God Proven by Known Laws of Physics and Theory of Everything

[Jamie Michelle]

All classical field theories are inconsistent with quantum field theory (QFT); this includes Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism (EM) and Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GR). Classical field theories make predictions that disagree with those of quantum field theories. This is why we need quantum field theories in the first place, the classical ones are wrong. In modern QFT, Maxwell’s equations are replaced by a version of Schrodinger’s equation (modified to incorporate the electromagnetic vector potential). The modified Schrodinger equation is invariant under phase shifting (these are the appropriate gauge transformations in this context). From this invariance the predictions of EM on classical scales can be recovered, but the field’s behavior on quantum scales is entirely different than what is predicted by classical EM. It remains the case that QFT+GR cannot be made consistent by merely adding assumptions, since the old list of assumptions already lead to an inconsistency. Rather some assumptions must be modified.

It’s still a mystery why humans would want to worship an set of boundary points which have been identified by an obscure mathematical equivalence relation.

Again, we should be exact here. General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Standard quantum gravity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian) is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date and is (so far) internally consistent. But many physicists don't like it because it cannot be (completely) written down on paper, i.e., the series of individually-finite terms diverge to infinity. They're looking for something they can completely write down in a book, but they're looking in vain.

Lumping general relativity in with other classical physics does a disservice to general relativity and its place in modern physics. General relativity is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date, and no other gravity theory has arisen to replace it.

We should accept what standard quantum field theory is forcing upon us (regarding gravity) unless it's experimentally refuted or shown to be internally inconsistent. It's the natural view to hold, the one that proposes no changes to the known laws of physics. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing theory of quantum gravity unless one (or both) of the said provisos can be demonstrated.

For more on this matter, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

And see also the below Wikipedia article:

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, January 6, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=182549075

From the above Wikipedia article, in particluar see the below section:

The Omega Point and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=182 549075#
The_Omega_Point_and_the_quantum_gravity_Theory_of_ Everything

Regarding the last paragraph in your above comment, recall that in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz, the principle of least action; and especially unitarity. Thus, the final singularity can be an actual person (per the Turing test) because it can speak to us now (since our present brain-states are ultimately defined by the cosmological end state).

[thx1138]

God: So when do we get to meet Him or Her? I have a few questions I'd like answered.

[Jamie Michelle]

God: So when do we get to meet Him or Her? I have a few questions I'd like answered.

All that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist is God. God is the totality of existence, forever and all times.

My below article may help to answer your questions:

"Existential Truth," TetrahedronOmega, March 14, 2007 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopi...ibertyandtruth

See also:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, January 6, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=182549075

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, January 5, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=182407923

Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/

[trish]

Hi Jamie.
I still have to differ with you on

General relativity is not known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics.

Einstein’s classical theory of gravitation predicts a binary star system will lose energy at a continuous rate in the form of gravitational radiation. The prediction is at odds with quantum theory which holds that all mechanical systems gain or lose energy discretely. The two conceptions of nature are mutually incompatible. One of the theories must be dropped or modified. The procedures for modifying and adapting a classical field theory to quantum theory are somewhat standard, but far from universal; i.e. the fittings have to be handcrafted. For example, the correct Hamiltonian operator for the quantized field theory is usually inspired by but not determined uniquely by the form of the Hamiltonian for the classical field theory. So there are many different reasonable ways to attempt a quantization of the general relativity. The problem is none of the quantized theories of GR that have been constructed so far is consistent with nature. For example, the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is not normalizable. You have characterized the predicament this way:

Standard quantum gravity (i.e., the Feynman-Weinberg Lagrangian) is known to be consistent with every experiment conducted to date and is (so far) internally consistent. But many physicists don't like it because it cannot be (completely) written down on paper, i.e., the series of individually-finite terms diverge to infinity. They're looking for something they can completely write down in a book, but they're looking in vain.

It’s not really the case that mathematicians can’t write down a sum with infinitely many terms in a finite book. It’s easy enough to compactify notation with a summation sign or an integral sign. The problem is the sum diverges. Imagine for example you want to predict the probability that a measurement of the position of a satellite will fall within a given range. You write down the wave function for the satellite and integrate its modulus squared over the given range. The result should be the answer you seek: a number between zero and one that represents the probability that your measurement will yield a position in the selected range. The problem is, the value of the integral is not a number between zero and one. It’s infinite. The theory has failed to yield a result. Suppose now you integrate over the entire range of possible positions. What answer should you get? Well the number 1 of course. The probability that the result of the measurement will be within the range of all possible positions is 1. What the integral give? Infinity instead of one. That’s a contradiction.

[thx1138]

I've read "The whole shebang" by Timothy Ferris. Ferris explains the cosmology and God connection in layman's terms. His approach seems much more straight forward than Frank Tippler's.

[ezed]

Fuck, the cut and paste research machine is back!!!!! OH GOD, Yee Banners of little faith, SEE WHAT YEE HAS WROUGHT! Another era of cut and paste gabobble with no emotion.....WHAT HAVE WE DONE!!!! WHAT HAVE WE DONE.

