Intelligent Design Multiverse

Has string theory really fallen this time?

Spread the love

Some of us remember when superCool string theory — just around the corner — was going to give us the multiverse that would prove all naturalist concepts right — and then some!

But if you go by this at Ars Technica:

After 50 years of work on a theory of everything, we’re left with approximate theories that seem so tantalizingly close to explaining all of physics… and yet always out of reach. Work continues on finding the underlying dualities that link the different versions of string theory, trying to suss out the mysterious M-theory that might underlie them all. Improvements to perturbation theory and approximation schemes provide some hope for making a breakthrough to link the dimensional structure of the extra dimensions to predictable physics. Routes around the damage caused by the LHC’s lack of evidence for supersymmetry continue to be laid.

In response to our inability to choose which Calabi-Yau manifold corresponds to our Universe—and more importantly, why our Universe has that manifold rather than any of the other ones—some string theorists appeal to what you might call the landscape. They argue that all possible configurations of compact dimensions are realized, each one with its own unique universe and set of physical laws, and we happen to live in this one because life would be impossible in most or all of the others. That’s not the strongest argument to come out of physics, but I’ll save a dissection of the idea for another day.

We don’t have a string theory, so we can’t test it. But it might be possible to perform experiments on string theory-adjacent ideas, and there’s been some progress on that front. Perhaps the event of inflation, which occurred immediately after the Big Bang, can teach us about string theory (or the formation of Universe-spanning cosmic strings). And perhaps there’s more to the dualities than we initially thought.

Paul Sutter, “Requiem for a string: Charting the rise and fall of a theory of everything” at Ars Technica (January 27, 2023)

But just because string theory can’t be tested, is that a reason it should be abandoned, when it gives so much comfort to naturalists? Look at what else they accept in defiance of evidence…

You may also wish to read: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

20 Replies to “Has string theory really fallen this time?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    The first paragraph of the article states,

    “String theory began over 50 years ago as a way to understand the strong nuclear force. Since then, it’s grown to become a theory of everything, capable of explaining the nature of every particle, every force, every fundamental constant, and the existence of the Universe itself. But despite decades of work, it has failed to deliver on its promise.”

    To put it mildly, “explaining the nature of every particle, every force, every fundamental constant, and the existence of the Universe itself”, and by extension, potentially explaining the existence humanity itself, is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical ‘theory of everything’ to ever hope to achieve.

    But be that as it may, and as the article itself goes on to note, empirical evidence has now “slaughtered so many members of the supersymmetric family that the whole idea is on very shaky ground, with physicists beginning to have conferences with titles like “Beyond Supersymmetry” and “Oh My God, I Think I Wasted My Career.”

    Requiem for a string: Charting the rise and fall of a theory of everything
    String theory was supposed to explain all of physics. What went wrong? – Paul Sutter – 1/27/2023,
    Excerpt: The beams of the LHC began their first test operations in 2008 with two main science goals in mind: finding the elusive Higgs boson and finding evidence of supersymmetry.
    Four years later, the Higgs was found. Supersymmetry was not. It’s now 15 years later, and there are still no signs of supersymmetry.
    In fact, all the “easy” versions of supersymmetry have been ruled out, and many of the more complicated ones, too. The dearth of evidence has slaughtered so many members of the supersymmetric family that the whole idea is on very shaky ground, with physicists beginning to have conferences with titles like “Beyond Supersymmetry” and “Oh My God, I Think I Wasted My Career.”
    Where does that leave string theory? Well, since (and I’ll never stop reminding you of this) there is no string theory, only approximations, it’s not quite pining-for-the-fjords dead yet. It’s possible to build a version of string theory without using supersymmetry… maybe. The math gets even thornier and the approximations even sketchier, though. Without supersymmetry, string theory isn’t gone, but it’s certainly on life support.
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/requiem-for-a-string-charting-the-rise-and-fall-of-a-theory-of-everything/

    Yet, theoretical physicists, and/or mathematicians, should not have been as surprised as they were by the fact mathematics, by itself, would fail to provide a single overarching mathematical framework in which to describe all the phenomena of the universe.

