Fine tuning Intelligent Design Multiverse

Fine tuning of the universe: The strong force and the fine structure constant

Spread the love
A Fortunate Universe

This is the sort of thing that multiverse enthusiasts need to talk around:

Since physicists have not discovered a deep underlying reason for why these constants are what they are, we might well ask the seemingly simple question: What if they were different? What would happen in a hypothetical universe in which the fundamental constants of nature had other values?

There is nothing mathematically wrong with these hypothetical universes. But there is one thing that they almost always lack — life. Or, indeed, anything remotely resembling life. Or even the complexity upon which life relies to store information, gather nutrients, and reproduce. A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life …

Facts can be special to a theory. That is, they can be special because of what we can infer from them. Fine-tuning shows that life could be extraordinarily special in this sense. Our universe’s ability to create and sustain life is rare indeed; a highly explainable but as yet unexplained fact. It could point the way to deeper physics, or beyond this universe, or even to principles beyond the ultimate laws of nature.

Luke Barnes,The Fine-Tuning of Nature’s Laws” at The New Atlantis (Fall 2015)

Note: Astronomer Luke Barnes wrote a book with astrophysicist Geraint Lewis, for whom the multiverse beckons, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.

See also: Another evidence-free whoop for the multiverse. Let’s be clear here. We have evidence for fine-tuning in the only universe we know to exist. To argue against it, we must posit universes for which we have no evidence and maybe cannot ever have any evidence. This makes sense, WHY again? Isn’t it all becoming a bit of a scandal?

Hat tip: Wintery Knight

4 Replies to “Fine tuning of the universe: The strong force and the fine structure constant

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Even leaving aside the fact the laws of nature are fine-tuned, the very existence of the laws of nature, in and of themselves, simply makes no sense on Atheistic Materialism.

    Atheistic Materialists ultimately seek to explain everything, i.e. the universe and all life in the universe, via ‘bottom-up’ materialistic processes. Yet the laws of nature tell the material particles what to do. The material particles do not tell the laws of nature how to be. The relationship is purely a one way street type of relationship

    As Origenes explained,

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes

    Atheistic materialists simply have no clue why there should even be laws of nature in the first place. Much less why there should be laws of nature that are exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

    Atheists, (even though the Christian founders of modern science, via their Christian presuppositions, discovered the laws of nature in the first place),

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies – quoted from an address following his award of the $1 million Templeton Prize in 1995 for progress in science and religion.
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    Atheists, (even though the Christian founders of modern science, via their Christian presuppositions, discovered the laws of nature in the first place), Atheists, particularly David Hume, refused to accept the that the laws of nature were “God’s abstract creation”, i.e. he refused to accept that the laws of nature were a miracle in and of themselves, but instead David Hume held that the laws of nature were simply brute facts that needed no further explanation.

    In fact, David Hume argued that instead of the laws of nature being miraculous in their own right, (As the Christian founders of modern science held), that a miracle would be, get this, “a violation of the laws of nature;”

    “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and because firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the case against a miracle is—just because it is a miracle—as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined to be.”
    – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

    After self-servingly presupposing that the laws of nature are completely natural with no need of God to explain their existence, David Hume, in the same passage, goes on to argue that since a man rising from the dead would violate the laws of nature, then Jesus resurrection from the dead is a violation of the laws of nature and is therefore impossible.

    “Nothing is counted as a miracle if it ever happens in the common course of nature. When a man who seems to be in good health suddenly dies, this isn’t a miracle; because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet often been observed to happen. But a dead man’s coming to life would be a miracle, because that has never been observed in any age or country.”
    – David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding – 1748

    I’m not quite sure exactly which logical fallacy, and/or logical fallacies, David Hume committed when he stole the laws of nature away from the Christian founders of modern science, and then declared them to be brute facts of nature instead of miracles, and then, (on top of that intellectual theft from the Christian founders of modern science), attacked Christ’s resurrection from the dead in the process,,,, I’m not quite sure exactly which logical fallacy(ies) David Hume committed, but you have got to admire his brazen audacity, (or should that be ‘his brazen stupidity’?), in his intellectual theft from the Christian founders of modern science and then attacking Jesus Christ in the process.

