Intelligent Design

Sabine Hossenfelder: “We know that quantum mechanics is wrong.”

Spread the love
Lost in Math

Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, Her message from the “ depth of abstract math” is that “We know that quantum mechanics is wrong”:

You can use this theory to make predictions for any experiment where the creation and destruction of particles does not play a role. This is the case for all your typical quantum optics experiments, Bell-type tests, quantum cryptography, quantum computing, and so on. It is not merely a matter of doing experiments at low energy, but it also depends on how sensitive you are to the corrections coming from quantum field theory. So, yes, quantum mechanics is technically wrong. It’s only an approximation to the more complete framework of quantum field theory. But as the statistician George Box summed it up “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” And whatever your misgivings are about quantum mechanics, there is no denying that it is useful. Sabine Hossenfelder, “Quantum Mechanics is wrong. There, I’ve said it.” at Back(Re)Action

Do we know that quantum mechanics is wrong and, if so, how can it be useful?

See also: Sabine Hossenfelder: Has The Large Hadron Collider “Broken Physics”?

and

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Is Really Confused About Free Will

Follow UD News at Twitter!

17 Replies to “Sabine Hossenfelder: “We know that quantum mechanics is wrong.”

  1. 1
    hazel says:

    Hossenfelder writes, “So, yes, quantum mechanics is technically wrong. It’s only an approximation to the more complete framework of quantum field theory. But as the statistician George Box summed it up “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

    Excellent quote, and a point I made, with different words, a number of times in our previous threads about math.

    QM is useful because it can mathematically predict results in certain situations with great accuracy and reliability. It doesn’t have to be complete, nor does it have to have a clear and widely accepted explanation of the what it says about reality. But it does work in a practical way.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    “So, yes, quantum mechanics is technically wrong. It’s only an approximation to the more complete framework of quantum field theory.”

    Poppycock. If anything Quantum Mechanics is verified to a far more accurate level of precision than Quantum Field Theory is

    Precision tests of QED
    Quantum electrodynamics (QED), a relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics, is among the most stringently tested theories in physics.
    The most precise and specific tests of QED consist of measurements of the electromagnetic fine-structure constant, ?, in various physical systems. Checking the consistency of such measurements tests the theory.
    Tests of a theory are normally carried out by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions. In QED, there is some subtlety in this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value of ?, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment. Because of this, the comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent determinations of ?. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of ? from different physical sources agree with each other.
    The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10?8), based on the comparison of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.
    Besides these independent measurements of the fine-structure constant, many other predictions of QED have been tested as well.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED

    Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
    Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
    https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

    To give a glimpse of just how insanely precise the measurement of 120 standard deviations is for Leggett’s Inequality,,,

    Standard deviation
    Excerpt: In statistics, the standard deviation (SD) (represented by the Greek letter sigma, ?),,,
    Particle physics uses a standard of “5 sigma” for the declaration of a discovery.[3] At five-sigma there is only one chance in nearly two million that a random fluctuation would yield the result.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....le_physics

    SSDD: a 22 sigma event is consistent with the physics of fair coins? – June 23, 2013
    Excerpt: So 500 coins heads is (500-250)/11 = 22 standard deviations (22 sigma) from expectation! These numbers are so extreme, it’s probably inappropriate to even use the normal distribution’s approximation of the binomial distribution, and hence “22 sigma” just becomes a figure of speech in this extreme case…
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....air-coins/

    Moreover, she is presupposing that Quantum Field theory is the ‘correct step’ towards a ‘theory of everything’. Yet, “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

    In other words, this particular renormalization in QED where ‘infinity was brushed under the rug’, just so happened to also “brush the measurement problem under the rug” and thus in the process also “brushed conscious observation itself under the rug.”