    90 years ago, Kurt Gödel, via his incompleteness theorems, and as even the late Hawking himself honestly admitted, “halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing (mathematical) theory of everything in his (incompleteness) theorem.,,,”

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

    And as Stanley Jaki noted, “all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else.”

    Gödel and Physics – John D. Barrow
    Excerpt (page 5-6): “Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”
    Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf

    And as David Goldman noted, “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place.”

    The God of the Mathematicians – David P. Goldman – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians

    Moreover, Godel’s incompleteness has now been extended into quantum physics.

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    In short, it is now proven, via Godel’s extension into quantum physics, that there never will be a purely mathematical theory of everything that accounts for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity from the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Mechanics.

    And although string theory has now experimentally been ‘slaughtered’, and/or put on ‘life support’, and although Godel’s extension in quantum physics proves that never will be a purely mathematical theory of everything that bridges the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity from the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Mechanics, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’.

    The main problem in trying to mathematically unify quantum mechanics with general relativity is the fact that there is an apparent ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between the two theories.

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

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

    And as Michio Kaku stated in the following video, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, “you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”

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

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    So again, and mathematically speaking, the main problem unifying Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity is that there is apparently an irremediable ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between the two theories that can’t be bridged mathematically.

    Yet, as I stated before, all hope is not lost in 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.”

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

    Of note: I hold it to be fairly obvious that ‘growing large without measure’ can only ever be a potential infinity. Whereas a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero would be an actual infinity and/or a “completed totality”

    Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinity – June 7, 2012 by Ryan
    Excerpt: In a potential infinity, one can keep adding or subdividing without end, but one never actually reaches infinity. In a sense, a potential infinity is an endless process that at any point along the way is finite. By contrast, in an actual infinity, the infinite is viewed as a completed totality.
    http://www.numbersleuth.org/tr.....-infinity/

    And I also note that this ‘completed totality’ of an actual infinite fits extremely well into St. Augustine’s view that the Mind of God exceeds the ‘potential infinity’ of numbers.

    “Every number is defined by its own character so that no number is equal to any other. They are unequal to one another and are different, and the individual numbers are finite, but as a class they are infinite. Does that mean that God does not know all numbers, because of their infinity? Does God’s knowledge extend as far as a certain sum, and end there? No one could be insane enough to say that.
    Now those philosophers who revere the authority of Plato will not despise numbers and say that they are irreverent to God’s knowledge, For Plato emphasizes that God constructed the world by use of numbers, while we have the authority of Scripture, where God is thus addressed, “You have set all things in order all things by number, measure, and weight.” And the prophet says of God, “He produces the world according to number’. And the Savior says in the Gospel, “Your hairs are all numbered”.
    Never let us doubt then that every number is known to him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”. Although the infinite series of numbers cannot be numbered, this infinity of numbers is not outside the comprehension of him “whose understanding cannot be numbered”.”
    – St. Augustine – “City of God” – 12th Book, 19th Chapter
    – Infinity: Aristotle, St. Augustine, Cantor, Gödel – video – 31:29 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/SMt2VtjMfrU?t=1889

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founder of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, himself originally envisioned,

    ‘Without all doubt this world…could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God… From this fountain (what) we call the laws of nature have flowed, in which there appear many traces indeed of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experiments.”,,,
    – Sir Isaac Newton – (Cited from Religion and the Rise of Modern Science by Hooykaas page 49).
    https://thirdspace.org.au/comment/237

    “Newton’s Rejection of the “Newtonian World View”: The Role of Divine Will in Newton’s Natural Philosophy – (Davis, 1991)
    Excerpt: Newton’s voluntarism moved him to affirm an intimate relationship between the creator and the creation; his God was acted on the world at all times and in ways that Leibniz and other mechanical philosophers could not conceive of, such as causing parts of matter to attract one another at a distance. Finally, Newton held that, since the world is a product of divine freedom rather than necessity, the laws of nature must be inferred from the phenomena of nature, not deduced from metaphysical axioms — as both Descartes and Leibniz were wont to do.
    http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/newton.htm

    ,,, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, 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 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

    ,, then that (very) reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible, and empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    Specifically, when scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we ‘surprisingly’ find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    In regards to gravity, and as can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image video, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on a slab of rock.

