Time Mechanics

[Time Mechanics]

I link to a post made by Athene http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54316-athenes-discovery-c-h-f/

 

I have to say I was inspired to finally make my move after listening to this. After about seven years I developed a system of unification whose new system of physical analysis was based on the equation x=d/d(t). That all things can be physically be described as the evolution of a system(displacement) with respect to time frame. In that post Athene correctly identifies people as a base component in the universe and things such as neurons are in fact part of unification. This is something I have never seen before as this movie hits just about every taboo note in physics while maintaining a reasoned approach. However, his movie is just too complicated to get the point across. So having the same problem I spent another year trying to develop concepts that would be found in movies like that and use a more "mainstream" analysis approach while at the same time using Time Mechanics to solve every conundrum in physics.

 

The paper I have linked opens up with my analysis of the Information Paradox. In which the presumption of constants creates paradoxical physical barriers. Or for the laymen, there are very famous equations that don't work at a certain measurement.

 

http://www.fileswap.com/dl/PGvkKk6K/New_Horizons.odt.html

 

I was going try to begin to explain the 3 references of time. That Einstein through Special Relativity described a reference frame and that through General Relativity he described a second. The solution to solve the information paradox was to add a 3rd reference frame which describes the observer as the definer of the constant which creates the paradoxical physical barrier.

 

The addition of a 3rd reference frame defines the action(x=d/d(t)) that results in a dark matter barrier and how it defines a wave as a unit of space(aka wavelength) which creates a quantified timescale with quantified interactions. But also a particle(massive) as a unique timescale as well such that dimension or SIZE for the laymen becomes the quantified state of a particle. Both forms creating by spatial dilation a probability of interaction.

 

The certainty of a measurement is dependent on the timescale of the quanta used to measure it. -A new law of physics and there's more

 

My biggest problem has been, even with the internet, that I don't believe in the magic of Quantum Mechanics or the magic of Mathematics. I just follow the data from measurements and have no problem changing my point of view with new info. Our biggest problem as the future of physics is that the old way of thinking is virtually impossible to change. My paper describes a universe where the light speed barrier is not a barrier of velocity anymore. I can tell you how to detect dark matter, I can tell you have to define nuclear quantum states, and hell I can use SPECIAL relativity to preserve symmetry to define Dark Energy.

 

However, I can't open a dialogue with anyone and that's a crime. If you want to stick with what you got fine, but when I say I know how to break the light barrier that is the moment as a scientist you need to keep an open mind.

 

I'll check back on this post for the next few days if anyone has any questions. I do recommend watching Athene's movie either way.

[A Tripolation]

...I don't believe in the magic of Quantum Mechanics or the magic of Mathematics.

 

...and hell I can use SPECIAL relativity to preserve symmetry to define Dark Energy.

 

Wait...what? Do you realize what you just said?

[Bignose]

... I developed a system of unification whose new system of physical analysis was based on the equation x=d/d(t).

 

Unless your 'x' here is an operator, this isn't even an equation. Because you don't even have what you are taking the derivative with respect to time with on the right hand side.

[Time Mechanics]

Wait...what? Do you realize what you just said?

 

Yes I do. I'm not sure what you're saying. But I'm guessing you believe the cosmological constant in General Relativity is proof enough. What I'm saying is I can manipulate the source equations for an energy field/dilated space to actually derive it. It was originally put in the famous equation because Einstein thought the universe was static but later the constant became a variable due to Hubble's observation. I can show that it is actually a form of time dilation instead of a generic energy field. I have details in other words.

 

Unless your 'x' here is an operator, this isn't even an equation. Because you don't even have what you are taking the derivative with respect to time with on the right hand side.

 

It's a definition. In physics we get to write the theorems. X is any measurement of space, I don't define the dimensions of a tensor because you never know what dimensions you will be measuring. Such that x is a generic measurement of space, and that any measurement of space is EQUAL TO a slope or instantaneous measurement of time.

 

And in fact its also very routine for physicist to create new operators. This is a base equation to define a concept, the actual "plugins" are in the paper I linked.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[Bignose]

ok, if 'x' is any measurement of space, then it has units of length.

 

d/dt has units of inverse time. units of length do not equal units of inverse time.

 

So, your equation is dimensionally incorrect. Anything gotten from it is meaningless then. Not to mention that you never answered my question about what exactly you are taking the derivative with respect to time, too.

 

edited for spelling

Edited February 3, 2011 by Bignose

[Time Mechanics]

ok, if 'x' is any measurement of space, then it has units of length.