    As to Sabine Hossenfelder’s appeal to the standard model to refute panpsychism:,,, (January 2019)
    Excerpt: Actually, there is a more fundamental reason why the standard model says consciousness will never be found in electrons (nor in any other elementary particles). (The measurement problem in Quantum Mechanics was ‘brushed under the rug’ when infinity was ‘renormalized’ in QED)
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/theoretical-physicist-takes-on-panpsychism-bam-pow/#comment-670698

    As should be needless to say, conscious observation is a rather important detail to be left on the cutting room floor in that particular renormalization of infinity. And since consciousness itself is indeed something very important that needs to be explained, (i.e. science would not be possible if conscious observation did not first exist), then any purported theory of everything that tosses conscious observation by the wayside, in its attempt to find the ‘theory of everything’, necessarily cannot be the right first step in that direction.

    Such an endeavor is misguided at best.

    But if theoretical physicists can’t even get the first step right in their quest to find a ‘theory of everything’ it would seem that all our efforts to find that ‘final theory’ thus far have been in vain. But all hope is not lost. As touched on yesterday, the correct theory of everything is found when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics (which is now empirically warranted by the way). That solution might not sit well with atheists who have a bias against God, but it is still scientifically true nonetheless:

    First off, the main goal today of theoretical physicists trying to find a coherent ‘theory of everything’ is to mathematically unify general relativity and quantum mechanics into a single ‘unified’ theory.

    Yet, general relativity and quantum mechanics refuse to be mathematically unified. And with Godel’s incompleteness theorem (among other things), there was and is no reason to presuppose that a mathematical unification between those two theories into a ‘theory of everything’ will ever be forthcoming. No reason whatsoever. Moreover, even if they ever were able to hypothetically ‘renormalize’ the infinities between the two theories, Godel’s theorem would still dictate that it was an ‘incomplete’ theory. i.e. According to Godel, an ‘outside’ assumption would still be required.

    Secondly, both general relativity and quantum mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science, have overturned the Copernican principle and have thus restored humanity back to centrality in the universe.

    Thirdly, with the closing of the free will loophole in quantum mechanics, the Agent Causality of God and agent causality of man are found to be integral to our most fundamental theory of the universe, i.e. quantum mechanics.

    Fourthly, the Shroud of Turin, despite claims to the contrary, is authentic, even now being dated to the time of Christ. Moreover, the Shroud of Turin gives us evidence that both quantum mechanics and gravity, i.e. General Relativity, was dealt with in the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

    Here are a few notes that go into a bit more detail of those claims:
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/science-philosopher-attempts-to-repair-split-between-science-and-philosophy/#comment-677002

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Models. They are useful simplifications or limiting cases or analogies, often because they are more tractable than full orbed theories. Though, computing power has somewhat shifted the balance. In logic the false can entail the true, but the inherent instability of a premise inaccurate to reality obtains, that’s why it is vital to identify domains of validity; which is one reason for empirical testing. KF

  4. 4
    aarceng says:

    “Do we know that quantum mechanics is wrong and, if so, how can it be useful?”
    In the sense that Newton’s Laws of Motion are wrong since they ignore relativistic effects but are still a good approximation at low speeds.

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Models are always wrong because they are essentially summaries or simplifications that leave out provisos etc.
    I like the exchange between an interviewer and Paul Dirac,
    Interviewer: Can you put that in simpler terms?
    Dirac: (thinks) No.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    Belfast,

    Einstein reputedly said that everything should be as simple as possible; but not simpler than that.

    There is a cult of the simple that tends to become unrealistically simplistic. It is in that sense that “popular[iser]” and “encyclopedic” become terms equivalent to superficial dabbler. In this context, “journalistic” can take the same import. Journalists and popularisers or even educators must strike a delicate balance. Hence the significance of XYZ 101.

    We need to seek clarity, coherence, substantial truth, but must expect that some things require considerable depth and breadth of knowledge and often experience.

    In that context, models that are tractable are helpful, but we had better watch their zones of validity.

    Where, scientific theories are only ever provisionally supported by empirical evidence, so it is relatively easy for theories to get demoted to models or limiting cases.

    KF

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the claim of “It’s only an approximation”

    Science has a history of looking for ‘platonic perfection’, and assuming the Mind of God to be behind that ‘platonic perfection’. That is to say, that science has a history of reaching for perfect agreement between the immaterial mathematics that describe a facet of this universe and the experimental results that measure those mathematical predictions.