    Shroud image – backside
    https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/jPxzJOtRHgLSddLOYbOQ_kpvXUV6aOt0mG-8DZeeEXj7uFSr63hqsGbgknwNBEFFFtrayZsYH8ONdXznreuD1TnOxYOeM72QFFuydody6Bpb1FJ2yNoMLabv_Kub7LA

    Shroud Hologram – backside image
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYBcIX1YLCg

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    And in the following video, the late Isabel Piczek, who made a 3-D sculpture from the Shroud of Turin states that, “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 – (world renowned sculptor and artist)– 2:20 mark
    Turin shroud – – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpdIz5Rp3I

    As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, 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 of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also 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

    Lazzaro’s (approx.) 30th slide in his powerpoint presentation states,
    Excerpt: 34 thousand billion watt is an impressive number but,,
    * Back to basics: let us consider the fraction A/B.
    If B is very small then A/B results in a very large number.,,,
    * 17 joules energy/0.00000001 seconds results in 1.7 billion watt. It is called “peak power” which different of the commonly used “average power”.
    * The above peak power was delivered to 1 cm^2 flax.
    Being the average man skin surface = 2 m^2 = 20,000 cm^2, we have 34 thousand billion watt necessary to complete the body image on the Shroud.
    https://www.academia.edu/38029774/Linen_Coloration_by_Pulsed_Radiation._A_Review

    Moreover, that it is even physically possible for the human body to emit such ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following,

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

    Humans Glow in Visible Light – July 2009 – with photographs
    Excerpt: Past research has shown that the body emits visible light, 1,000 times less intense than the levels to which our naked eyes are sensitive. In fact, virtually all living creatures emit very weak light,
    https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32090918

    Thus in conclusion, when 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), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, and empirically backed, reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”

    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.

  4. 4
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    I realise, for you, the Shroud of Turin is powerful ‘proof’ of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are many of your scientific justifications that are disputable but, instead of doing that, I’d like to bring up a few points which I don’t think you addressed. If I’m wrong about that then please just indicate where you addressed them. If you haven’t addressed them then I’d be very interested in your views.

    The particular weave pattern of the shroud (herringbone) is not known to have existed at the time of the Crucifixion. Also, the burial shrouds that have been discovered from that time show a plain weave pattern. However that weave pattern was very common in the area and time when the Shroud first came to public attention. And it’s unlikely that a forger would have known about the historicity of the weave pattern.

    The Catholic Church seems to be a bit ambivalent regarding its authenticity. Some Popes have declared it to be a genuine holy relic. But, quite early on (in 1389) the bishop of Troyes wrote in a letter to Antipope Clement VII that the shroud was “artificially painted in an ingenious way” and that “it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced”. Which sounds like they were in contact with someone who claimed to have made the image on the Shroud. Also:

    On 30 March 2013, as part of the Easter celebrations, there was an exposition of the shroud in the Cathedral of Turin. Pope Francis recorded a video message for the occasion, in which he described the image on the shroud as “this Icon of a man”, and stated that “the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth.” In his carefully worded statement, Pope Francis urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe, but “stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity”.

    Finally, there is a matter of anatomy. There have been several criticisms of the anatomical proportions in the image. Here’s something you can check yourself. Assuming the shroud was wrapped around a dead, limp body then it would not be possible for the hands to cover the genitals. You can check this yourself: lie on the floor and cover your genitals with your hands, then go completely limp. Your elbows will sag onto the floor and your hands will move away from your groin. Now, since the shroud is wrapped end-to-end I don’t see how those who covered the body could have kept the hands in position up to the time that the ‘resurrection’ occurred. The sides of the wrapping were, effectively, open and the arms would have sagged down and pulled the hands away. I can see it if the shroud were wrapped around the other way but not end-to-end. If you wrapped a dead, limp body, end-to-end and then moved it, even just to put it in place, I gotta think the arms would relax and the hands would move.

