Mordred

You can pick whatever term you want, as a physicist. What is important to me is does the mathematics of a model accurately describe the system or state I wish to model. Can I make testable predictions that are accurate when I go to measure that system ? Do I care at this point on interpretations ? absolutely not couldn't care less. Do I care about fundamental reality ? No I've been studying physics for over 35 years. To this day the only things I can state are fundamental is 1) Everything is in motion 2) you have systems or states that attract, repulse or neutral. That's pretty much it... Everything else is questionable and subjective to interpretation. The problem I have with interpretations and metaphysics is that they tend to ignore how successful a model or theory is in making testable predictions. They always assume they can improve upon a given model with nothing but words and conjecture. They literally ignore the very purpose of a physics model. (testability of predictions). I have state A what happens if It collides with system B. That sort of thing. Entanglement is a good example. Look at all the interpretations misguided information , pop media articles that are never accurate. Yet at the end of the day one could entangle and apple and orange through a correlation function and make a prediction that if I pull out the orange in my bag the apple must be in the other bag. with particles I simply have to examine the preparation of the entangled pair. ( apply the conservation laws) then look at the detectors. Develop a correlation function then test it for accuracy. Not once did I have to resort to an interpretation to conduct the experiment. Yet without any interpretations one can make accurate predictions of what the results will be.

Here is some logic for you. If it works mathematically and is supported by observational evidence to an extreme high degree. Then it must be valid despite claims that it doesn't work by other forms of logic

Is it ? PPL tend to reject GR because of that single issue. They forget it works extremely accurate for any real measurements we can actually take in our universe. We cannot measure the singularity at R=0 of a BH due to the event horizon We can never measure directly the \(10^{-43} \) condition of the BB. Not even if we can measure the cosmic neutrino background. The only remote possibility is indirect measure using gravity waves and even that would be an engineering challenge due to the needed size of detector. Yet everyone assumes GR is invalid simply because of the those 2 singularity conditions. Yet we can never measure nor create in a lab those conditions. Most ppl believe the issue is quantizing gravity. It isn't its the divergences of the second order equations as opposed to the first order equations. In layman's terms the first order equations is strictly gravity by itself. The second order equations kick in when you start adding other particle fields.

The mathematics of physics does an excellent job describing what we can measure and experimentally confirm. We can accurately describe gravity under QM or QFT it is an effective field theory. The issue is we do not have an effective cutoff for renormalization. Other than that the mathematics works extremely well. One could viable ask is renormalization absolutely necessary in this case as the viable range covers our universe quite well. The only two exceptions being the BB and BH singularities.

What I see so far has been a wide range of claims however claims is never sufficient. The last claim for example involving unification of forces. The wavefunction you have doesn't even relate to what is oft described as running of coupling constants used in unification. In essence your trying to find patterns in the wrong places. The reason being is that you don't know the actual physics so your guessing based on limited knowledge. If you really want to check the Fibonachi clock with unification then you need to compare with the covariant derivative of each gauge group of the SM model. For example using the proper methods I can calculate what temperature that field reaches thermal equilibrium. If I do so for each field I can calculation the GUT thermal equilibrium point. Then combining that with thermodynamic laws and the LCDM data I can stare with accuracy when that force reaches thermal equilibrium. I can do that without any Fibonacci sequence. I would not be able to use the Fibonacci sequence to derive the above as it doesn't contain the required factors such as the coupling constants, the particle mass terms, the mixing angles, or more importantly the cross sections of a given particle.

Present what you offer however to forewarn you a GUT or TOE requires substantial mathematics. The only reason we do not have a TOE is renormalization of gravity. We can already renormalize the EM, Strong and weak fields under the SM model

I'm well aware of the interpretations applied to either QM and String theory. I have spent enough time to have an informed opinion of them. The interpretations don't particularly interest me though I have studied them. I don't particularly buy into the alternate realities argument Especially the oft used many worlds interpretation. However that's just me. I require the mathematics for any modelling I do. My particular focus has always been studying all the dynamics from the BB to the CMB. For that I have extensive knowledge and mathematical skills in all the major theories and models. Primarily though QFT along with GR (naturally) and obviously well versed in the FLRW metric of the LCDM model. All the power to those that enjoy metaphysics and its many interpretations its simply not my cup of tea. For myself I focus on this universe, I have no issue with multiverse theories but as a Cosmologist I tend to favor those multiverse models that aren't based on interpretations but rather as other regions outside our causal influence one example being the well known chaotic eternal inflation theory. They have nothing to do with higher dimensions, as one well versed in the mathematics. A dimension has very precise meaning in the Physics mathematics. That's true in every physics theory. QM and string theory included. Granted as I have degrees in Cosmology and Particle physics my opinion is largely based on the requirements of the mathematics as a necessary tool

If all the rotations are in the same direction and you apply Newtons third law. What do you think the spacecraft will do ? (Regardless of thrust )

That's good to hear, it's a good site to learn from. One of the biggest downsides I come across with posts that try to invent a new propulsion system is that they overlook Newtons third law.

