Cosmology Intelligent Design Mathematics

Can only math solve the mystery at the heart of the universe?

Spread the love

The issue is quantum field theory (QFT):

“This is [a] very embarrassing thing that we don’t have a single quantum field theory we can describe in four dimensions, nonperturbatively,” said Rejzner. “It’s a hard problem, and apparently it needs more than one or two generations of mathematicians and physicists to solve it.”

But that doesn’t stop mathematicians and physicists from eyeing it greedily. For mathematicians, QFT is as rich a type of object as they could hope for. Defining the characteristic properties shared by all quantum field theories will almost certainly require merging two of the pillars of mathematics: analysis, which explains how to control infinities, and geometry, which provides a language for talking about symmetry.

“It’s a fascinating problem just in math itself, because it combines two great ideas,” said Dijkgraaf.

If mathematicians can understand QFT, there’s no telling what mathematical discoveries await in its unlocking. Mathematicians defined the characteristic properties of other objects, like manifolds and groups, long ago, and those objects now permeate virtually every corner of mathematics. When they were first defined, it would have been impossible to anticipate all their mathematical ramifications. QFT holds at least as much promise for math.

Kevin Hartnett, “The Mystery at the Heart of Physics That Only Math Can Solve” at Quanta

Be warned: The quantum world is tricky and nothing is what it seems. 😉

See also: In quantum physics, “reality” really is what we choose to observe. Physicist Bruce Gordon argues that idealist philosophy is the best way to make sense of the puzzling world of quantum physics.

and

Can a materialist consciousness theory survive quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics requires that the observer be part of the measurement; thus quantum measurements must include consciousness.

12 Replies to “Can only math solve the mystery at the heart of the universe?

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Can a materialist consciousness theory survive quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics requires that the observer be part of the measurement; thus quantum measurements must include consciousness.

    Can consciousness be anything other than the workings of the physical brain?

    Waking from Coma

    […]

    Therefore, if someone is in a coma for months or years they must have serious brain injury. These are the cases that are not going to simply “wake up” and be near normal. Again there are two broad categories here – those who have diffuse brain injury and those with focal brain injury. Diffuse injury is the easier to prognose because they almost always do very poorly. The whole brain is damaged, and there is insufficient brain activity to generate wakeful consciousness. In these cases, however, people may still slowly recover due to brain healing. The brain can heal to some degree, and this can occur for 2-3 years before it largely plateaus. The younger the patient the greater their healing potential. This process is slow, however. But a person can cross the threshold of wakefullness, and in this sense can “wake up”. However, this threshold means they will go from being barely comatose to barely awake. They may be able to open their eye, to attend to things and people in their environment.

    The key point, however, is that such patients would not go from being in a prolonged coma due to diffuse brain injury to being high functioning. They will needs months or even years of neurological rehab to slowly regain function. Further, their new baseline, once they recover as much as they can, will likely be very different from their pre-injury self. In these situations managing expectations is important, and so it is useful for everyone to know that a person with this level of brain injury will likely be significantly impaired. They may not regain the ability to talk, or walk, or participate in their activities of daily living. This is still meaningful recovery, and generally loved-ones will take what they get and are grateful to have any semblance of the person they love back.

    If consciousness is some immaterial phenomenon capable of existing in full working order entirely separate from the physical brain then why do we observe such deficits in the case of damage to the physical brain. The obvious inference is that consciousness is a product of that brain.

    As for the claim that a conscious, intelligent observer is required for the measurement effect, Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of the Copenhagen Interpretation, wrote

    Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the “possible” to the “actual,” is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.

    What appears to be the case to me is that the meaning of the phenomena of quantum mechanics is still a question of interpretation and if quantum physicists are still puzzled by it then it is presumptuous of anyone here, who is not a quantum physicist, to pontificate about one interpretation as if it were established fact. We can all have our opinions but none of us is competent enough to be considered authoritative.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    The math involved here is simple. Expressed in algorithmic form:

    Grants++

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    The big issue is whether the brain is a “meat computer” or also a “meat antenna.”

    If you assert it’s a meat computer operating strictly under the laws of physics, then our sense of free choice is deterministic but . . . quantum mechanics has been used to conclusively demonstrate that human choice of what to observe collapses wave functions, which determines reality at its most basic level.

    Now you’re left with the problem of how a meat computer determines reality from within reality. It also implies that conscious choice is a physical property of all matter, not just brain matter, bringing us back into animism.