    “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
    Galileo Galilei

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Copernicus, (who was heavily influenced by Platonic thinking), imagined (incorrectly) that the planets move in perfect circles (rather than ellipses). Later, Newton, for allowing God could adjust the orbits of the planets, was chastised by Leibniz, (and Laplace) for having a “very narrow ideas about the wisdom and the power of God.”.. i.e. For having a narrow view of the perfection of God.

    “Leibniz, in his controversy with Newton on the discovery of infinitesimal calculus, sharply criticized the theory of Divine intervention as a corrective of the disturbances of the solar system. “To suppose anything of the kind”, he said, “is to exhibit very narrow ideas of the wisdom and power of God’.”
    – Pierre-Simon Laplace
    https://books.google.com/books?id=oLtHAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73

    It is also important note that ‘normally’ mathematical concepts do not have a precise instantiation in nature,,

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”? It seems a stretch. What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    And indeed for most of the history of modern science in the Christian west, finding ‘platonic perfection’ for the mathematical descriptions of the universe has been a very elusive goal. This all changed with the discoveries of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That is to say, as far as experimental testing will allow, there is no discrepancy to be found between what the mathematical descriptions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics predict and what our most advanced scientific testing of those predictions are able to measure.

    “Recent experiments have confirmed, to within one part in one hundred million billion (10^17), that the speed of light does not change when an observer is in motion.”
    Douglas Ell – “Counting To God” – pg. 41 – 2014

    “When this paper was published (referring to the circa 1970 Hawking, Penrose paper) we could only prove General Relativity’s reliability to 1% precision, today we can prove it to 15 places of decimal.”
    Hugh Ross PhD. Astrophysics – quote taken from 8:40 mark of the following video debate
    Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert – Is there evidence for a Cosmic Creator
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMrDO0_WvQ

    Introduction to The Strange World of Quantum Mechanics
    Excerpt: quantum mechanics is the most successful theory that humanity has ever developed; the brightest jewel in our intellectual crown. Quantum mechanics underlies our understanding of atoms, molecules, solids, and nuclei. It is vital for explaining aspects of stellar evolution, chemical reactions, and the interaction of light with matter. It underlies the operation of lasers, transistors, magnets, and superconductors. I could cite reams of evidence backing up these assertions, but I will content myself by describing a single measurement. One electron will be stripped away from a helium atom that is exposed to ultraviolet light below a certain wavelength. This threshold wavelength can be determined experimentally to very high accuracy: it is
    50.425 929 9 ± 0.000 000 4 nanometers.
    The threshold wavelength can also be calculated from quantum mechanics: this prediction is
    50.425 931 0 ± 0.000 002 0 nanometers.
    The agreement between observation and quantum mechanics is extraordinary. If you were to predict the distance from New York to Los Angeles with this accuracy, your prediction would be correct to within the width of your hand. In contrast, classical mechanics predicts that any wavelength of light will strip away an electron, that is, that there will be no threshold at all.
    http://www.oberlin.edu/physics.....intro.html

    Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system – Zeilinger 2011
    Excerpt: Page 491: “This represents a violation of (Leggett’s) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results.” The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,,
    https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf

    As well, quantum electrodynamics (QED), which is a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, also now joins the list of perfect mathematical descriptions of the universe in which we can find no deviation from what the mathematics predict and what our best experimental testing can discern. In other words, as far as we can tell, ‘platonic perfection’ is reached for QED:

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
    It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
    http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

    Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013
    Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it,
    “The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.””
    What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,,
    http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/

    As Nima Arkani-Hamed, the discoverer of the amplituhedron, stated “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation.”,,,

    Physicist: It’s Not The Answers We Lack, It’s The Question – February 24, 2019
    Excerpt: “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”
    Nima Arkani-Hamed
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-its-not-the-answers-we-lack-its-the-question/

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Another very important place where ‘platonic perfection’ is now shown to be ‘perfectly reached’ in the universe, (as far as our most precise testing will allow), is for the ‘flatness’ of the universe.

