Theoretical Physicist weary of people telling her 2+2 = 5

As to

"Maybe I am crazy?"

No she's not. At least not is so far as she expects empirical science to follow the evidence where it leads. But if someone looked at what General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are telling us should happen if they both are true, one might be very well tempted to think that physics itself is crazy. Another major problem in trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity is that when theorists try to combine the two theories, then the resulting theory predicts that spacetime, atoms, and the universe itself should all be literally torn apart. Here are a few references that get this point across.

"There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen." - Gregory J. Chaitin , Francisco A. Doria, and Newton C. a. Da Costa - Goedel's Way: Exploits into an Undecidable World “In order for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent [Seeking consistency between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is the major task theoretical physicists have been grappling with since quantum mechanics emerged], the physical vacuum has to contain 10^94 grams equivalent of energy per cubic centimeter. What that means is, if you take just a single hydrogen atom, which is one proton and one electron and all the rest of the atom is ‘empty space,’ if you take just that volume of empty space, … you find that you end up with a trillion times as much vacuum energy as all the electromagnetic energy in all the planets, all the stars, and all the cosmic dust in a sphere of radius 15 billion light-years.” To summarize, the subtle energy in the vacuum space of a single hydrogen atom is as great as all the electromagnetic energy found in everything within 15 billion light-years of our space-time cosmos.” ,,, Dr. William Tiller - Human Intention Cosmic coincidence spotted - Philip Ball - 2008 Excerpt: One interpretation of dark energy is that it results from the energy of empty space, called vacuum energy. The laws of quantum physics imply that empty space is not empty at all, but filled with particles popping in and out of existence. This particle ‘fizz’ should push objects apart, just as dark energy seems to require. But the theoretical value of this energy is immense — so huge that it should blow atoms apart, rather than just causing the Universe to accelerate. Physicists think that some unknown force nearly perfectly cancels out the vacuum energy, leaving only the amount seen as dark energy to push things apart. This cancellation is imperfect to an absurdly fine margin: the unknown 'energy' differs from the vacuum energy by just one part in 10^122. It seems incredible that any physical mechanism could be so finely poised as to reduce the vacuum energy to within a whisker of zero, but it seems to be so. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080219/full/news.2008.610.html The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics - Jessica Orwig - Jan. 14, 2016 Excerpt: Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer: "Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said. "This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction." On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html

And yet, despite both theories contradicting each other, quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to extreme levels of precision,

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/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/

And yet since quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to extreme levels of precision, and we can thus have a high level of confidence that both theories are true, and since Godel's incompleteness theorem requires something to be 'outside the circle' of mathematics, then it is safe to assume that something very powerful must be holding the universe together. ,,, For the Christian this should not be surprising. Christianity predicts that Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together, and that He upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

Some may say that the insanity of our two best theories of physics predicting the universe should literally blow itself apart was solved when the 'fudge factor' of Dark Energy was added. Yet at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins is set straight by Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, on just how big the 'problem' of the 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant is for atheists, and others, who want to explain the universe entirely by mathematics without ever appealing to God:

Quote: “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video - Leonard Susskind - Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg - 1 in 10^120 - Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design - video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

And here is Dr. Hugh Ross speaking on the Theistic implications of the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned Expansion Of The Universe

Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) video https://youtu.be/c9J9r7mdB6Q?t=552

And here is the paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that was withdrawn because of mounting evidence for a Cosmological Constant, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant). The implications were ‘disturbing for them since it “would have required a miracle”.

Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant - Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) - 2002 Excerpt: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,," “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?” page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,” Page 21 "The only reasonable conclusion is that we don't live in a universe with a true cosmological constant". http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

And here are the verses from the Bible which Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe, that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse, since it has overt Christian implications, is my favorite out of the group of verses:

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

Thus, in order to prevent our two best theories in science, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, from contradicting each other, to the point of blowing up the universe, theorists added a 'fudge factor' of a 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant, i.e. Dark Energy, to explain the finely tuned expansion of the universe. Yet there is no theoretical reason why the expansion of the universe should be finely tuned to 1 in 10^120. Indeed, some atheistic theorists, before they retracted their paper, predicted that such 'would have required a miracle'. And yet the Bible itself predicted, in numerous places, far before it was discovered, that God himself "stretches out the heavens". Thus in conclusion, if we 'sanely' follow the evidence where it leads, we find that physics needs God in order to prevent the 'theoretical insanity' of the universe blowing itself apart when physicists try to combine General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after 'Theory of Everything'. Supplement notes:

(January 2019) To continue on from posts 7 & 8 where I showed that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have themselves now overturned the Copernican principle and/or the principle of mediocrity, and to further refute the Atheistic presupposition that any real significance, meaning, purpose, and value for ours lives is illusory, I will reiterate my case for Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the correct solution for the much sought after “Theory of Everything”. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671692

Verse:

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.

bornagain77

In case professor HOSSENFELDER didn’t get the memo yet: welcome to this [pathetic] world! :( The world where true meaning is irrelevant. She’s studied modern physics and wants to analyze it seriously. That’s her problem. There’s nothing serious about anything anymore. The minds in this world are Tiffany-twisted. We’re all prisoners of our own nature. Relax. This world is programmed to receive. You can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave. PeterA

One empathises. ScuzzaMan