    I did read your hypothesis that gravity was suspended but (if that is even possible) that would have only occurred just before the resurrection. Otherwise the mourners would not have been able to wrap and place the body with no problems. Even if gravity were partially suspended at some time there is no guarantee that the hands would conveniently move to cover the genitals.

    Perhaps there are good and sensible explanations for these queries; if so I’d would very much like to hear them.

  5. 5
    relatd says:

    JVL at 4,

    Your starting premise is wrong since you can’t or won’t picture God correctly. Your idea of what is “sensible” is clearly limited by your limited view of God.

    “The Catholic Church seems to be a bit ambivalent regarding its authenticity.”

    You also allude but lack the necessary precision.

    I suggest you, and others, read the following:

    https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone.html

  6. 6
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Your starting premise is wrong since you can’t or won’t picture God correctly. Your idea of what is “sensible” is clearly limited by your limited view of God.

    What? I was just asking if Bornagain77 has any explanations for some facts which cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. You seem to think that my first assumption should be that God can overcome all minor (and major) issues. But’s that’s kind of begging the question isn’t it? I mean that Bornagain77 is using the Shroud to establish the truth of the Biblical narrative instead of just assuming it’s true.

    I suggest you, and others, read the following:

    As I stated: the Catholic church has sometimes seemingly supported the authenticity of the Shroud and sometimes not so much. How does the statement of John Paul II change that statement? He seems, in fact, to speak metaphorically which is fine. But Bornagain77 asserts that it is virtually proof of the resurrection which is something else don’t you think? Is it not fair to discuss the evidence for and against the Shroud actually being that used to wrap the body of Jesus? You may choose not to participate but does that make the pursuit invalid? Bornagain77 seems to thinks it’s a fair topic.

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    Those who are interested in the Shroud of Turin should go to the Shroud website kept by a Jew.

    https://shroud.com/

    There is a search function on site and you can send them an email.

  8. 8
    relatd says:

    JVL at 6,

    You seem to have only skimmed the statements made by Pope John Paul II. He refers to researchers studying the Shroud. He points out a necessary requirement: no preconceived ideas. Researchers, real researchers, do not find what they want to find but what is actually there. You make plenty of “what makes sense to me” statements. What God can do is what God – not man – can do. Ba77 has put up a series of well-referenced posts. Your idea of Christ laying in the tomb is just a man talking about another man in a ho-hum kind of way. Can God suspend gravity? Of course. Some of His disciples watched Him ascend into the sky. Then angels appeared to them. But, I doubt you think angels are actual beings either.

    That said, I’m sure Ba77 can fend for himself.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    Realtd: What God can do is what God – not man – can do.

    So . . . any “how did this happen” query should just be written off as something that God could/can overcome? That’s not really scientific is it? Why should Bornagain77 have bothered to have compiled a large collection of scientific arguments if he could have just said: hey, God could have done it that way?

    Your idea of Christ laying in the tomb is just a man talking about another man in a ho-hum kind of way.

    Well, I thought the whole point of the life of Christ and the resurrection was that he was actually a man, flesh and blood; that he actually died and was ‘buried’. Which means that, at some point, there was an actual dead human wrapped in a shroud and placed in a tomb. Correct?

    But, I doubt you think angels are actual beings either.

    Not the topic is it?

  10. 10
    relatd says:

    JVL at 9,

    A man with tunnel vision can only see what’s in the tunnel. Christ was true man and true God but I doubt you can make the connection. It appears, based on solid references, that Christ, at the moment of reanimation, if you will, acted as God upon returning to His body. Leaving behind a three-dimensional image is entirely within God’s power. Manipulating reality, as we know it, is entirely within God’s power. Your desire to attach a “crash cart” and modern EMTs to Christ’s resurrection is noted. Just like He raised a man who was dead and starting to decompose back to life.