    “When a geometry is described by a set of axioms, the notion of a line is usually left undefined (a so-called primitive object).”
    per wikipedia

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Moreover, this ‘insane coincidence’ of ‘plantonic perfection’ being reached for the axiomatic ‘primitive object’ of the line just so happens to be necessary for us to even be able to practice math and science, (and apply technology in our world), in the first place:

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    Why We Need Cosmic Inflation
    By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018
    Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply.
    But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat.
    https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html

    Simply put, if the universe were not ‘ever-so-boringly’ flat (and if the universal constants were not also ‘ever-so-boringly’ constant), but the universe were instead governed by randomness, as atheists presuppose, or governed by some other of the infinitude of ‘platonic topologies’ that were possible, modern science and technology would have never gotten off the ground here on earth.

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”,,,
    The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,
    The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    Nor, if platonic perfection were not present for the flatness of the universe would we have eventually been able to deduce the ‘platonic perfection’ that is revealed in the ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics that lay behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    More interesting still, these findings of ‘platonic perfection’ for the higher dimensional mathematics that lay behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are VERY friendly to overriding Christian presuppositions of life after death as well as the presupposition of God upholding this universe in its continual existence:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Of supplemental note, Allowing 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), 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 provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    (April 2019) Overturning the Copernican principle (with our most powerful theories in science)
    Excerpt: Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of scientific evidence (from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), that overturns the Copernican principle and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-22
    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.
    Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    As we can clearly see by now, Sabine Hossenfelder does not hold quantum mechanics to be “only an approximation” because of disagreement with experimental results, but she holds it to be an approximation because ” It’s only an approximation to the more complete framework of quantum field theory.”

    Yet, besides having no empirical warrant for her claim that quantum mechanics is ‘only an approximation’ to a more complete framework, Sabine Hossenfelder also has no mathematical warrant for her claim that quantum mechanics is ‘only an approximation’ to a more complete framework:

    Peter Woit states that string theory’s math is “a gory mess.”

    The Admiral of the String Theory Wars – May 7, 2015
    After a decade, Peter Woit still thinks string theory is a gory mess.
    Excerpt: Woit’s major complaint about the theory, then and now, is that it fails to make testable predictions, so it can’t be checked for errors—in other words, that it’s “not even wrong.”,,,
    Woit’s secondary grievance is aesthetic. He, like many physicists, perceives an intricate beauty in the math underlying successful physical theories like Einstein’s. In contrast, Woit says, string theory’s math is “a gory mess.”
    http://nautil.us/issue/24/erro.....heory-wars

    Dr Bruce Gordon states that “string theory and its extension, M-theory,, is a mathematical fantasy.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt:
    Excerpt: the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Roger Penrose said that “M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations.”

    ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.”
    – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip:
    Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4

    In fact, general relativity and quantum theory are formulated in two very different mathematical languages, differential geometry and functional analysis.,,,

    Shape from Sound: Toward New Tools for Quantum Gravity – 2013
    Excerpt: To unify general relativity and quantum theory is hard in part because they are formulated in two very different mathematical languages, differential geometry and functional analysis.,,,
    http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i12/e121301

    Moreover, there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that could have described the universe instead of just Quantum Theory and Relativity:

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    On top of all that, mathematics itself, via Godel, is now shown to be ‘incomplete’. Hawking himself stated that, due to Godel’s incompleteness theorem, “Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem.”

    “Note that despite the incontestability of Euclid’s postulates in mathematics, 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”.
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    Thus, besides empirical evidence giving her no warrant, mathematics itself certainly does not give Sabine Hossenfelder any hint that there should be just one single mathematical theory of everything.

    So just where does this presupposition of Sabine Hossenfelder for a ‘complete theory’ come from?

    I hold that the reason that Sabine Hossenfelder, and everybody else, automatically presupposes that there should even be just one overarching mathematical theory of everything is because they (we) are operating on hidden theistic presuppositions.