 

d/dt has units of inverse time. units of length do not equal units of inverse time.

 

So, your equation is dimensionally incorrect. Anything gotten from it is meaningless then. Not to mention that you never answered my question about what exactly you are taking the derivative with respect to time, too.

 

edited for spelling

 

Bignose its a root definition. The root definitions for Newtonian Calculus that create the dimensions you are probably thinking of were created in F=ma and m1v1=m2v2. In string theory the root definition is F=kx. Time Mechanics is a new form of calculus to overcome the short comings of Newtonian Calculus. I can't have wrong dimensions, its my calculus and I'll define whatever dimensions I want as long as they fit observation.

 

Time Mechanics states that time only exists in reference. The root equation does not establish a unit that is referencing. It establishes that space IS the derivative of time. My paper that I linked adds observers in context and the answers to your questions may be easier to understand if you read it.

[A Tripolation]

I can't have wrong dimensions, its my calculus and I'll define whatever dimensions I want as long as they fit observation.

 

Unless you plan on redefining logic itself, you kind of HAVE TO have equations that are dimensionally consistent. You can't have a unit of length equaling time. Do you know how idiotic that is?

 

Here's a tip: If your "theory" requires you to ignore maths and start making things up willy-nilly, it's probably not a good "theory".

Edited February 4, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Bignose]

I can't have wrong dimensions, its my calculus and I'll define whatever dimensions I want as long as they fit observation.

 

ok, then, good luck with this. I'll pay you $14,000,000.00 when you get this all to work. Fortunately, in my system $1 corresponds to what you may commonly refer to "a speck of dust". But, don't worry, these units all make sense to me. Now if you'll forgive me, I'm going to retire to bed now. I have to get up early tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise -- I'm going to ask for an extra parsec per hogshead, and I know I deserve it!

Edited February 4, 2011 by Bignose

[Time Mechanics]

Unless you plan on redefining logic itself, you kind of HAVE TO have equations that are dimensionally consistent. You can't have a unit of length equaling time. Do you know how idiotic that is?

 

Here's a tip: If your "theory" requires you to ignore maths and start making things up willy-nilly, it's probably not a good "theory".

 

 

ok, then, good luck with this. I'll pay you $14,000,000.00 when you get this all to work. Fortunately, in my system $1 corresponds to what you may commonly refer to "a speck of dust". But, don't worry, these units all make sense to me. Now if you'll forgive me, I'm going to retire to bed now. I have to get up early tomorrow and ask my boss for a raise -- I'm going to ask for an extra parsec per hogshead, and I know I deserve it!

 

Guys where do you think those dimensions you're comparing it to come from? They didn't come down from a mountain, someone had to create the rules. If you run an experiment where 1 dollar is equal to 1 speck of dust then that becomes a definition. In economics our market creates the value definitions and they change all the time. You guys aren't even trying, long live the internet. Physics is about redefining logic when the universe gets all uppity decides to make people look stupid. And Einstein created a new rule all willy-nilly with T(tau)=ty(sigma). So they ran an experiment involving a local star and all of a sudden that new definition made sense. You guys seem to think our current math is perfect, which goes to my whole people think there's magic in numbers statement.

 

If anyone here actually cares to vet a theory, I'll explain the two correct ways to do that.

 

1) You take a known experiment where the math failed to meet observation. You then use the new form of math with the same data and see if it reaches the correct conclusion.

2) You take the conclusions reached by said math and run a new experiment to see if it predicts previously unseen observation.

 

This requires that you ask a science related question. Statements where your conclusion is "I don't get it" are not useful.

[mississippichem]

By not having dimensionally correct equations you are essentially claiming that 1 apple + 1 orange = 1 banana. Equations aren't just there to look pretty or complicated. They actually have to make logical sense. Physics isn't about redefining logic. Physics uses math, experiments, and logic to draw conclusions about patterns and events that occur in nature. One week of a high school calculus course would show you that your "definition" is nonsensical.

[Time Mechanics]

This is a great opportunity to show the difference between physics math and math math.

 

Under Newtonian Calculus the Root Definitions where V=x/t and F=ma; the dimensions of time where V/x. This is what you guys use. It's wrong.

 

In the early 1900's experiments had shown light speed as a barrier of maximum velocity. Under Newtonian Calculus there was no limit. A new Root definition of time was required.

 

T=ty; y=1/(1-v²/c²); Courtesy of Einstein.

 

Under this new and experimentally confirmed definition, time was measured in units called Tau. Physicist tell you guys all the time that the math you used in high school is wrong.