    Sorry, I regard science as valuable. It cannot answer all questions in a “scientific” way. Miracles still occur today but The Media would rather not pay attention.

    I regard Ba77’s references to be rigorous and scientific. You seem to be saying that the Catholic Church should be issuing a Press Release. I’ll bring up another example. There is a Congregation for the Causes of Saints. They lead investigations into the lives of those under consideration for official sainthood. After documents and witness statements are collected (when available), a debate occurs where arguments for and against the evidence are presented.

    From the USCCB site:

    “Saints are persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived heroically virtuous lives, offered their life for others, or were martyred for the faith, and who are worthy of imitation.”

    Christ was more than “actually a man.” His sacrifice was for all men and He was sent by the Father for this purpose. No other man could be this kind of sacrifice.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Relatd: Christ was true man and true God but I doubt you can make the connection. It appears, based on solid references, that Christ, at the moment of reanimation, if you will, acted as God upon returning to His body

    But, before that moment, the arms would have been limp and relaxed and the hands would not have covered the groin. So, AT THE MOMENT, they would have been in a different position. And the blood patterns would have been different.

    Manipulating reality, as we know it, is entirely within God’s power

    Then there is no point in examining any of these issues scientifically since God can just violate the rules of science at will.

    Why do Christians spend time and effort trying to find scientific explanations which uphold their view if, in the final analysis, God doesn’t actually need to bother to follow the laws of science?

    IF God can ‘kill’ his son so he is really, really dead but then choose to suspend the laws of physics so that his dead, limp arms are in an untenable position . . . what is the point? He’s dead but he still needs to cover his genitals? Really?

  12. 12
    relatd says:

    JVL at 11,

    Another one. “I want God to do this.” “I want God to do that.” It may surprise you – NO, scratch that – it WILL surprise you that God knew this exchange would take place. So wake up and accept the evidence AND that God is not a man in the same sense anyone else is.

    YOU have this totally distorted idea of what God – as God – can do as opposed to what your totally deficient human reason desires. Your ideas about Christianity do not involve research – at all. You read something on the net or your (fake name) buddy Bob told you.

    Christianity is about the truth. Facts. Faith and Reason. We live by what is true. Example: If you walk off a cliff, then what? Nothing? If it’s high enough, you die.

    God did not “kill” His Son. Again, God did not cause Christ’s death. Christ died willingly for all men. He endured all that suffering and died for all men.

    Fides Et Ratio (Faith AND Reason):

    Read it:

    https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

    So, faith includes truth. The kind of truth you prefer. The kind of facts that are true.

    By the way, the Vatican has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Why?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Relatd: YOU have this totally distorted idea of what God – as God – can do as opposed to what your totally deficient human reason desires

    I get that God can do anything. What I don’t understand is why God would do certain things. So, I ask questions. That’s okay isn’t it?

    Christianity is about the truth. Facts. Faith and Reason. We live by what is true. Example: If you walk off a cliff, then what? Nothing? If it’s high enough, you die.

    Yes, exactly. The laws of physics should apply. But you’re suggesting they don’t apply for God. So . . . why create a system of laws and such just to violate them?

    God did not “kill” His Son. Again, God did not cause Christ’s death. Christ died willingly for all men. He endured all that suffering and died for all men.

    Let’s be honest: the Sadducees and the Pharisees decided that Christ should be put to death and Pilate conceded. That’s what it says in the New Testament.

    So, faith includes truth. The kind of truth you prefer. The kind of facts that are true.

    Then they should be very glad of me exercercising my god-granted right to reason asking questions. Correct?

    You seem to think that only some questions are worthy of being asked. Shouldn’t we be able to query everything?

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, I find it more than a bit disingenuous for you to ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution has been falsified six ways from Sunday, and yet you want to now sit here now and try to falsify the authenticity of the Shroud by appealing to evidence.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

    JVL’s blatant hypocrisy in honestly examining evidence against his Darwinian worldview aside, JVL claims,

    “The particular weave pattern of the shroud (herringbone) is not known to have existed at the time of the Crucifixion.”