    As John D Barrow stated “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”

    “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
    John D. Barrow

    Professor Steven Fuller articulates the hidden Theistic presumption, that undergirds the belief that there should even be a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’, very well in the following quote;

    “So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. Insofar as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
    Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-others/

    Likewise, Father Robert Barron weighs in here:

    Stephen Hawking’s “God-Haunted” Quest – December 24, 2014
    Excerpt: “Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn’t the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe’s structure?
    I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers.”
    Robert Barron
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92351.html

    In fact, Newton’s “first major unification in physics” was directly based on his belief in God

    The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”,,

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
    Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena.
    https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3

    In regards to this first unification, Sir Isaac Newton stated: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    – Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”

    Thus in conclusion, since neither mathematics nor empirical evidence give us any hint that there should even be just one rational form of all things, then atheists, and everybody else working on string theory, (or M-Theory, or etc.. etc.. theory), whether they are even consciously aware of their own hidden Theistic presuppositions or not, in so far as they “blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things,” are, in reality, instinctually presupposing that God should be behind the single unifying rational order of the universe.

    As as was already mentioned in the post 8, Allowing 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), 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 provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    (April 2019) Overturning the Copernican principle (with our most powerful theories in science)
    Excerpt: Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of scientific evidence (from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), that overturns the Copernican principle and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, would limiting, special case of an in principle more general framework (which is less tractable) help? KF

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Well kf, while I consider the ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ in order to derive QED at the expense of also ‘brushing quantum measurement under the rug’ to be an unacceptable price for any theory that seeks to call itself the final ‘theory of everything’, I also note that without that ‘limit on infinity’ then Nima Arkani-Hamed would have never been able to deduce the higher dimensional object of the amplituhedron.

    It is sort of a weird paradox, they sacrificed quantum measurement and/or conscious observation in the limiting and/or ‘renormalization’ of that particular infinity between special relativity and quantum mechanics, but in the process they gained the ability to deduce the higher dimensional geometric structure of the amplituhedron.

    It is truly weird, only by blinding ourselves to quantum measurement, were we able to eventually see the geometric structure of the amplituhedron that lays behind the unification of special relativity and quantum mechanics.

    A strange paradox indeed.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    BA77, I suggest we remember that structurally, theories are explanations that as such are not generally proved. What is tested is empirical reliability. I think a reasonable summary is that a good theory is a possibly true model (i.e. it has not been falsified yet). KF

  13. 13
    ScuzzaMan says:

    QM is useful because it can mathematically predict results in certain situations with great accuracy and reliability. It doesn’t have to be complete, nor does it have to have a clear and widely accepted explanation of the what it says about reality. But it does work in a practical way.

    If a model is useful, i.e. allows one to predict experimental outcomes, this suggests that the model bears some congruence with (some portion of) reality, however narrow that portion may be in space, time, or any other aspect.
    But this is rather beside the point.
    The limited applicability of Newtonian Mechanics demonstrated that NM is wrong, not merely in that it fails to accurately predict certain behaviours of reality, but it is wrong as an explanation of the fundamental nature of reality.
    Ditto for Quantum Mechanics.
    It’s usefulness is irrelevant to the point that it has been shown to be deficient as an explanation of the fundamental nature of reality, just as was Newtonian Mechanics before it.
    Given the long and distinguished history of all human models being reduced to this status over time, we should not be gulled into relying too heavily on the most current replacement candidates.
    It’s revealing that only revealed truth has successfully withstood the test of time, while humanly-imputed truths have not.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Well kf if there were a whisper of empirical deviance I might agree with you, but seeing the extreme nature to which these theories have been tested, without a whisper of deviance, I have to hold that they are “platonically perfect’. Since you yourself concede that “What is tested is empirical reliability” then the assumption that other models may come along some day in the future with better empirical reliability is simply an unwarranted assumption since there is in fact no empirical deviation that has ever been found..

    That both GR and QED are based on geometric principles in and of themselves only further bolsters my case that they are for all intents and purposes ‘platonically perfect’ ,,, And that they even fulfill Kepler and Copernicus’s original theistically based vision of expecting to find platonic perfection in the cosmos.

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are a few more notes that show that there is no empirical nor mathematical warrant for reductive materialists to ever expect a ‘theory of everything’ to be forthcoming from their framework:

    Whereas the infinity between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity was ‘renormalizable’ (at the cost of tossing Quantum Measurement and/or Conscious Observation itself by the wayside), General relativity simply refuses to be mathematically unified with quantum mechanics in any acceptable way. In technical terms, Gravity has yet to be successfully included into a theory of everything since the infinities that crop up in that attempt are not renormalizable as they were in Quantum-Electrodynamics.

