Maybe he is but …

What could possibly be wrong with Einstein’s beautiful masterpiece? From the theory perspective, there are two possibilities. One of them is that general relativity seems to be incompatible with quantum mechanics. The many successes of quantum mechanics in the second half of the 20th century have been dazzling. We have learned how to create quantum electrodynamics (the quantum version of Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism) and quantum chromodynamics (the quantum version of the fundamental weak and strong nuclear forces). However, the methods that worked so well there fail badly when applied to general relativity, suggesting perhaps that a completely different description of gravity is needed at the quantum scale.

Another possible issue with Einstein’s theory relates to “singularities.” In general relativity, there can exist regions of space and time where the curvature of the spacetime continuum becomes infinite. In fact, Roger Penrose, one of the recipients of the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics, was instrumental in proving that not only can these bizarre regions exist, but in fact, they must exist! Einstein’s theory, however, seems to have a built-in “censorship” mechanism so that observers like us are not exposed to the gory and dangerous features of these singularities. Indeed, the spacetime singularities in all reasonable solutions to general relativity are hidden behind event horizons, boundaries that forever trap all observers and light signals, as well as any garbage emitted by a singularity. But just because they are hidden behind a veil does not mean that singularities are not a problem.

From the observational perspective, there are also arguments from the world of astronomy suggesting that perhaps Einstein’s theory is not the final word…

Clifford Martin Will and Nicolas Yunes, “Is Einstein still right?” atIAI.TV(August 25, 2021)

It’s been a while though. What would replace Einstein’s theories? The war on math?

*You may also wish to read:* Sabine Hossenfelder despairs over vacuum energy. Rob Sheldon responds. These specialty controversies are an interesting backdrop to the current war on math. Sabine Hossenfelder and Rob Sheldon would likely agree that 2 + 2 = 4. But survey the vast degreed hordes for whom such a statement is an instance of white supremacy and colonialism and we will see the real problem facing our civilization: Far too many people have degrees (and grievances!) but no insight into what knowledge is.

Atheistic Naturalists simply have no clue as to why mathematics should even be applicable to the universe in the first place. Much less do they have any clue why the universe should, hypothetically, be describable by just one mathematical ‘theory of everything’.

Both Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that the universe should even be describable by mathematics.

Eugene Wigner, after questioning the validity of Darwinian evolution to be able to account for ‘our reasoning power’, stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve..,,,”

Albert Einstein himself stated, “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands”,,, Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a miracle!

Moreover, as the article in the OP makes clear, the universe is not described by just one mathematical ‘theory of everything’ but is described by two different overarching mathematical theories. i.e. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

But why should Atheistic Naturalists, since they have no clue as to why the ‘miracle’ of mathematics should even be applicable to the universe in the first place, presuppose that there should only be one overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes the universe?

In short, the very belief that there is some type of unity, an overriding mathematical connection between all the laws of physics, i.e. a mathematical ‘theory of everything’, is itself a belief that arises from the presupposition of Design in and of the universe. i.e. it is a Theistic presupposition.not an Atheistic presupposition!

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

And as Steve Fuller noted, “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. In so far 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,,”

And as David Klinghoffer noted, “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.”

Moreover, aside from the fact that Atheistic Naturalists, unwittingly or not, are assuming Theistic presuppositions with their ‘exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification”,,,

Aside from the rather inconvenient fact that the Atheistic Naturalist himself is assuming Theistic presuppositions in his quest for a mathematical ‘theory of everything’, there are also principled reasons for why we should never expect General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to be unified into a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’.

Namely, Godel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended into quantum physics physics and has now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

And in 2020, they made their proof from Godel’s incompleteness even more robust,

In short, and mathematically speaking, it is now proven, via Godel’s incompleteness, that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity. In short, it is now proven that any hypothetical mathematical ‘theory of everything’ will necessarily be an ‘incomplete’ mathematical description’ of the universe.

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.

After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with 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 referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.”

In the following video, Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug.”,,, Specifically he stated, “Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?”

And Richard Feynman had very good reason to be bothered that it would take an “infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do” in quantum electrodynamics

The “brushing infinity under the rug” to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into QED came at the (unacceptable) cost of also brushing ‘the measument problem’ and/or conscious observation itself under the rug. As Nobel Laureate Sheldon Lee Glashow stated, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”

Yet quantum measurement is precisely where the entire enigma of conscious observation makes itself fully known in quantum mechanics,

As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,

Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’

Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

Thus, since the ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ that led to the formulation of quantum electrodynamics, also resulted in brushing the measurement problem itself under the rug, then obviously quantum electrodynamics cannot possibly be the correct first step towards a correct theory of everything since it neglects to take the conscious observer himself into account.

I don’t know about Atheistic Naturalists, but I myself personally find human observers to be a very important part of the ‘everything’ that needs to be described by any scientific theory that hopes to ever be the correct ‘theory of everything’.

Obviously, any mathematical theory that leaves human observers themselves on the cutting room floor, in the very first step of trying to find a mathematical ‘theory of everything’, will never be able to account for human observers.

And while that ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ that led to the formulation of Quantum Electrodynamics is problematic enough for Atheistic Naturalists, the ‘problem of infinity’ gets far worse for the Atheistic Naturalists when one tries to unify Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.

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

The theory is not renormalizable.”

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

Yet, although, (via Godel’s incompleteness being extended into quantum physics, and via the infinite mathematical divide between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), we have very good principled reasons to believe that there never be a purely mathematical theory of everything, all hope is not lost for finding a ‘theory of everything’.

Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

And indeed, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God “back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned), and as is now empirically demanded with the closing of the ‘freedom of choice’ loophole by Zeilinger and company,

,, then that VERY reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

In short, the Shroud of Turin gives evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

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

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

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

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

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

So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead. (And I might add that, unlike quantum electrodynamics, it is a ‘theory of everything’ that also successfully takes human observers themselves, and all their multifaceted peculiarities, into account, which, as I pointed out earlier, is a rather important detail for any purported ‘theory of everything’ to be able to take into account)

Let us note that QFT, and even electrodynamics, suffer from singularities. In fact, the same process of dealing with these singularities in QED, renormalization, is the reason given for GR not being ‘renormalizable.’

Let’s also note that with charges, there is a positive/negative relationship, that is, attraction and repulsion are both possible, while with gravity, attraction is the only alternative. So, you could turn the argument around against quantum mechanics if you wanted to and say that given Einstein’s theory, something is wrong with QED. But the fact is, both theories give the right (observed) answers.

After nearly two decades of work, it only became possible to unify Special relativity and Quantum Mechanics when the “infinite results” between the two theories were dealt with 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 referred to this mathematical sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.The above was offered on here on 6-21-21: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-only-math-solve-the-mystery-at-the-heart-of-the-universe/

I don’t think anyone else on here reposts identical content from past month posts. I always think of this when I have to scroll and scroll to get to brief posts available from plethora of contributors.