Cosmology Fine tuning Intelligent Design Physics

Physicist: Fine tuning explains the ugliness of the Standard Model of the universe

Spread the love

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” at Medium

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” at Medium

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

11 Replies to “Physicist: Fine tuning explains the ugliness of the Standard Model of the universe

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    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.

  2. 2
    Belfast says:

    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.

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    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

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this comment from the article

    “Since the Higgs boson was discovered in 2012, the Standard Model’s overall predictions have been confirmed to astounding degree of accuracy.”

    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.

    Higgs Boson
    Excerpt: It is named after physicist Peter Higgs, who in 1964 along with five other scientists proposed the Higgs mechanism to explain why some particles have mass. (Particles acquire mass in several ways, but a full explanation for all particles had been extremely difficult.)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

    Standard Model
    Excerpt: The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, and not including gravity) in the universe, as well as classifying all known elementary particles. It was developed in stages throughout the latter half of the 20th century, through the work of many scientists around the world,[1] with the current formulation being finalized in the mid-1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

    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.”

    How the Higgs Boson Was Found Brian Greene – July 2013
    Before the elusive particle could be discovered—a smashing success—it had to be imagined
    Excerpt: When physicists in the 1960s modeled the behavior of these particles using equations rooted in quantum physics, they encountered a puzzle. If they imagined that the particles were all massless, then each term in the equations clicked into a perfectly symmetric pattern, like the tips of a perfect snowflake. And this symmetry was not just mathematically elegant. It explained patterns evident in the experimental data. But—and here’s the puzzle—physicists knew that the particles did have mass, and when they modified the equations to account for this fact, the mathematical harmony was spoiled. The equations became complex and unwieldy and, worse still, inconsistent.
    What to do? Here’s the idea put forward by Higgs. 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. Imagine that all of space is uniformly filled with an invisible substance—now called the Higgs field—that exerts a drag force on particles when they accelerate through it. Push on a fundamental particle in an effort to increase its speed and, according to Higgs, you would feel this drag force as a resistance. Justifiably, you would interpret the resistance as the particle’s mass.,,,
    In 1964, Higgs submitted a paper to a prominent physics journal in which he formulated this idea mathematically
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-the-higgs-boson-was-found-4723520/

    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’:

    Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty – video (28:12 minute mark – prediction of the ‘anti-electron’)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40

    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’.

    A thing of beauty – A. Miller – 2006
    Excerpt: Even when the evidence was going against them, Nobel prize-winners Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman clung on to cherished theories just because they thought they were “beautiful”.
    ,,, back in the 1960s, Paul Dirac famously asserted that: “It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment.” Richard Feynman, too, insisted on believing in one of his theories even when it seemed to contradict experimental data. “There was a moment when I knew how nature worked,” he wrote in 1957. “[The theory] had elegance and beauty. The goddamn thing was gleaming.”,,,,
    In 1957, experimental evidence weighed heavily against Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman’s theory of weak interactions. As we saw, Feynman had declared that the theory “had elegance and beauty. The goddamn thing was gleaming”. In other words, it had an inner perfection that suggested it could be generalised further, it hinted at how to unify the weak and electromagnetic interactions, and its mathematical representation was the simplest that could be constructed. Despite the high reputation of the physicists responsible for the actual experiments, Feynman and Gell-Mann’s response was that there was something wrong with the experiments. They were right. Thus although experiments are essential for scientific theories, certain theories are just too important – too beautiful, one could say – to be discarded when the experiments don’t go your way. Perhaps in the future beauty will provide an important criterion for selecting one theory over another, now that theories are emerging which cannot be verified by experimentation as we know it today.
    https://www.arthurimiller.com/AThingofBeautyPERSPECTIVES.pdf

    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’

    Truth not equal to Beauty – Philip Ball – May 2014
    Excerpt: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’
    Albert Einstein – Quoted in Graham Farmelo, It Must be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science (Granta Books, 2002), p. xii. Farmelo provides an extensive discussion of this topic and gives numerous examples from the history of science.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/philos.....-equation/

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

    “Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”
    https://uncommondescent.com/physics/general-relativity-still-beautiful-ahead-of-its-time/

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

    The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty – 21:12 minute mark) – Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272

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

    “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty”
    Alex Vilenkin – Many Worlds in One: (page 201)

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    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’

    Dirac threw up his hands. Mathematical beauty, he said, ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’ – though he added that it was something ‘people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating’.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/philos.....-equation/

    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:

    Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown “ugly” and “beautiful” equations while in a brain scanner at University College London.
    The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by “beautiful” maths.,,,
    One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: “A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc.....t-26151062

    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:

    This Is What The Standard Model of Physics Actually Looks Like
    Fiona MacDonald – 5 AUG 2016
    https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like

    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

    The deconstructed Standard Model equation – July 2016
    The Standard Model is far more than elementary particles arranged in a table.
    Excerpt: Section 3
    ,,, Intriguingly, this part of the equation makes an assumption that contradicts discoveries made by physicists in recent years. It incorrectly assumes that particles called neutrinos have no mass.,,,
    Section 4
    In quantum mechanics, there is no single path or trajectory a particle can take, which means that sometimes redundancies appear in this type of mathematical formulation. To clean up these redundancies, theorists use virtual particles they call ghosts.
    This part of the equation describes how matter particles interact with Higgs ghosts, virtual artifacts from the Higgs field.
    Section 5
    This last part of the equation includes more ghosts. These ones are called Faddeev-Popov ghosts, and they cancel out redundancies that occur in interactions through the weak force.
    https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-deconstructed-standard-model-equation

    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”.

