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” atQuanta

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.

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

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

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.

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

Grants++

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

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.

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

As to these comments from the article:

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)

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.”

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?”

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.

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.”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.,,,”

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.”

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

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?

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.”

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

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,”,,,

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

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”.

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.

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.”

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,

,,, 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.’

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.’

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,,,”

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.

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.

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

Supplemental quote:

seversky:

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

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,

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

-Q

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.

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