    But anyways, since the discovery of an absolute beginning for the universe, the atheist’s claim that ‘the laws of nature are simply brute facts’, obviously, does not work anymore. (Hence their appeal to multiverses, universe generating machines, etc…),,

    Simply put, Atheistic materialists are now stuck trying to explain the impossible. Namely, trying to explain how ‘bottom-up’ material and/or physical processes can possibly give rise to ‘top-down’ laws of nature that tell the material particles what to do. ,, As the old joke goes, ‘you can’t get there from here’,,,

    And in regards to fine-tuning, and in regards to David Hume’s claim that Christ’s resurrection from the dead would be a violation of the laws of nature, and therefore, supposedly, impossible,,,, in regards to all that, it is interesting to note that the specific law of nature that would supposedly be ‘violated’ in Christ’s resurrection from the dead would be entropy.

    Yet entropy, as a law of nature, was not even yet fully elucidated in Hume’s day. (Shoot, it can be forcefully argued, due to advances in quantum information theory, that entropy is still not fully elucidated to this day). But anyways, Entropy, as a law of nature, simply was not known to exist in David Hume’s day. The foundation of entropy was not even elucidated until the mid to late 19th century, some 100 plus years after Hume. Hume could only appeal to the common sense fact that we observe people dying and we do not ‘normally’ see people rising from the dead.

    But if any law of nature should ever be considered ‘miraculous’ in its origin, and not simply a brute fact as Hume had falsely assumed, then entropy should definitely be that law.

    Entropy is, by a VERY wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself, a staunch agnostic, stated, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part 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?

    Roger Penrose, again a staunch agnostic, simply would never use the word ‘Creator’ unless the scientific evidence itself compelled him to do so. To this day Penrose, from what little I’ve seen of him, resists the notion of a ‘Creator’, yet in this one instance at least, he felt compelled to appeal to a ‘Creator’.

    In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a 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.”

    “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 the origin of such fine-tuning for entropy.

    As Dr. William Lane Craig noted, “if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range.”

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    In fact, this argument against the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe originating purely by chance has been made semi-famous with the “Boltzmann brain argument”

    Boltzmann brain
    The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void (complete with a false memory of having existed in our universe) than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. It was first proposed as a reductio ad absurdum response to Ludwig Boltzmann’s early explanation for the low-entropy state of our universe.,,,
    … by any reasonable criterion, actual humans in the actual universe would be vastly less likely than “Boltzmann brains” existing alone in an empty universe.
    Boltzmann brains gained new relevance around 2002, when some cosmologists started to become concerned that, in many existing theories about the Universe, human brains in the current Universe appear to be vastly outnumbered by Boltzmann brains in the future Universe who, by chance, have exactly the same perceptions that we do; this leads to the conclusion that statistically we ourselves are likely to be Boltzmann brains. Such a reductio ad absurdum argument is sometimes used to argue against certain theories of the Universe. When applied to more recent theories about the multiverse, Boltzmann brain arguments are part of the unsolved measure problem of cosmology.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

    Does a Multiverse Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe? – Dr. Craig (observer selection effect vs. Boltzmann Brains) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9aXduPfuA

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    In other words, if the 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe really did occur purely by chance, as atheists are claiming, then it would be far more likely that our universe would only consist of a single human brain that pops into existence, and which has false memories, or that we are merely floating brains in a lab, being fed false memories by some mad scientist. Those fantastical scenarios would all be far more likely to happen than the scenario that we appear to be in now (i.e. living in a universe with a initial state of 1 in 10^10^123 entropy, with a 14 billion year history, and with all of our experiences of the past supposedly being trustworthy and reliable).

    I’m sure Rene, ‘I think therefore I am”, Descartes would be pleasantly amused at this turn of events in modern science since it would validate his argument for the reality of the immaterial mind in a rather stunning fashion.

    “Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body. From this Descartes concludes that it is possible for him to exist without a body. He is essentially a mind, not a body. He would not necessarily cease to be himself if he ceased to have a body, but he would necessarily cease to be himself if he didn’t have a mind.”
    http://cw.routledge.com/textbo.....ualism.pdf

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Clearly, believing the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe, (and our own conscious minds), originated purely by chance is absurd. 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.”