    -Q

  4. 4

    It is a logic error to say reality is what we choose. Because it says reality is not chosen, yet it also says we can choose reality. So it is a contradiction that reality is chosen, and not chosen.

    More accurate is, some parts of reality consist of possiblities, and other parts of reality are chosen.

    The scientist is never allowed to make any decisions. The scientist must either accurately reflect a state of several possibilities, or the scientist can accurately reflect someone or something deciding the possibilities.

  5. 5

    Seversky, it is a logical category error to assert that what is subjective is objective, which is essentially what you are arguing.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    As to these comments from the article:

    But the explanatory power of QFT comes at a high mathematical cost.
    “Quantum field theories are by far the most complicated objects in mathematics, to the point where mathematicians have no idea how to make sense of them,” said Tong. “Quantum field theory is mathematics that has not yet been invented by mathematicians.”
    Too Much Infinity
    What makes it so complicated for mathematicians? In a word, infinity.
    When you measure a quantum field at a point, the result isn’t a few numbers like coordinates and temperature. Instead, it’s a matrix, which is an array of numbers. And not just any matrix — a big one, called an operator, with infinitely many columns and rows. This reflects how a quantum field envelops all the possibilities of a particle emerging from the field.
    “There are infinitely many positions that a particle can have, and this leads to the fact that the matrix that describes the measurement of position, of momentum, also has to be infinite-dimensional,” said Kasia Rejzner of the University of York.
    And when theories produce infinities, it calls their physical relevance into question, because infinity exists as a concept, not as anything experiments can ever measure. It also makes the theories hard to work with mathematically.
    “We don’t like having a framework that spells out infinity. That’s why you start realizing you need a better mathematical understanding of what’s going on,” said Alejandra Castro, a physicist at the University of Amsterdam.
    The problems with infinity get worse when physicists start thinking about how two quantum fields interact, as they might, for instance, when particle collisions are modeled at the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva. In classical mechanics this type of calculation is easy: To model what happens when two billiard balls collide, just use the numbers specifying the momentum of each ball at the point of collision.
    When two quantum fields interact, you’d like to do a similar thing: multiply the infinite-dimensional operator for one field by the infinite-dimensional operator for the other at exactly the point in space-time where they meet. But this calculation — multiplying two infinite-dimensional objects that are infinitely close together — is difficult.
    “This is where things go terribly wrong,” said Rejzner.
    Smashing Success
    Physicists and mathematicians can’t calculate using infinities, but they have developed workarounds — ways of approximating quantities that dodge the problem. These workarounds yield approximate predictions, which are good enough, because experiments aren’t infinitely precise either.
    “We can do experiments and measure things to 13 decimal places and they agree to all 13 decimal places. It’s the most astonishing thing in all of science,” said Tong.,,,
    “I want to know the space of all QFTs because I want to know what quantum gravity is,” said Castro.,,,
    Other simplifications assume quantum fields are symmetrical in ways that don’t match physical reality, but that make them more tractable from a mathematical perspective. These include “supersymmetric” and “topological” QFTs.

    Although the infinities, (infinities that crop up when mathematicians try to calculate how two quantum fields interact in particle collisions), are apparently extremely “difficult” for mathematicians to solve, (but can be solved using quote-unquote “workarounds”), the infinity that crops up when mathematicians try unify Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity simply offers no ‘workaround’ for mathematicians.

    These ‘workarounds’ that he is referring to, (to deal with the infinities that crop up in quantum field theory), are called ‘renormalizations’.

    One of the, if not THE, major mathematical stumbling blocks for theoretical physicists in trying to find that a purely mathematical “Theory of Everything’, (i.e. A purely mathematical theory of everything that makes no reference to God, and aside from the stumbling block of Godel’s Incompleteness which proves that there will never be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’), has been the problem of quote unquote ‘renormalizing’ the infinities that crop us when one tries to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.

    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. (And eventually led to quantum field theory)

    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).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

    After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”

    THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe
    Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”
    http://www.americanscientist.o.....g-infinity

    In the following video, Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.”,,, Specifically he stated, “Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”

    “It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”
    – Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics)
    Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw

    Now personally I find it interesting that Richard Feynman, an atheist, would have been so bothered by his “brushing infinity under the rug.” As for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:

    The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic.

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions.

    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, (which eventually provided the basis for the standard model itself), 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.

