that Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together,,,

   Colossians 1:17
   He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
5. 5
   bornagain77 says:

   June 19, 2020 at 6:07 am

   Of supplemental note,

   Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God and finite man might look like mathematically:

   The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
   William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
   Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
   http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

   Philippians 2:8-9
   And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

   Moreover, if we rightly let the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into the picture of modern 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 of modern science),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics 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”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

   November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
   https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

   (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study 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.’,,,
   Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics 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.
   https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178

   The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
   What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
   https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

   To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

   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 to several billion watts )”.
   Comment
   The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
   http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

   Verse:

   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.
6. 6
   awstar says:

   June 19, 2020 at 7:17 am

   Bornagain77 @ 4

   What that means is, if you take just a single hydrogen atom, which is one proton and one electron and all the rest of the atom is ‘empty space,’ if you take just that volume of empty space, … you find that you end up with a trillion times as much vacuum energy as all the electromagnetic energy in all the planets, all the stars, and all the cosmic dust in a sphere of radius 15 billion light-years.”
   To summarize, the subtle energy in the vacuum space of a single hydrogen atom is as great as all the electromagnetic energy found in everything within 15 billion light-years of our space-time cosmos.” ,,,
   Dr. William Tiller – Human Intention

   Physicists think that some unknown force nearly perfectly cancels out the vacuum energy, leaving only the amount seen as dark energy to push things apart. This cancellation is imperfect to an absurdly fine margin: the unknown ‘energy’ differs from the vacuum energy by just one part in 10^122. It seems incredible that any physical mechanism could be so finely poised as to reduce the vacuum energy to within a whisker of zero, but it seems to be so.
   http://www.nature.com/news/200…..8.610.html

   ,,, then it is fairly safe to assume that there must be something very powerful that must be holding the universe together in order to keep it from blowing itself apart. ,,,

   You mean something that is “omnipotent” and “omnipresent”?

   Or maybe it’s just a feature of “aether”

   https://energywavetheory.com/explanations/what-is-dark-energy/
7. 7
   bornagain77 says:

   June 19, 2020 at 2:29 pm

   Awstar, of related interest to so called ‘Dark Energy’ and just how embarrassing it is for atheistic astrophysicists,,,

   Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy
   ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there’s one gigantic problem with their answer:
   “Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy,” Cliff said. “This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it’s impossible to get your head around … this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it’s a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s a pretty bad prediction.”
   On the bright side, we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html

   Does the multiverse explain the cosmological constant?
   Excerpt: But this is now just another manifestation of the measure problem in cosmology: how to calculate probabilities of events (existence of observers) in a (possibly) infinite collection of universes, each of infinite extent, and still get a meaningful result. The answer obtained depends on the measure (the method of treating the infinities) used, but isn’t at all clear which measure is most appropriate.
   In my opinion, the argument now degenerates to post-dicting the choice of measure that will most closely reproduce the observed value of ??. This may or may not be an interesting thing to do – personally I think it’s not for me – but one thing is for sure: it can no longer be argued that the multiverse hypothesis predicts the cosmological constant in any testable or falsifiable way. Rather the observed value of the cosmological constant is being used to work out possible measures to apply to a multiverse whose existence is already taken for granted.
   http://blankonthemap.blogspot......gical.html

   In the following video(s),

   1 in 10^120 Fine Tuning of Dark Energy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – video (3:45 minute mark)
   https://youtu.be/I7gWX7BUA3U?t=224

   Astrophysicist Hugh Ross – Incredible Astronomical Discoveries & Dark Energy – (newer 2018 video)
   https://youtu.be/c9J9r7mdB6Q?t=367

   ,,, at the 3:45 minute mark of the first video, Dr Hugh Ross cites the following paper by three atheistic astrophysicists, “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant”, A paper in which they state, “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,” “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?” and “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”

   Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant – Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) – 2002
   Excerpt: “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,”
   “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?”
   page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”
   Page 21 “The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.
   http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

   Since, being atheists, they did not like the implications of an “unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”, they ended up denying the existence of a “true cosmological constant”, They stated, “”The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.

   But here are the 9 lines of evidence that Dr. Ross mentioned which came out shortly after the preceding paper was listed as a preprint on the Los Alamos’s website. Evidences which made Dyson, Kleban and Susskind ultimate pull their paper from consideration since the evidence became overwhelming that we do indeed live in a universe with a ‘true cosmological constant’,,,

   Accumulating Evidence for Dark Energy and Supernatural Design – 2011
   Excerpt: I (Hugh Ross) often refer to nine different lines of observational evidence that establish dark energy’s reality and dominance in my talks. These nine are:
   1.radial velocities of type Ia supernovae;
   2.WMAP of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR);
   3.ground-based measures of the CMBR;
   4.Sloan Digital Sky Survey of galaxies and galaxy clusters;
   5.Two-Degree Field Survey of galaxies;
   6.gravitational lens measurements of distant galaxies and quasars;
   7.distributions of radio galaxies;
   8.galaxy velocity distributions; and
   9.x-ray emissions from galaxy clusters.

   In the last several years, astronomers have added seven additional lines of observational evidence confirming the reality of the finely tuned cosmological constant, bringing the total to sixteen. These seven are:

   10.Lyman-alpha forest measurements;
   11.polarization measures of the cosmic microwave background radiation;
   12.stellar ages;
   13.cosmic inhomogeneities;
   14.gamma-ray bursts;
   15.evolution of galaxy clustering; and
   16.galaxy cluster angular size measurements.
   https://reasons.org/explore/publications/tnrtb/read/tnrtb/2011/12/05/accumulating-evidence-for-dark-energy-and-supernatural-design

   And here are the verses from the Bible which Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’;

   Bible References to God Stretching Out the Heavens
   http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....retch.html

   And, being a Christian, here is my favorite verse out of those group of verses. Job 9:8 in the Old Testament

   Job 9:8
   He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

   The reason that is my favorite verse should be fairly obvious,

   Matthew 14:25-27
   And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
   And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
   But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
8. 8
   awstar says:

   June 20, 2020 at 8:21 am

   BA @ 7

   Since, being atheists, they did not like the implications of an “unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”, they ended up denying the existence of a “true cosmological constant”, They stated, “”The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.

   Why are so many scientists “science deniers”?