    Unified field theory
    Excerpt: Gravity has yet to be successfully included in a theory of everything.
    Simply trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions runs into fundamental difficulties since the resulting theory is not renormalizable. Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.
    Some theoretical physicists currently believe that a quantum theory of general relativity may require frameworks other than field theory itself, such as string theory or loop quantum gravity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory#Current_status

    Does quantum mechanics contradict the theory of relativity?
    Sanjay Sood, Microchip Design Engineer, Theoretical and Applied Physicist – Feb 14, 2016
    Excerpt: quantum mechanics was first integrated with special theory of relativity by Dirac in 1928 just 3 years after quantum mechanics was discovered. Dirac produced an equation that describes the behavior of a quantum particle (electron). In this equation the space and time enter on the same footing – equation is first order in all 4 coordinates. One startling by product of this equation was the prediction of anti matter. It also gave the correct explanation for the electron’s spin. Dirac’s equation treats an electron as a particle with only a finite degrees of freedom.
    In 1940s Dirac’s equation was incorporated into the relativistic quantum field theory that’s knowns as quantum electrodynamics (QED) independently by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga. This is the theory that describes the behavior of electrons and photons and their interactions with each other in terms of relativistic quantum fields that have infinite degrees of freedom. QED allowed extremely precise calculation of anomalous magnetic dipole moment of an electron. This calculated value matches the experimentally measured value to an astonishing precision of 12 decimal places!
    The integration of Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics has proved to be far more difficult. Such an integration would give a quantum theory of gravity. Even after a sustained effort lasting more than half a century, no renormalized quantum field theory of gravity has ever been produced. Renormalization means a theory that’s free of infinities at zero distance or infinite energy because 2 point particles can interact with each other at zero distance. A non renormalizable theory has no predictive value because it contains an infinite number of singular coefficients.
    https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-mechanics-contradict-the-theory-of-relativity

    As Professor Jeremy Bernstein states, “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.”

    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.

    Likewise, the empirical evidence also gives the reductive materialist no warrant for his belief that there will be a unification between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity within his materialistic framework into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.

    Most precise test of Lorentz symmetry for the photon finds that the speed of light is indeed constant – by Lisa Zyga – September 15, 2015
    Excerpt: “Lorentz symmetry”,,, is a cornerstone of Einstein’s special relativity theory. According to special relativity, there is no absolute space or absolute time.,,,
    The cavity test here involves two cavities containing sapphire crystals. The researchers excited an electromagnetic resonance in the crystals at a specific frequency, and supercooled them with liquid helium to stabilize the frequency and improve sensitivity. Like the mirrors of the interferometer, the cavities are carefully aligned orthogonal (at right angles) to each other to detect any tiny change in the speed of light along different axes. In the case of the cavities, a change in the speed of light would induce a change in the resonance frequency of the crystals. But after analysis of a full year of data, no such change was found.
    “This is the first direct test of polarization-independent effects for Lorentz invariance violations of the photon that has reached the level of the Planck-suppressed electroweak unification scale,” Parker told Phys.org. “The energy scale of electroweak unification (about 100 GeV) suppressed by the Planck scale (about 1.2 x 10^19 GeV) gives the dimensionless ratio of about 8 x 10^-18, so perhaps naively one might expect to start seeing Lorentz symmetry of the photon being broken in this regime, yet we didn’t see any evidence for this.”,,,
    These improved bounds could prove very useful for experimentally testing (falsifying) theories that (try to) unify general relativity and the standard model while predicting Lorentz symmetry violations. Some of these theories, for example, include string theory-based models and quantum gravity theories, among others.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2015-09-p.....stant.html

    GRBs Expand Astronomers’ Toolbox – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space.
    http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExp.....ersToolbox

