From an excerpt from *Advice for a Young Investigator* translated by Neely Swanson and Larry W. Swanson (2004) of an 1897 classic that is still worth heeding:

It is fair to say that, in general, no problems have been exhausted; instead, men have been exhausted by the problems. Soil that appears impoverished to one researcher reveals its fertility to another. Fresh talent approaching the analysis of a problem without prejudice will always see new possibilities — some aspect not considered by those who believe that a subject is fully understood. Our knowledge is so fragmentary that unexpected findings appear in even the most fully explored topics. Who, a few short years ago, would have suspected that light and heat still held scientific secrets in reserve? Nevertheless, we now have argon in the atmosphere, the x-rays of Roentgen, and the radium of the Curies, all of which illustrate the inadequacy of our former methods, and the prematurity of our former syntheses.

Santiago Ramón y Cajal, “The Most Important Scientific Problems Have Yet to Be Solved” atMIT Reader

And the two little dark clouds were still on the far horizon when Cajal wrote that. As a science teacher friend put it some years ago and I (O’Leary for News) quoted in a book,

Walking back to my hotel, I was sure that Dr. Krauss reminded me of something, and later realized what it was:

“In science, small, persistent effects cannot be ignored. Sometimes they force a revision of major paradigms. For example, Lord Kelvin remarked in 1900 that there were just “two little dark clouds” on the horizon of Newtonian classical physics of the day, namely, Michelson and Morley’s measurements of the velocity of light and the phenomenon of blackbody radiation. Kelvin was certain that these troubling little clouds would be blown away shortly.149 Yet all of modern physics—relativity and quantum mechanics—derives from these two little dark clouds.” (The Spiritual Brain, p. 173)

It’s always those little things that trip us up.

New discoveries don’t just add to old ones; they can greatly change or destroy their significance. That’s exactly what is happening to Darwinism today and we are living in the middle of it.

*See also:* In science writing, there are NOT, repeat, NOT, two sides to the story. At least according to astrophysicist Larry Krauss…

All scientific theories should be questioned as new evidence arises. Big Bang is one of those that should be seriously questioned. Einstein’s biggest blunder should not work. Hubble has discovered galaxies that are too new. Even Hawking said there were problems with the math once you reach the point of origin.

there is a big difference between not generally known and unsolved.

have the vast majority of scientists conspired the solution/s (than is/are outside the current deep-time dependent consensus box) ? NO

is the solution known to at least someone and accessible to those who are motivated, sincere, humble (to look outside their deep-time dependent box) and otherwise ready , willing and able? Yes.

as it all adds up w/in the basic science.

reference the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah an science alignment including volume II ‘Distant Starlight and the Age, Formation and Structure of the Universe’ base on the Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.

as to:

And what is generally considered to be the most important problem in science today that “awaits solution” is the unifying of relativity and quantum mechanics into a quote unquote ‘theory of everything’.

Today, the search for the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics into ‘theory of everything’ takes the form of trying to find a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’. Indeed much money and research has been dedicated to this endeavor.

In its present form this search entails trying to mathematically unify general relativity and quantum field theory (QED), (which is the unification quantum mechanics and special relativity), into a single mathematical ‘theory of everything’. It is hoped that this hypothetical final mathematical ‘theory of everything’ will be ‘capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.’

As the following article states, “The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed.”

Interestingly, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.” In other words, conscious observation was dropped by the wayside in QFT!

In what should be needless to say, since quantum measurement, i.e. ‘conscious observation’, itself was dropped by the wayside in QFT , and since consciousness itself is arguably the most important aspect of reality that needs explanation. then that necessarily precludes QFT from being the correct step towards the final ‘theory of everything’ that supposedly “is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.”

Some atheists may want to argue that conscious observation, and/or consciousness itself, is not all that important and it therefore in not that big of a deal to drop it by the wayside in QFT. I beg to differ. There simply can be no reality for us, much less a mathematical description of reality for us, if we are not first conscious. Consciousness simply is the primary prerequisite of all possible prerequisites of any coherent definition of reality that we may try to put forth. Any purported ‘theory of everything’ that is supposedly “capable of describing all phenomena in the universe” and yet neglects consciousness itself, by definition, NOT describing the MOST important phenomena in the universe that is in need of explanation.

Both Planck and Schroedinger are on record as to regarding consciousness as fundamental.

Likewise, Eugene Wigner stated that “our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. ”

Again, consciousness simply is, and must be, the primary prerequisite of all possible prerequisites for any coherent definition of reality, i.e. any ‘theory of everything’, that we may try to put forth.

Richard Feynman (and others) were only able to unify special relativity and quantum mechanics into Quantum Electrodynamics by quote unquote “brushing infinity under the rug” with a technique called Renormalization.

And whereas special relativity, by ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, has been semi-successfully unified, (i.e. save of course for quantum measurement), with quantum theory to produce Quantum Electrodynamics and/or Quantum Field Theory, no such mathematical ‘sleight of hand’ exists for unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics.

General relativity, as the following articles show, 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 simply are not renormalizable as they were in Quantum-Electrodynamics.

This ‘infinite chasm’ to there ever being a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ should have not been all that surprising. Godel’s incompleteness theorem implies exactly that. There simply never will be a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’. As Hawking himself conceded, “Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything”

In fact, Chaitin, via Godel, has now shown that there are “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

Moreover, Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics and is not just some abstract mathematical limit that prevents there from ever being a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’ but is now shown to be, in actuality, a defining feature of reality:

In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

Simply put, despite how much mathematicians and physicists may believe that there simply must be a single mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that exist out there somewhere, there, in fact, never will be a single mathematical theory of everything that links the microscopic world of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic world of General Relativity.

All hope is not lost though, as Bruce Gordon explains, “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.”

Simply put, 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), by rightly allowing 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”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:

To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

Thus, there is a coherent ‘theory of everything’ that is “is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe”,,, especially capable of describing consciousness, free will, and even the human condition itself in particular. Atheists may find the correct solution to the ‘theory of everything’ to be distasteful, but I find the solution to instead be very pleasant in that death itself, (which is by far the saddest thing that man is faced with in his current situation), is defeated in the correct solution to the ‘theory of everything’.

Verse:

I either read or saw a YouTube video-clip, several months ago, in which it was stated that one of the team headed by the British Museum wallah, probably Himself, had been offered £100,000, if they found the Shroud to be a fraud.

I would put nothing past people who would so flagrantly ignore the stipulated protocols , in order to achieve such a nefarious end. And what a pity that the relevant Church officials were so trusting, perhaps influenced by the very successful protocols adopted in relation to the verification of medical miracles.