Well, ugly is as ugly does:

I say string theory is ugly in the sense that mathematical elegance and physical elegance are two different things. A mathematically elegant theory is simple on paper, but it may lead to complex and confusing predictions that aren’t observed in real experiments. A physically elegant theory is one that explains the data in as simple a way as possible no matter how complex the math needs to be and no matter how many experimental parameters have to be inserted. (I say explains the data not predicts the data because I don’t claim to be a logical positivist. A theory that makes good empirical predictions but tells you nothing deeper is only a useful tool waiting for an explanation. I do not see the Standard Model as such a theory, albeit it is abstract.)

From this perspective, the Standard Model is mathematically troubling but physically very elegant. It explains exactly what we see in experiments, and, while it is confounding to many physicists that it predicts no more, there is some elegance in that. After all, it does explain the world we live in. Since the Higgs boson was discovered in 2012, the Standard Model’s overall predictions have been confirmed to astounding degree of accuracy.

Tim Andersen, “Our universe’s fine tuning may be why the Standard Model is so mathematically ugly” atMedium

Of string theory, he says,

String theory has been, in many ways, a dream for a mathematically elegant description of nature where experimental parameters are predicted rather than measured, and the laws of the world we live in become, not one set of many possibilities, but the only possible ones.

Tim Andersen, “Our universe’s fine tuning may be why the Standard Model is so mathematically ugly” atMedium

*Hat tip:* Philip Cunningham

*See also:* What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

and

Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

Although the mathematics is far beyond me – and probably anyone else here – I can understand in principle that the likes of string theory or multiverse theory arise from what science already knows or are speculative mathematical solutions for questions it is trying to answer. If they are wrong, no harm is done and we can still learn from failures; if they are right, who knows where they might lead.

The puzzle for me, though, is why they arouse such intense hostility here. It suggests they are perceived as a threat, although I can’t see why.

Once more Seversky outlines a confession of ignorance, follow by a lofty wonder why everyone is so hostile. That is, one true statement, followed by a false one,

Basically, the multiverse is untrammelled by observation, evidence or imagination; the necessary outcome of an irrational proposition that, if the origin of universe cannot be accounted for, then one can postulate infinite universes by way of explanation for the universe now observed.

It is futile to speculate on such universes since string theory does not attempt to describe the physical laws appropriate to those universes, but is taken to imply that anything that can be imagined can happen; this notion stemming from the implicit assumption that other universes have the same laws of physics but random values for the basic constants.

Physics is the most potent and precise of all scientific fields, and yet it surpasses even psychology in its capacity for bullshit.

No-one is hostile, they are wearied by the supercilious disdain of the ignorant.

Nicely stated, Belfast!

And then there’s the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics, an inconceivably massive violation of parsimony that multiplies entities with reckless and exponential abandon. Perhaps this interpretation may some day be blended with the multiverse, but presumably each universe in the multiverse spawns innumerable many-worlds as wavefunctions collapse. And we cannot leave out parallel branes in string theory . . . ah, the things that “science knows.”

-Q

As to this comment from the article

Actually the Higgs Boson was not a prediction of the Standard model but was a prediction that was made by Peter Higgs in 1964, prior to the final formulation of the Standard model in the mid-1970s.

Moreover, the prediction of the Higgs Boson was born out of Peter Higgs’s sense of ‘mathematical beauty.’

As the following article points out, the prediction was made because, if the Higgs Boson did not exist then, “the mathematical harmony was spoiled. The equations became complex and unwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.”

And as the article goes on to state, “Don’t shove the particles’ masses down the throat of the beautiful equations. Instead, keep the equations pristine and symmetric, but consider them operating within a peculiar environment.”

It is very interesting to note that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’. Paul Dirac himself mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, solely through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:

As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math. In fact, Paul Dirac, in seeming contradiction to the entire scientific method, stated that, ‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’.

Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’

In regards to General Relativity itself, mathematical physicist Clifford Will said, “Fiddling with general relativity would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony.”

‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the (fairly recent) discovery of the Amplituhedron:

As well, Alex Vilenkin, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,

Paul Dirac, when pressed for a definition of mathematical beauty, stated mathematical beauty ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’

And indeed, just as Dirac held, it is found when mathematicians are shown equations such as Euler’s identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:

The reason why I brought up the fact that the prediction of the Higgs Boson was not a prediction of the standard model, but was a prediction that was born solely out of Peter Higgs’ sense of ‘mathematical beauty’ is because, although I am certainly no expert on what constitutes mathematical beauty, I can still tell that the standard model is, by far, one of the ugliest mathematical equations that I have ever seen:

As can be clearly seen in the preceding article, the standard model, far from being a thing of mathematical beauty, is ‘ugly. Dare I even say that it appears to be a ‘hideous monstrosity’ that looks very much to be ‘forced’ and contrived?

And my observation that the ‘ugly’ Standard model equation appears to be very much ‘forced’ and contrived is not without merit

Basically I completely agree with Kaku’s observation in the featured article that the Standard Model is “one of the ugliest theories proposed so far”.

And as far as mathematical beauty goes, string theory is also found to ‘ugly’, i.e. to be very much ‘forced’ and contrived.