    Unsurprisingly, that claim from atheists is found to be false.

    The 3 to 1 herringbone weave was known in Egypt and Palestine. And the direction of the twists indicate it was of Palestinian origin. Moreover, in 2002 textile expert Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg discovered a rare type stitch on the back side of the Shroud which was known from only one other place, the Masada Fortress in Israel,

    Weave. The cloth’s weave is known as “3 to 1 twill” because each transversal weft thread passes alternatively over three and under one of the longitudinal warp threads[16]. This gives the weave the appearance of diagonal lines which reverse direction at regular intervals to create a herringbone pattern[17]. Such complex herringbone three to one twill weaves are known from antiquity, for example, from Egypt and Syria, but they are not known from the Middle Ages.[18]
    18. Wilson, 2010, pp.74-76.
    http://theshroudofturin.blogsp.....et.html#18

    The Patterns in Cloth
    Excerpt: The Shroud of Turin is made of fine linen, woven in a three-to-one herringbone pattern. The direction of the twist of the strands rules out Egypt as the country of origin and affirms Palestine. The Shroud’s length and width are in even cubits, a unit of measurement not used in medieval Europe where critics say the Shroud was faked, but in ancient Israel. The unusual weave reflects a wealthy owner, and Joseph of Arimathea was certainly that. (Matthew 27:57)
    In 2002, conservation measures were taken secretly for the Shroud in Italy. With the 16th Century backing cloth removed from the Shroud for the first time, textile expert Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg discovered a rare type stitch on the back side of the Shroud which was known from only one other place, the Masada Fortress in Israel, which fell to the Romans in the Jewish revolt less than a generation from Jesus’ time.
    https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2022/04/15/evidence-for-jesus-shroud-of-turin/

    Date of the Shroud of Turin
    Robert A. Rucker, November 11, 2020
    Excerpt: 11. There is a 3.2-inch wide piece of linen that is sewn onto the main piece of the Shroud along the long side of the Shroud. According to expert opinion, the stitch used to connect this side piece onto the main piece was made by a professional and is a unique stitch. The most similar stitch is on a piece of cloth found at Masada, which was destroyed in 73 to 74 A.D. Thus, this stitch is strong evidence that the Shroud dates to the first century.
    https://0201.nccdn.net/4_2/000/000/046/6ea/date-of-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Excerpt: In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Then JVL, suddenly, becomes Catholic and quotes the Pope on the Shroud as authoritative, noting that the Pope stopped short of declaring the Shroud to be authentic. So what JVL? What a Pope may or may not say about the authenticity of Shroud really is completely irrelevant to what the empirical evidence itself says about the Shroud,, is it not? I would think a non-Catholic/non-Christian would be the first to agree whole-heartedly with that fact.

    Then JVL tries to claim that the anatomy on the Shroud was all wrong, i.e. hands unable to cover genitals,, etc…,. ,, That particular ‘anatomy’ objection from atheists to the Shroud happens to have been addressed before here on UD,,, by a blogger named Wallstreeter43.

    “”The untrained human eye does not note the differences created by anatomical foreshortening on the frontal and dorsal image of the Shroud. Foreshortening and the TRUE DISTANCES of body parts from the surface go hand in hand. While a general research opinion sees a flatly reclining body on the Shroud, the professional figurative artist with extensive training in art anatomy can see substantial differences to caution him/her to accept the flatly reclining position as true.

    The foreshortenings describe very precise angles which the torso creates with the pelvis, the pelvis with the thighs and the thighs with the lower legs. The problem with all the time was that these angles could be easily calculated from a profile view, but the profile view is missing on the Shroud. Art anatomy, however, can restore that information.
    Is there conclusive proof, which even the untrained eye can see, that the body on the Shroud is not flatly reclining?