    GORDON: Hawking 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, Christians do not have to rely solely on the Reductio ad absurdum argument of the ‘Boltzmann brain” in order to argue that the Mind of God must be behind the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe, but the Christian can now, due to advances in science, appeal to the scientific evidence itself.

    An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.
    – old entry wikipedia

    Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”

    Quantum Zeno effect
    Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as “a system can’t change while you are watching it”
    per wikipedia

    Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment (i.e. ‘decoherence’) is sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.

    Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018
    Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator.
    – per iopscience

    Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom. And thus decoherence can’t possibly be the correct explanation for the Quantum Zeno effect.

    Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015
    Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom.
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2.....S-20150415

    Since decoherence is ruled out as a viable explanation, then the original wikipedia statement of, “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay”, stands as being a true statement.

    On top of the Quantum Zeno effect, in quantum information theory we find that “one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: ,,, when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following 2017 article states, ““The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,, “Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    If the statement “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”, does not send chills down your scientific spine then nothing ever will!

    Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions of the universe,,, actions which happen to explain time itself,,,

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    http://crev.info/2012/10/shini.....rk-energy/

    Entropies actions which also happen to explain why our material, temporal, bodies grow old and die,

    Entropy Explains Aging, Genetic Determinism Explains Longevity, and Undefined Terminology Explains Misunderstanding Both – 2007
    Excerpt: There is a huge body of knowledge supporting the belief that age changes are characterized by increasing entropy, which results in the random loss of molecular fidelity, and accumulates to slowly overwhelm maintenance systems [1–4].,,,
    http://www.plosgenetics.org/ar.....en.0030220

    Why in blue blazes should the 1 in 10^10^123 finely tuned entropic actions of the universe even care that you, or I, or anyone else, is consciously observing them unless Consciousness itself really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is?

    To state the glaringly obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality.

    Romans 8:20-21
    For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

    Moreover, (since David Hume thought it fitting to attack Christ’s resurrection from the dead in his process of stealing the ‘miraculous’ laws of nature from the Christian founders who first discovered the laws of nature), it is also interesting to note that entropy itself plays a pivotal role in discerning the fact that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with, IMHO, the correct solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    You see, in the attempt to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, we find that we are, in fact, dealing with two very different types, and/or qualities, of entropy.

    But, in drawing this fact out, it is first necessary to point out 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).
    http://www.infoplease.com/cig/.....ivity.html

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, there is an infinite mathematical divide between quantum mechanics and general relativity,

    Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the mathematical situation between quantum mechanics and general relativity 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.

    Besides Special Relativity being able to be unified with quantum mechanics, and General Relativity not being able to be unified with quantum mechanics, we also find that we have two very different entropies associated with Special Relativity and General Relativity, respectfully.

    Specifically, in Special Relativity, we are dealing with the extremely orderly 1 in 10^10^123 entropy that is associated with the creation of the universe, i.e. associated with the initial creation of light.

    “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?

    Whereas, in General Relativity we are dealing with the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy associated with Black Holes.

    “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

    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 destructive’, 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 seem to forever be 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 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

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

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

    So thus in conclusion, when, and if, we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible 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.

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

  4. 4
    William J Murray says:

    Let’s be clear here. We have evidence for fine-tuning in the only universe we know to exist. To argue against it, we must posit universes for which we have no evidence and maybe cannot ever have any evidence. This makes sense, WHY again? Isn’t it all becoming a bit of a scandal?

    We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

    This universe is not fine-tuned for life; it’s fine-tuned for a certain kind of conscious experience and a certain definition of “life”. Life doesn’t begin at conception or end at death, nor is defined by or limited to the “finely tuned” parameters of this particular universe, at least not life in terms of being in individual, sentient being.

    There are plenty of other kinds of realms we easily inhabit and have sentient experiences in that are not “finely tuned” for such, at least not in the sense “fine tuning” is currently being argued. Such as: imagination and dreams. That doesn’t even touch on NDEs, OOBEs or the kinds of worlds reported to us from afterlife or extra-dimensional sources, depending on how you want to phrase it.

    And yes, there’s plenty of evidence to support the above statements.

Leave a Reply