Readers may remember the recent *Nature* review of cosmologist Sean Carroll’s new book, *Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime.* Now, at the *New York Times,* Carroll reveals that

For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand. Of course there are an infinite number of questions that scientists could choose to worry about, and one must prioritize somehow. Over the course of the 20th century, physicists decided that it was more important to put quantum mechanics to work than to understand how it works. And to be fair, part of their rationale was that it was hard to actually see a way forward. What were the experiments one could do that might illuminate the measurement problem?

The situation might be changing, albeit gradually. The current generation of philosophers of physics takes quantum mechanics very seriously, and they have done crucially important work in bringing conceptual clarity to the field. Empirically minded physicists have realized that the phenomenon of measurement can be directly probed by sufficiently subtle experiments. And the advance of technology has brought questions about quantum computers and quantum information to the forefront of the field. Together, these trends might make it once again respectable to think about the foundations of quantum theory, as it briefly was in Einstein and Bohr’s day. Meanwhile, it turns out that how reality works might actually matter. Our best attempts to understand fundamental physics have reached something of an impasse, stymied by a paucity of surprising new experimental results. Scientists discovered the Higgs boson in 2012, but that had been predicted in 1964. Gravitational waves were triumphantly observed in 2015, but they had been predicted a hundred years before. It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep confirming the theories we have, rather than pointing toward new ones.

Sean Carroll, “Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics” atNew York Times

Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?

*Hat tip:* Philip Cunningham

*See also:* At Nature: The “bizarre logic” of the multiverse is explored in a review of cosmologist Sean Carroll’s new book, *Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. * Crease writes as if he would very much like to buy into Carroll’s ideas but still thinks that sanity has something to offer. Possibly, many establishment science figures teeter on that brink.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

In the last paragraph Sean Carroll sums up his article thusly,

Everybody and their Grandmother who is involved in trying to unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the quote/unquote “Theory of Everything” is trying to do so by finding a single mathematical framework in which the two theories can peacefully coexist. String Theory, and its red-headed step child, M-theory, were thought by many to be the avenue by which the two theories could finally be mathematically reconciled. That hope has evaporated.

There are a few problems with trying to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the quote/unquote “Theory of Everything”. One of the biggest problems is that Kurt Gödel proved that mathematics was incomplete. As Stephen Hawking himself admitted, “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

The implications of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem are fairly straightforward. As Stanley Jaki noted,

So even if we had just a single mathematical theory of everything, instead of two competing theories, that still would not exclude God.

As David P Goldman stated (because of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem), “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable”.

In fact, the problem is far worse than Gödel had originally laid out in his incompleteness theorem. According to subsequent work done by Gregory Chaitin, there are “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

And as Bruce Gordon stated, “This transcendent reality (that our universe depends on) cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,

Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.”

Dr. Gordon is not just whistling Dixie when he stated that “our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.” Both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that we are able to accurately describe the universe with mathematics:

Another major mathematical problem with trying to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics arises from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity conflict that crops up in different places of each theory:

Whereas the infinity between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity was ‘renormalizable’ into Quantum Electrodynamics, (at the cost of tossing Quantum Measurement and/or Conscious Observation itself by the wayside),,,

,,,Whereas the infinity between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity was ‘renormalizable’ into Quantum Electrodynamics, (at the unacceptable cost of tossing Quantum Measurement and/or Conscious Observation itself by the wayside), no such ‘mathematical slieght of hand’ exists for unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity. 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.

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.”

Thus, there appears to be an impenetrable, even infinite, barrier that prevents theoretical physicists from ever realizing their dream of a single overarching mathematical theory of everything.

And yet if we back up to square one, and allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders of modern science),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company in 2018), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

As Isabel Piczek and Chuck Missler note in the following video and articles, the Shroud of Turin reveals a strange ‘event horizon’:

To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study 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.’

Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics 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.

Kevin Moran, an optical engineer working on the mysterious ‘3D’ nature of the Shroud image, states the ‘supernatural’ explanation this way, “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.”

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

As well, seeing is believing

Another line of evidence that adds considerable weight to my claim the Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with the correct solution for the much sought after theory of everything is that both quantum mechanics and general relativity have now themselves, also, overturned the Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, and have restored humanity back to centrality in the universe:

Thus, if we follow the evidence where it leads, especially with the closing of the free will loop hole in quantum mechanics, and rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, then, to reiterate, 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”.

Of supplemental note. A lot of the confusion surrounding quantum mechanics simply evaporates once we understand how tightly defining attributes of consciousness correlate with the actions we see in quantum mechanics.

And this comes from the same person who is willing to accept scientific “brute facts” without questioning, particularly those “brute facts” that points toward an supporting intelligence when one begins to question the “whys” behind the “brute facts.” At best, hypocritical to call out others for not wanting to look beyond the present knowns…