The interesting thing about the mathematician’s sense of beauty being such an uncanny guide to mathematical theories that are subsequently confirmed to be true is that Darwinian evolution cannot ground our sense of beauty.

In fact Charles Darwin himself stated that, “They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”

From the horse’s mouth, the existence of beauty is ‘fatal’ to his theory.

Darwinian evolution simply can never ground our intuitive, and subjective, sense of beauty,

The reason why Darwinian evolution can never ground our intuitive, and subjective, sense of beauty is simple enough to understand.

Beauty must be subjectively experienced in order to be appreciated. And that necessarily makes beauty a property of “qualia”, which is defined as ‘individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.’

And “Qualia” is the central defining attribute of the immaterial mind that has been labeled as ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ and which is forever beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations.

David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:

In short, it takes a immaterial mind to appreciate beauty, and yet, since Darwinian evolution denies the existence of the immaterial mind, then that renders it impossible for the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution to ever give a coherent account for our subjective sense of mathematical beauty, nor any other type of beauty that we may subjectively experience.

Moreover, the argument from mathematical beauty, via the argument from beauty itself, turns out to be a very powerful argument for the existence of God.

As Saint Augustine himself noted, “Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form….”

Verse:

In asking “how was such a ‘hideous monstrosity’ as the ‘ugly’ equation of the standard model born?”, we find that the standard model was born out of the ‘renormalization’ of the mathematical infinity that exists between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity.

Here is a little background: The standard model grew out of the success of Quantum electrodynamics (QED)

And QED unifies special relativity with quantum mechanics,,,

It is also important to note that Richard Feynman (and others) were only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” with a technique called Renormalization.

This “brushing infinity under the rug” with QED never set right with Feynman.

In the following video, Richard Feynman expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug” in Quantum-Electrodynamics:

I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes

“an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do”.

The reason I find it comforting is because of John1:1 which states “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “The Word” is translated from the world “Logos” in Greek, which also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word “Logic”. So that it would take “”an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do” is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see under Christian presuppositions.

Moreover, this ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ in order to formulate QED, (and eventually formulate the Standard model), did not come without an unacceptable cost.

In ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ in QED they also brushed the entire enigma of quantum measurement itself under the rug.

As the following article states, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

Yet quantum measurement is precisely where conscious observation makes is presence fully known in quantum theory.

As the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it. “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”

The following video goes into more detail and shows how there is a very tight correlation between quantum mechanics and fundamental defining attributes of consciousness, or more precisely that there is a very tight correlation between quantum measurement and fundamental defining attributes of the immaterial mind.

For them to brush quantum measurement, and therefore consciousness itself, under the rug in their formulation of QED (and subsequently the formulation of the Standard Model), is simply unacceptable for any theory that is held to be the correct first step towards a ‘theory of everything’.

Obviously, to forsake the existence of conscious observers in your supposed ‘theory of everything’ is to forsake the most important thing that needs to be explained in your ‘theory of everything’. Namely, it forsakes the very existence of the very ones who are seeking a ‘theory of everything’ in the first place!

Bottom line, consciousness is absolutely essential for any adequate description of reality that we may wish to devise.

Don’t take my word for it, the founders of Quantum Theory itself held that to be true:

Thus, since theorists have brushed consciousness itself under the rug when they formulated the standard model, and have therefore brushed the theorists themselves under the rug, then it necessarily follows that the standard model, nor any other model that forsakes consciousness in its formulation, will ever be the correct ‘theory of everything’.

And although special relativity and quantum mechanics were, via the mathematical sleight of hand of renormalization, mathematically unified with one another in order to produce the very successful theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, no such mathematical sleight of hand exists for unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.

Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.

The theory is not renormalizable.”

And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

And although there readily appears to be an infinite mathematical divide that forever separates Quantum Theory and General relativity, all hope is not lost for finding the correct ‘theory of everything’.

If we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned and as is now empirically warranted with the closing of the ‘free-will loop-hole by Zeilinger and company), then we find a very plausible, empirically backed, reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum theory.

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.”

,,, 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,

,, 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”.

The Shroud of Turin is, by far, the most scientifically scrutinized ancient artifact from ancient history.

Here is a website that lists many of the scientific papers and articles that have been written on the Shroud of Turin over the years.

In regards to gravity being dealt with in the Shroud of Turin, ?The following article states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’

And in the following video, Isabel Piczek states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’

Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics 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 itself gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

Video and verses

Is the number here too unlimited or infinite as in the Multiverse? Do they mean different things or just different theories speculating on other universes?

It seems what is driving this is hostility to the fine tuning.

They still don’t know how to explain existence.

Can anyone refute my premise that a Multiverse or Many Worlds would generate an infinite number of entities with unlimited knowledge/power? Asimov speculated on this 65 years ago.

https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Thanks for sharing those quotes, Bornagain77.

The last one reminds me of the old theoretical physicist quip, “Well, we have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we’ve discovered that there God exists after all. The bad news is that it looks like God is a mathematician.”

I’m also reminded of Sabine Hossenfelder’s book, “Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray” published in 2018.

-Q

I am reminded of ants who are art critics, climbing over the Mona Lisa, and debating fine details of paint pigments and the like, not realising that the tiny swatch of colour they belabour was executed as a single stroke of the brush, part of a composition of genius. KF