    The experiment with the model provides us with the clue. The one sure difference between the flatly reclining figure and one which is bent with the knees pulled up is the position of the crossed hands in relationship with the genitals. As the model in a reclining position leans forward more and more and slowly pulls up his knees, there comes a point at which the genitals become naturally covered by the crossed hands. At this point the model looks exactly like the body of the Man on the Shroud, — the two match each other line by line, form by form. The true position of the body has been found and the missing genitals on an otherwise perfect male body are explained. They are not missing, they are simply covered by the hands due to the bending of the body and the pulled up knees.
    A microscopist does not have to be an expert in art anatomy. Dr. McCrone makes a natural mistake regarding art anatomy when he states that the arms of the Shroud Man are too long — a mistake a medieval artist made painting the Shroud. His error provides us with further proof of the true position of the body on the Shroud.

    The arms would be too long if the Shroud Man would be flatly reclining. The arms, however are entirely parallel with the surface of the Shroud and we see them in linear full length. The torso, the thighs, the lower legs on the other hand we see shortened by geometric perspective and not in full length. They stand at an angle to the surface. Actually, Dr. McCone comes to our aid again. The discrepancy in the length of the arms he points out proves that the body on the Shroud is not in a flatly reclining position.

    The professional arts cannot find any such discrepancies and distortions in the anatomy of the Shroud Man, which cannot be explained experimentally and which would prove it to be a painting.””

    Diogenes you are way out of your league here,mbut lets take a look at professor Fantis research which also uses mathametical calculations to explain the differences in length between the 2 sides along with allowing for other factors .

    http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marineli.pdf
    “”Figure 3.2 shows that, just because of the inflexion of the lower limbs, the length of the leg measured on the frontal side is longer than that measured on the dorsal side.
    In fact bending a limb, the center of rotation being just next to the knee, one will have a lengthening of the front leg and a shortening of the back one.
    Analogous considerations must be made for the position of the feet.
    The Man of the Shroud has his feet bent forward and this is very important for the measurement; in fact as shown in Figure 3.3, the position of the heel changes considerably if measured with a “hammer” or outstretched foot.
    The heel itself being a fundamental reference point for the length of the tibia, it becomes necessary to value this effect too.
    For these reasons, it became necessary to make corrections to the results of the measurements realized for the systematic effects, due to the inclination of the legs and the feet; they are valuable in a first approximation in:””

    And

    “”4b) Comparison between frontal and dorsal imprint
    After having reconstructed the two imprints and determined the outlines, an overlay comparison is carried out, shown in Figure 4.3.
    The first remarkable result obtained was to note that the two imprints are anatomically superimposable.

    Fig. 4.3: Overlay of the frontal and dorsal imprint: the two imprints are anatomically compatible. Moreover in the Figure the anthropometric points of greatest interest are shown.
    The numerical valuation of the mean tibio-femoral index allowed us to verify that the one calculated (83.5 %) is compatible with the mean ones quoted in bibliography [6,7,8,9].
    The larger width of the frontal imprint compared to the dorsal one is due to the position of the sheet: lying on the support surface, under the body, and lying on the Man of the Shroud outline in the upperside; the linear development of this one led to a greater deformation of the frontal imprint.””,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/science/science-writer-many-worlds-quantum-multiverse-as-a-fantasy-verging-on-nihilism/#comment-549417

    In short, much like JVL’s gross mishandling of evidence whenever it comes to questioning Darwinian evolution, JVL will take any evidence against the Shroud, no matter how weak it is, and ignore all other evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, no matter how strong it is, simply because JVL is, apparently, far more interested in protecting his atheism than he is in ever honestly searching for the truth.

    Further notes establishing the authenticity of the Shroud
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-774825

  15. 15
    relatd says:

    JVL at 14,

    I have another surprise for you.

    “Yes, exactly. The laws of physics should apply. But you’re suggesting they don’t apply for God. So . . . why create a system of laws and such just to violate them?”