    Our universe’s fine tuning may be why the Standard Model is so mathematically ugly – April 7, 2021
    Excerpt: Kaku went on to say that the Standard Model is “one of the ugliest theories proposed so far”.
    https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-beauty-and-the-ugliness-of-grand-unification-theory-18ddb8077d52

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

    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
    Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
    String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
    Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
    String theorists: It does?
    Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
    String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.
    ———- Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/

    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.”

    “The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. 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.”
    (Charles Darwin – 1859, p. 199)

    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,

    Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013
    Excerpt: In their final two paragraphs, Conway and Behding basically “give up” on the idea that science can explain beauty
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t/

    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:

    Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers – 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw

    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….”

    Beauty and the Imagination – Aaron Ames – July 16th, 2017
    Excerpt: 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…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere
    (Augustine, City of God).
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html

    Verse:

    Isaiah 33:17
    Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty; they will see a land that stretches afar.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    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)

    History of quantum field theory
    Excerpt: In particle physics, the history of quantum field theory starts with its creation by Paul Dirac, when he attempted to quantize the electromagnetic field in the late 1920s. Major advances in the theory were made in the 1950s, and led to the introduction of quantum electrodynamics (QED). QED was so successful and accurately predictive that efforts were made to apply the same basic concepts for the other forces of nature. By the late 1970s, these efforts successfully utilized gauge theory in the strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force, producing the modern standard model of particle physics.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_field_theory

    Quantum field theory – history
    Excerpt: As a successful theoretical framework today, quantum field theory emerged from the work of generations of theoretical physicists spanning much of the 20th century. Its development began in the 1920s with the description of interactions between light and electrons, culminating in the first quantum field theory — quantum electrodynamics. A major theoretical obstacle soon followed with the appearance and persistence of various infinities in perturbative calculations, a problem only resolved in the 1950s with the invention of the renormalization procedure. A second major barrier came with QFT’s apparent inability to describe the weak and strong interactions, to the point where some theorists called for the abandonment of the field theoretic approach. The development of gauge theory and the completion of the Standard Model in the 1970s led to a renaissance of quantum field theory.,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#History

    And QED unifies special relativity with quantum mechanics,,,

    Precise measurements test quantum electrodynamics, constrain possible fifth fundamental force – June 04, 2013
    Excerpt: Quantum electrodynamics (QED) – the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics – describes how light and matter interact – achieves full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity.,, QED solves the problem of infinities associated with charged pointlike particles and, perhaps more importantly, includes the effects of spontaneous particle-antiparticle generation from the vacuum.,,, Recently, scientists,, tested QED to extreme precision..,,, can be interpreted in terms of constraints on possible fifth-force interactions beyond the Standard Model of physics,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-p.....ental.html

    The Gravity of the Situation
    The inability to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics didn’t just occur to physicists. It was actually after many other successful theories had already been developed that gravity was recognized as the elusive force. 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.
    https://www.infoplease.com/science/universe/theories-universe-quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity

    Quantum field theory – History
    Excerpt: ,,, (Quantum field theory) QFT is an unavoidable consequence of the reconciliation of quantum mechanics with special relativity (Weinberg (1995)),,,
    The first achievement of quantum field theory, namely quantum electrodynamics (QED), is “still the paradigmatic example of a successful quantum field theory” (Weinberg (1995)).
    https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Quantum_field_theory.html

    Quantum field theory – history
    Excerpt: Quantum field theory is the result of the combination of classical field theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity.,,,
    ,,, Given the tremendous success of QED, many theorists believed, in the few years after 1949, that QFT could soon provide an understanding of all microscopic phenomena, not only the interactions between photons, electrons, and positrons. Contrary to this optimism, QFT entered yet another period of depression that lasted for almost two decades.,,,
    These theoretical breakthroughs brought about a renaissance in QFT. The full theory, which includes the electroweak theory and chromodynamics, is referred to today as the Standard Model of elementary particles.[12] The Standard Model successfully describes all fundamental interactions except gravity, and its many predictions have been met with remarkable experimental confirmation in subsequent decades.[8]:3 The Higgs boson, central to the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking, was finally detected in 2012 at CERN, marking the complete verification of the existence of all constituents of the Standard Model.[13]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory#History

    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.

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

    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:

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

    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.

    John1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

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

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    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.”

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

    Yet quantum measurement is precisely where 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,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “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,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    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.

    How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

    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:

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    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.”

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “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 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.”

    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

    Philippians 2:8-9
    And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

    ,,, 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 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”.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Shroud of Turin – Scientific Papers and Articles
    https://www.shroud.com/library.htm#papers

    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 itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.
    http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

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

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://www.predatormastersforu.....er=3014106

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics 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

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

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

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    And then there’s the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanic

    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.

    The Last Question by Isaac Asimov – 1956

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

  10. 10
    Querius says:

    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

  11. 11
    kairosfocus says:

    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

Leave a Reply