In physics including string theory refers to effective degrees of freedom or independent variable or other mathematical object. They aren't some alternate reality.

We can only work with has been presented here. Which isn't very much and I'm not about to guess what the OPs article or intention is about.

Of course we use mathematics to describe what we observe. It's one of the best tools for the job. You still haven't provided any significant detail of your article. There isn't enough here to make any judgement of its accuracy or usage

The purpose of physics is to make testable predictions of cause and effects in nature. That requires the mathematics. Those mathematics helped shape the technology advances in the modern world. The purpose of probability functions is to encompass all possible outcomes and narrow down the most likely as the highest probability. Are we to assume what you have provided us so far is the extent of your article ? So far you haven't provided any significant detail of your article. Do you ever intend to show any actual examples of how your article is useful ? A more important question is your intent. Do you intend to improve your article or are you merely advertising ? Our site has rules on advertising personal articles. So unless you intend to improve your article then this thread has little purpose.

Those definitions also apply in statistical mechanics that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. So that's a poor excuse. In point of detail those terms existed long before QM was developed... That even includes the term superposition. Regardless terminology errors is terminology errors regardless of your excuses. Those definitions derived from math terms regardless of the physics theories which employ them

No that is incorrect. We use states to describe probability functions. This applies to the Schrodinger equation. This has little to do with the uncertainty principle. It is part of the wavefunction but only a miniscule part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state It is obvious already that you have not sufficiently studied QM if you claim otherwise. That is covered in detail in every single QM textbook. QFT doesn't even use position as an operator. It uses field and momentum however it still describes states. One example of superposition is a state of a photon (its wavefunction describing two polarity states). However you can also have two photon states describing the wavefunctions for each polarity. The latter example is not a superposition state. This statement is also wrong. The complex conjugate in QM involves the time dependent Schrodinger equation which include the time axis reversal symmetries. The complex conjugate directly applies to this. In other uses ie with vectors it directly involves complex space (set of complex numbers) as opposed to vectors in the set of (real numbers) Further details here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_conjugate_of_a_vector_space A complex function contains one or more imaginary numbers.

Let's start with the definition of a state in quantum mechanics. A state is a probability function aka its wavefunction. It contains the uncertainty principle as any Fourier transformation on that wavefunction will inherently have uncertainties in the position and momentum. All quantum states are quantized. However that wavefunction contains all probable evolutions of the state not just the uncertainties. that's for every wavefunction and has no bearing on the term superposition. Which is multiple wavefunctions within the same state. Swansont has already provided a clear example albeit applying the Dirac notation form used extensively in QM

Word salad. The language of physics is mathematics. Every physics definition has an underlying mathematical proof. If your not applying the correct definitions for its terminology you are not doing physics . Rather you are doing some home spun imagination

I seriously hope your not replying by copy pasting directly from your article. What you replied with did absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you are claiming. It doesn't give me anything worthwhile to examine for consistency with known physics. Your understanding of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is definitely erroneous. It also demonstrates a very skewed understanding of the actual mathematics involving inherent uncertainties in any Fourier transformation used extensively in QM. Your understanding of the definition of superposition is also incorrect. Not a good start.

So far what the OP has presented sounds like a mangled word salad gone through a high RPM blender. There isn't even sufficient material to examine to see if that statement holds true or not. Judging from the errors mentioned so far. I won't hold any hopes for significant improvement. Sounds more like another "Let's rewrite physics without understanding the physics being rewritten"

Your generation sequence is incorrect 3rd generation decays to second generation 2nd generation decays to first generation.

Prove it, that burden of proof is up to you. We have already mentioned dozens of times the observational evidence wasn't fully accounted for by Newtons laws. While SR can and does account for the discrepancies. Your refusal to examine those discrepancies doesn't change that reality. So it's up to you to prove SR is unnecessary.

Fine then stick with Galilean relativity matters not to me. However you need to understand SR enough to understand how it deviates from classical mechanics.....To understand why Einstein states what you described. Its like trying to learn how to count without numbers to do otherwise. Or writing your name without an alphabet. If ever want to truly how and why SR differs from classical mechanics you need to study both not just one.

As I explained numerous times you require more than section 1 and 2 to understand SR. Section 1 and 2 is barely scratching the surface. here do yourself a favor read this article. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper. It will step you through all the basics of SR and its mathematics without being math intensive

Have fun.

What do you think the geometry is for ? if not to describe the location of each event ? As well as the spacetime path that light will follow ? Why do you think I mentioned graphs and vectors. They are used with the geometry A vector has a start point an end point and a direction. You can plot them directly onto a geometric graph SR also employs geometry not just GR. Even Newton mathematics includes geometry though the Geometry is Euclidean. here is a little terminology for you. Potential energy is the ability to perform work of a system or state or object possesses due its location. kinetic energy is the ability to perform work due to its momentum. mass is the resistance to inertia change or acceleration. These terms are essential to understand any physics topic or theory. Including classical, SR, GR, QFT, QM, String theory etc etc. This definition is extremely important Spacetime is any metric (geometry) that describes space with time given dimensionality of length via the interval (ct)