    Jesus appears to people and starts healing the blind, restoring their sight, and healing other people as well. Before you know it, he is surrounded by people who not only want to be healed but who think he is the Messiah. He raises Lazarus from the dead. He commands the wind and waves to cease while on a boat. He multiplies a small number of loaves and fishes and feeds a large group of people.

    Too often, including here, people want some evidence that Jesus was God. Or they want God to appear to them. What would you do? What would you ask for if God appeared to you? I’ve read about atheists who claim that there’s a lack of sufficient evidence that God is real for them to believe He is. Not enough evidence. God should just appear – again.

    If you saw God – what would you do? Would you ask for something that only God could do? Heal a dying family member? Give you something that appears in front of you and you know it was never there until your wish was granted.

    Ask anything but realize that some truths require spiritual discernment, not just the use of your mind.

  16. 16
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77:

    I asked some questions and you provided information that I was unaware of. I shall keep your explanations in mind.

    Thank you for taking the time to provide such complete responses.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL: “I asked some questions and you provided information that I was unaware of. I shall keep your explanations in mind.”

    Well, reading that ‘unexpected’ response from you first thing this morning certainly brightened my morning up. 🙂

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Well, reading that ‘unexpected’ response from you first thing this morning certainly brightened my morning up

    Well, to be honest I was a bit taken aback. It’s not like I have tried to track down all the work on the Shroud but you said some things I had not heard or come across.

    Also, I was a bit embarrassed: the idea that a body NOT lying flat could very well exhibit the pattern on the Shroud had just, frankly, not occurred to me. That was a real “DUH” moment. Nor had I found that suggestion before.

    As I have said before, I have changed my mind about some things based on responses I have had on this forum and I clearly need to spend more time looking into Shroud research.

    In fact, since my own resources are clearly incomplete, is there a particular website or book that does a pretty good job summarising all the work done? I don’t mind admitting when I’ve been ignorant but I’d rather get stuff right in the first place.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Well JVL, knock me over with a feather.

    As to books, the book that I cut my teeth on the Shroud was way back 17 years ago and it was this one,

    Portrait of Jesus?: The Shroud of Turin in Science and History: Second Edition Paperback – April 15, 2006
    https://www.amazon.com/Portrait-Jesus-Shroud-Science-History/dp/1557788545

    Of course since that time, a lot of other books have been written on the Shroud, and a lot of additional research on the Shroud has happened.

    Since the time I read that book, I’ve picked up most of the additional research on the Shroud from watching video lectures, video documentaries, and from googling relevant papers. (As well as from what some commenters right here on UD have taught me about the Shroud)

    Additionally, I find the main Shroud website to be a very useful resource for tracking down relevant peer reviewed literature on the Shroud.

    Scientific Papers and Articles (on the Shroud)
    https://www.shroud.com/papers.htm

    If forced to suggest a good book to you, since Giulio Fanti has earned my respect of a top notch Shroud researcher, I would suggest this 2020 book,,,, (but I have not personally read it yet).

    The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ! 2nd Edition
    by Giulio Fanti (Author), Pierandrea Malfi
    https://www.amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-Century-Christ-Second/dp/9814800082/ref=sr_1_7

    Other than that, I really don’t know which recent ‘book on the Shroud has brought all of the additional recent research together in one place. Sorry, I cannot be of more help to you in finding the best book out there.

    ,,,, Does anyone here on UD happen to have any suggestions for JVL for a fairly recent, really good, book on the Shroud of Turin? A book that brings all the fairly recent research on the Shroud together?

  20. 20
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Well JVL, knock me over with a feather.

    🙂 I know it would take more than that!!

    Thank you for your sincere suggestions. I have, briefly, looked at the website but did not check the papers page. Giulio Fanti’s book seems like a good bet if you find him credible and it has the advantage of being recent. But I shall check on both.

    Obviously there is no ‘bible’ of Shroud research but it’s nice to have some things to start with.

    Anyway, IF I choose to have a discussion on the Shroud in the future I shall try harder to make sure I have looked at all the data (something I’m always telling others to do!) beforehand. If I put my foot in it again I trust you to tell me!

Leave a Reply