    And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,, “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/

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, it is not only that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have this unbridgeable infinite mathematical divide between them, it is also that, theoretically speaking, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the entire universe apart.

    As Gregory Chaitin states, “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.”

    “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

    Here are a few more references that drive this point about ‘tearing the universe apart’ further home,

    “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

    Might it be too obvious to suggest that something, or SOMEONE, very powerful must be holding our universe together in order to keep it from blowing itself apart as our two best theories in science predict that it should?

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

    Moreover, it is also very interesting to note exactly what was left on the cutting room floor when the infinity between special relativity and quantum mechanics was first ‘renormalized’.

    Feynman was right to be ‘always bothered’ by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’.

    In the ‘renormalization’ of the infinity that exists between special relativity and quantum mechanics, Feynman inadvertently ended up brushing quantum measurement itself under the rug.

    As Nobel laureate Sheldon Lee Glashow noted, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

    Not So Real – Sheldon Lee Glashow – Oct. 2018
    Review of: “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”
    by Adam Becker
    Excerpt: Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and their contemporaries knew well that the theory they devised could not be made compatible with Einstein’s special theory of relativity. First order in time, but second order in space, Schrödinger’s equation is nonrelativistic. Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.
    https://inference-review.com/article/not-so-real

    Yet, quantum measurement is precisely where the conscious observer, i.e. ‘the scientist’ himself, makes his presence known in quantum mechanics.

    The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE

    As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Thus since Quantum Electrodynamics is regarded by many theoretical physicists as the correct first step towards a purely mathematical theory of everything, and yet since Quantum Electrodynamics excludes quantum measurement and/or conscious observation, i.e. excludes the scientist himself, in that very first step, then Quantum Electrodynamics cannot possibly be the correct first step towards the correct ‘theory of everything.’

    Obviously the scientist himself, who is putting forth a hypothetical ‘theory of everything’, is a VERY important part of the ‘everything’ that any ‘theory of everything’ must successfully explain.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to finding the correct ‘theory of everything’.

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”

    “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.”
    William Dembski – The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31

    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, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least approx. 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403

    ,,, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics as the closing of the free will loophole now empirically demands, 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 in 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.
    https://academicjournals.org/journal/SRE/article-full-text-pdf/CC774D029455

    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
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ru3_TWuiY

    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 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.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as is now empirically demanded with the closing of the free will loop-hole), then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in theoretical physics today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin itself gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Video and verses

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    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.

    Supplemental quote:

    15:45 min:,,, “the fact that some of the brightest minds in physics have been working on this issue, (i.e. The unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), for 80 years now at least, and have not found a solution means that the solution will be extremely deep. It will be extremely significant if somebody found it, and it will probably be in a direction where nobody expected it.,,,”
    – Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA

  9. 9
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Can consciousness be anything other than the workings of the physical brain?

    The evidence says Yes! Unfortunately seversky is still too afraid to visit known haunted sites to see for himself.

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    Mohammadnursyamsu @4,
    You might want to brush up on recent experiments in quantum mechanics. For example, consider the following:

    Anton Zeilinger is a professor of physics at the University of Vienna, and Senior Scientist at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. He stated,

    What we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure, which is a very, very deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.

    Perhaps you should write Dr. Zeilinger to explain to him why he’s wrong.

    -Q

  11. 11

    Querius, Ofcourse I know nothing, but I can only call it as I see it, right? And like many, just for fun I followed the basic youtube explanations of Zeilinger’s experiments, and it seems to me that just regarding possiblities as real things makes sense of it. So what that the position parameter of a photon is in an undetermined state of 2 possibilities.

    So what if you measure this way, then it turns up on the left, and measure that way it turns up on the right. It just says there were 2 possibilities, and then it was decided.

    But the scientist is not allowed to decide anything, science is not creative art. So then really the scientist must observe someone else deciding it.

    Now for fun: would it be possible to create a setup, where you could detect if someone is looking at your high security building?

    Some kind of setup where the person looking at the high security building, functions as an “observer” which collapses the wave function, and then you could detect that the wavefunction has collapsed, therefore someone must be looking at your high security building.

  12. 12
    Querius says:

    Not practically. But that’s not to say that quantum effects don’t manifest in our macro world. Solar fusion, lasers, photosynthesis, and the limits of microelectronic miniaturization all depend on quantum effects.

    -Q

Leave a Reply