    NASA telescopes set limits on space-time quantum ‘foam’ – May, 28. 2015
    Excerpt: At the smallest scales of distance and duration that we can measure, spacetime—that is, the three dimensions of space plus time—appears to be smooth and structureless. However, certain aspects of quantum mechanics, the highly successful theory scientists have developed to explain the physics of atoms and subatomic particles, predict that spacetime would not be smooth. Rather, it would have a foamy, jittery nature and would consist of many small, ever-changing, regions for which space and time are no longer definite, but fluctuate.,,,
    Chandra’s X-ray detection of quasars at distances of billions of light-years rules out one model, according to which photons diffuse randomly through spacetime foam in a manner similar to light diffusing through fog. Detections of distant quasars at shorter, gamma-ray wavelengths with Fermi and even shorter wavelengths with VERITAS demonstrate that a second, so-called holographic model with less diffusion does not work.
    “We find that our data can rule out two different models for spacetime foam,” said co-author Jack Ng of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. “We can conclude that spacetime is less foamy than some (quantum) models predict.”
    The X-ray and gamma-ray data show that spacetime is smooth down to distances 1,000 times smaller than the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-n.....antum.html

    Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity – April 30, 2018
    New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
    Excerpt: The neutron-star collision was just the beginning. New data in the months since that discovery have made life increasingly difficult for the proponents of many of the modified-gravity theories that remain. Astronomers have analyzed extreme astronomical systems that contain spinning neutron stars, or pulsars, to look for discrepancies between their motion and the predictions of general relativity — discrepancies that some theories of alternative gravity anticipate. These pulsar systems let astronomers probe gravity on a new scale and with new precision. And with each new observation, these alternative theories of gravity are having an increasingly hard time solving the problems they were invented for. Researchers “have to sweat some more trying to get new physics,” said Anne Archibald, an astrophysicist at the University of Amsterdam.,,,
    All attempts to directly detect dark matter and dark energy have failed, however. That fact “kind of leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths, almost like the fictional planet Vulcan,” said Leo Stein, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology. “Maybe we’re going about it all wrong?”,,,
    “The business of alternative gravity theories is a messy one,” Archibald said. Some would-be replacements for general relativity, like string theory and loop quantum gravity, don’t offer testable predictions. Others “make predictions that are spectacularly wrong, so the theorists have to devise some kind of a screening mechanism to hide the wrong prediction on scales we can actually test,” she said.
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/

    Moreover, as Ethan Siegel pointed out, “The models of supersymmetry or extra dimensions that give the right dark matter abundances through the weak interactions are ruled out by these experiments.” Siegel further quips that the “search is now reminiscent of the drunk looking for his lost keys beneath the lamppost. He knows they’re not there, but it’s the only place where the light enabling him to look shines.”

    The ‘WIMP Miracle’ Hope For Dark Matter Is Dead – Feb 22, 2019,
    Excerpt: The models of supersymmetry or extra dimensions that give the right dark matter abundances through the weak interactions are ruled out by these experiments. If there is WIMP dark matter, it must be weaker than the weak interaction permits to comprise 100% of the dark matter.,,,
    Theorists can always tweak their models, and have done so many times, pushing the anticipated cross-section down and down as null result after null result rolls in. That’s the worst kind of science you can do, however: simply shifting the goalposts for no physical reason other than your experimental constraints have become more severe. There is no longer any motivation, other than preferring a conclusion that the data rules out, in doing so.,,,
    Our hunt for dark matter in the lab, through direct detection efforts, continues to place important constraints on what physics may be present beyond the Standard Model. For those wedded to miracles, though, any positive results now appear increasingly unlikely. That search is now reminiscent of the drunk looking for his lost keys beneath the lamppost. He knows they’re not there, but it’s the only place where the light enabling him to look shines.
    The WIMP miracle may be dead and gone, as particles interacting through the weak force at the electroweak scale have been disfavored by both colliders and direct detection. The idea of WIMP dark matter, however, lives on. We just have to remember, when you hear WIMP, we include dark matter that’s weaker and wimpier than even the weak interactions will allow. There is undoubtedly something new out there in the Universe, waiting to be discovered.,,,
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/22/the-wimp-miracle-is-dead-as-dark-matter-experiments-come-up-empty-again/#3123b5876dbc

    Thus, reductive materialists simply have no mathematical nor empirical warrant for presupposing that a ‘theory of everything will ever be forthcoming within their reductive materialistic framework.

