Mordred

What is artificial behind measured radioactive decay rates used in an atomic clock? Are you stating any measurement is artificial ?

Simply adding the graviton won't renormalize gravity. It takes more than simply having a mediator particle. It is the couplings with other fields that lead to further divergences. Unfortunately without the math it's near impossible to show. Not too surprised, it's very common to see ppl try to rewrite physics because they disagree or don't understand it. Unfortunately that never works. There is nothing artificial about time dilation but from your statement above you seem to have missed the meaning behind the interval ct. There is nothing artificial about using ct as a measurement. That makes little sense, you obviously didn't understand the statement "fundamental reality". That is not the same thing as logic.

Let's try a little example on the difficulty of fundamental reality. I pick up a ball and we want to describe its fundamental reality. Here is what I know isn't fundamental reality. Mass=resistance to inertia change ie a property. Energy=ability to perform work ie a property. Color=how one interprets the frequencies of light. Weight=how much influence gravity has on the ball. Solid=illusion created by our senses to interpret the electromagnetic force. Field a collection of values under a geometry treatment. Particles equals field excitations. Time equals rate of change of events Have I hit anything one can define as a fundamental reality of that ball yet ?

When we have measured both it certainly does reflect reality. You seem to have a very personal definition of logic. It's far different than what I would consider logical. However that only makes sense. Logic is always an opinion. What may be logical to me may sound like absolute nonsense to you. Why do think physics requires testability. That never has opinion as a factor.

Ah I see so the meaning of effective range of applicability of a theory isn't something you relate to. Well you might be surprised but even GR still applies that equation through the Principle of General covariance for very practical reasons. Of course the primary reason is that it works extremely well for everyday situations (Euclidean space) it isn't until you get changes in geometry via the Gamma factor that the equation is no longer as accurate. However its perfectly accurate when you have no time dilation or length contraction due to spacetime curvature. I believe I did mention "to good approximation" that directly relates to range of applicability lol you can certainly apply the gamma factor when you want to calculate how much force is needed to move your car from A to B but why bother when it won't change the numbers to any significant amount. There is an example of range of applicability. Its not practical to apply the gamma correction

They are once you apply the correct definition of mass and apply the correct units. There is no deviation between the LHS and RHS. Why would you believe otherwise if your doing the math correctly ? (with the correct terminology Newtons laws of inertia and units ?)

perhaps you can provide an example where you feel this is the case. Causality has very strict mathematical implications in physics. With causality this also directly relates to local and global symmetries (you would be surprised to learn there are specific math expressions defining each ) particularly in any gauge theory

There is also plenty of formulas used in physics where the equal sign denotes a precise match of the LHS and RHS of an equation. Many times though the author of a given paper will get lazy and use the equal sign instead of the approx sign in papers. Particularly when the relation is to good approximation. ( meaning any difference wouldn't have any relevant or measurable effects)

Added detail this is also applied to superposition of wavefunctions in QM and QFT. The superimposed wavefunction is the sum of all wavefunctions. The collapse occurs when you examine one of the component wavefunctions in a nutshell. (using similar grammar as Genady). Though in QM and QFT these would be probability wavefunctions. Not to be confused with physical waveforms.

In this case if your already familiar with both they are equally logical. How many times have you asked yourself "where is the logic behind this " then once you learn the topic you understand the logic. A curl is much like a vector except its directly related to the angular momentum terms where the vector is the linear momentum terms. Now that you understand which each represent are they not equally logical ?

As mentioned in my earlier comment its tricky to describe using zero mathematics. However just so you know its not just my personal theory on the matter. Here is the relevant research paper on the topic. https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf This particular paper is one of the most well known and well quoted papers on the topic. Most research papers on the divergences will refer directly back to this paper. Unfortunately this is one of those cases where words are insufficient to properly explain the issue. example being the following paper. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02622.pdf You really have to understand the mathematics to make sense of the paper. Don't worry very few forum members are at this level of understanding. You literally must be very keen on the related gauge groups and well versed in Calculus a very basic level on divergences and convergence is found here https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Calculus/Calculus_(OpenStax)/16%3A_Vector_Calculus/16.05%3A_Divergence_and_Curl this is a general field level that can be applied to any field.

No I will always disagree with you on that. We have plenty of physics that one would have difficulty applying logic to. In point of detail logic prevented the physics understanding in many cases. I'm positive you can think of several cases where that is true. Especially when it comes to quantum physics. Apply classical logic to quantum tunneling treating particles as corpuscular (materialistic bullets). Apply logic to an Bose Einstein condensate where all particles lose any identity (they cannot be distinguished by one another ). There is two examples. Time dilation without the mathematics is near impossible for ppl to understand . Here is the problem with logic. In order to apply logic you must apply that which a person understands. Take a student for example that has been taught the Bohr model of the atom in school that has been taught particles as little bullet like objects. Would that student understand particle wave duality ? To answer that look at all the misconceptions of the two slit experiment.

So you claim, yet the mathematics is the same regardless of nationality. Still doesn't change the fact that any physics theory MUST have accurate mathematics. Otherwise it's useless as a theory. It results in divergences that we haven't figured out how to keep renormalized. A renormalized theory is divergent free. Unfortunately without using the mathematics itself that's about as accurate a description I can give. Even if I give the mathematics there are only a handful of forum members that would have a chance of understanding it. As one must be familiar with one loop integrals. Aka Feymann diagrams, Or at the very least be familiar with the term divergence and convergence in a vector field.

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