Welcome back Jamie Michelle, are you fully loaded with reference links after the hiatus?

[thx1138]

http://www.rense.com/general80/roge.htm & http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/...c/odd_universe highlight recent developments in astronomy and cosmology

[BrendaQG]

I havent read all of this thread but here is what little I know about the subject.

There is much reason to belive that a "theory of everything can never exist". There is a theorem from mathematics due to Goodle which says that any theory will be either inconsistent or incomplete. Meaning that the theory will either contain one or more true statements that cannot be proven from the axioms of the theory. Or it will have a very limited range of applicability. Since theories of everything claim to be valid every where Goode's theorem tells us that such a theory would have to be incomplete.

That said.

I can affirm that General Relativity is inconsistent with Quantum theory. Classical general and special relativity view space-time as being smooth and classically differentiable. In quantum mechanics nothing is so smooth.

This is why formulating a theory of quantum gravity is such a hard thing to do and have the theory reflect reality at all. Any theory must in the quantum limit reflect the graininess and then in the classical limit reflect the results of General Relativity. This is not easy. Teams and individual scientist have been working on this for the better part of 100 years.

@ trish

Your explaination is good but it seems specific to Quantum Electro-Dynamics. Here is a more general way to look at it...

In classical field theory the only path in phase space from A to B is the path that will minimize the action. In Quantum field theory any and all paths in fock space are possible and do happen... Then once all paths are integrated over is the actual path found.

A fun quote "How to electrons know to do calculus when they collide". R. Feynman

[thx1138]

another interesting link possibly relevant: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...says.html#more

[trish]

The applicability of Godel’s theorem to TOE is an interesting one Brenda.

Godel’s theorem (the German spelling uses an umlaut over the o) says that that any recursively axiomatizable, consistent extension of Peano arithmetic is incomplete. What does this have to do with a Theory of Everything (TOE)?

Well since any lunacy can be deduced from an inconsistency, an inconsistent TOE would be useless. So if we construct a TOE, it will be consistent.

Also the whole idea of “having” a theory in hand means you can list the axioms. So any TOE we actually build will be recursively axiomizable.

Must a TOE extend Peano Arithmetic (PA)?
This is a tricky one. Most current proposals for TOE’s assume mathematical frameworks at least as sophisticated as PA. If we assume a formally presented TOE must (in addition to its physical assumptions) list the mathematical axioms it uses, then these TOE’s are themselves extensions of PA. Even without the explicit inclusion of it’s own mathematical axioms, a TOE would have to account ultimately for the products of human behavior. And humans have formulated Peano arithmetic. Consequently a TOE would have to contain within it, an embedded version of PA. So for now, let’s temporarily assume that a TOE must extend PA.

By Godel’s theorem such a TOE would have to be incomplete. That would mean there’s a formal sentence S expressed within the language of the theory so that neither S nor its negation not-S is deducible from the theory, even in principle. Since the theory doesn’t decide S it doesn’t decide everything. And since it doesn’t decide everything it isn’t a theory of everything.

Unfortunately, things may not be as simple as that. It may be that all the formally undecidable sentences S are empirically vacuous (i.e. untestable). Or it may be all the formally undecidable sentences are about pure mathematics and that all the questions about physics are decidable. It could be the case that all the undecidable propositions are due to the fact the initial conditions or the boundary conditions of the theory cannot be specified in sufficient detail, but the theory per se is complete. In short, there are circumstances in which a formally incomplete theory might be regarded as empirically complete. Quantum theory is already like this. Einstein regarded quantum theory as incomplete because it failed to pronounce the truth or falsity of propositions like, “the position of the electron is exactly here.” Bohr claimed completeness for the new theory because it decided every proposition of the form “the probability that the electron is here is this.” What I’m saying is, there’s always a way to worm out of rigid strictures of the domain of applicability of Godel’s theorem.

I’m no expert in TOE’s but I understand some proposals assume only a finite substrata (even space and time are manifestations of a finite lattice of interacting nodes). It’s not clear that PA would be embeddable in such theories. Suppose not. Then Godel’s incompleteness theorem wouldn’t really apply. Such a theory could be both consistent and complete.

I think it would be amazing to find a consistent TOE that was complete in the sense that it contained all of the fundamental principles of nature. We may even eventually have a theory like that sometime, though I tend to doubt it.

Even though this would be amazing, a lot a people want more. They want a TOE that is uniquely determined by logic and common sense. They want a TOE that explains itself. It would have no constants that need to be empirically determined. It would specify its own initial conditions and its own boundary conditions by first principles. In principle the only role experiment would play is to verify the theory. This is unlike the theories of physics we have to date where experiment is also necessary to determine the values of the fundamental constants, and to determine the initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the cosmos. Personally I think the dream of the self-proving theory of everything is just that, a dream.