    On the other hand, especially with the closing of the free will loophole in Quantum Mechanics, and as was mentioned at the bottom of post 8 and 9, Christianity is very well supported in its claim to be the correct ‘theory of everything’.

    Allowing 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), 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 provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    (April 2019) Overturning the Copernican principle (with our most powerful theories in science)
    Excerpt: Thus in conclusion, the new interactive graph by Dr. Dembski provides a powerful independent line of evidence, along with several other powerful lines of scientific evidence (from Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity), that overturns the Copernican principle and restores humanity back to centrality in the universe, and even, when putting all those lines of evidence together, brings modern science back, full circle, to Christianity from whence it originated in the first place.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-dembski-and-colleagues-create-an-updated-magnifying-the-universe-tool/#comment-675730

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is another empirical test that also gives the reductive materialist no warrant for his belief that there will be a unification between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity within his materialistic framework

    Step aside CERN: There’s a cheaper way to break open physics – 10 JANUARY 2018
    How tabletop experiments could find evidence of new particles, offering a glimpse beyond the standard model.
    Excerpt: The standard model predicts a tiny squashing (for the electron) — so small, Gabrielse says, that “there’s essentially no hope to measure it in my lifetime”. But some theories posit as-yet-undetected particles that could make the electron’s EDM roughly one billion times larger. Many of those theories fall into a class called supersymmetry, an extension of the standard model that could explain why the Higgs boson’s mass is smaller than expected, and that could unify the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces in the early Universe. It might also reveal the nature of dark matter.
    In early 2014, the researchers reported4 that they had not seen evidence for an EDM in their set-up, which was sensitive to an angular difference of about 100-millionths of a degree. That drove the upper limit of the electron EDM down by more than a factor of 10, to 8.7?×?10^?29 in units of centimetres multiplied by electron charge. If an electron were the size of Earth — and Earth a perfect sphere — the limit would correspond to moving a patch of material roughly 20 nanometres thick from one pole to the other.
    The ACME team argued that the result has big implications for theories beyond the standard model, nixing many hypothetical supersymmetric particles that would exist in an energy range probed by the LHC. But some theorists counter that plenty of remaining theories — supersymmetric and otherwise — predict an electron EDM smaller than those ruled out by the ACME team. Gabrielse finds the surviving theories more and more contrived. “Theorists are wily,” he says. “Every time we exclude something, they try to wiggle out.”,,,
    Now, researchers are closing in on new EDM results. The ACME physicists have increased the number of molecules they can send into their experimental apparatus by a factor of 400. They expect this and other improvements to sharpen the experiment’s precision by a factor of ten — allowing them to hunt for effects beyond the energy range of the LHC. The JILA team is also gearing up for experiments set to push beyond the LHC’s reach. And researchers at Imperial College London who held a former electron-EDM measurement record6 have plans for experiments with laser-cooled ytterbium monofluoride molecules; they hope their test will be 1,000 times more precise than ACME’s first run.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00106-5

  17. 17
    IdPnSD says:

    Not only quantum mechanics (QM) is wrong, entire science is wrong. Therefore science cannot be useful, not just QM. It is well known that all of science is based on assumptions. Since assumptions are false, not just approximate, and no matter how you manipulate assumptions, results will always remain assumptions. Thus no results can be useful neither for nature nor for engineering. It is a myth that science is the foundation of engineering.

    Real numbers are false, because they are not objects of nature. Real numbers are points on a straight line, but straight line does not exist in nature, since all objects in the universe are continuously moving. Thus the entire real number system is false. Since science uses mathematics, science must be false or wrong. Engineering is not wrong, because engineering uses objects of nature. But since engineering also uses false math, false science, and false money (because money is a real number also), engineering is not reliable, it crashes, and pollutes environment. For more details and many examples of false science take a look at the free book at https://theoryofsouls.wordpress.com/

Leave a Reply