 

In the early 1990's an ever increasing number of experiments had shown physical quanta evolving from unobservable regions of the universe where time in units of Tau is equal to 0. Such as black holes. We call this the information paradox. In fact many equations just don't work under this definition of time.

 

Under Time Mechanics in order to solve this problem. I added a third observer. And established that time only exists if there is a defined observer. For the mathematicians, I added another order which is why there is an inexplicable derivative there.

 

d/d(t)=x;

 

My paper(which no one is reading) explains that.....

 

T = (x,y,z)t₀ | (x,y,z)t - Time can't exist unless it is dilating or has a quantity like velocity. If a point exists in a universe and nothing is observing, nothing is happening.

 

In order define the dimensions of time under my Root Definition you take the integral to derive the Tau of the observer. int(xdt)=1; This defines the curved space of the observer. Tau=int(xdt).

 

This defines time using units of tau but adds another variable (x) to redefine the constants like the speed of light to eliminate the information paradox. That in fact multiple observers have different definitions of where time can equal 0.

 

This is why Physics is so complex. Time is already proven not to be what you think the dimensions are. And the math is constantly changing.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[swansont]

Guys where do you think those dimensions you're comparing it to come from? They didn't come down from a mountain, someone had to create the rules. If you run an experiment where 1 dollar is equal to 1 speck of dust then that becomes a definition. In economics our market creates the value definitions and they change all the time. You guys aren't even trying, long live the internet. Physics is about redefining logic when the universe gets all uppity decides to make people look stupid. And Einstein created a new rule all willy-nilly with T(tau)=ty(sigma). So they ran an experiment involving a local star and all of a sudden that new definition made sense. You guys seem to think our current math is perfect, which goes to my whole people think there's magic in numbers statement.

 

If anyone here actually cares to vet a theory, I'll explain the two correct ways to do that.

 

1) You take a known experiment where the math failed to meet observation. You then use the new form of math with the same data and see if it reaches the correct conclusion.

2) You take the conclusions reached by said math and run a new experiment to see if it predicts previously unseen observation.

 

This requires that you ask a science related question. Statements where your conclusion is "I don't get it" are not useful.

 

Modifying an equation is not the same thing as changing to a "new form of math." The same rules of math still apply, which means that the same requirement that the units be consistent still applies.

 

If you want to stick with what you got fine, but when I say I know how to break the light barrier that is the moment as a scientist you need to keep an open mind.

 

How? It's put-up-or-shut-up time. No tap-dancing.

[Time Mechanics]

Modifying an equation is not the same thing as changing to a "new form of math." The same rules of math still apply, which means that the same requirement that the units be consistent still applies.

 

I understand this may not be common knowledge(/cry), but Einstein modified Newtons equations to create a new form of math with new rules. Recently they did it with string theory which is up to 26 dimensions and each one of the dimensions defines a brand new unit that isn't consistent with Newtonian math.

 

T₀=1;

Law one: You are the ultimate observer of perceived time.

d(1 or a constant, i.e not a variable)/dt=x;

1=int(x₀dt)

I defined what I took the derivative of time with respect to in the FIRST LAW.

 

How? It's put-up-or-shut-up time. No tap-dancing.

With pleasure.

 

Law 10 explains it using Time Mechanics, but I'm going to need to go conceptual.

 

Special Relativity created a function that described the loss of energy for a quanta to propel an object as it accelerates. This loss of energy also described the frequency of the quanta used in the same scenario in E=hf. Under these two equations time and energy are both measurements of the effect of what has occurred to describe spatial dilation. In order to accelerate an object we only use one form of quanta in propellant and that's called Valence Energy quanta. That's the outer electrons of an atom that require the least ionization energy to move. As you jump down quantum levels and space begins to become more massive, the Uncertainty principle describes a similar property to special relativity where static quanta have an ever increasing reduced efficiency to interact.

 

To overcome this effect in Quantum Mechanics all we have to do is equate the energy of the quanta used to measure it. In other words, a low orbit electron may require x-rays to influence and a nucleus requires a simlar energy particle to interact with effectively such as a neutron. Both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics use the same energy equations but no method was ever used to increase the chance of interaction by changing energy levels with respect to linear dilation.

 

Astronomy derived what is called the Red/Blue shift effect from Special Relativity to measure the velocity of a moving star. To say that an object in motion indeed also modifies the frequency of the quanta observed. Time Mechanics equates both these observed effects as a scale of time moving toward a dark interaction. That the time scale of a quanta(mass or frequency) determines the efficiency of interaction to the observer. All modern attempts from rockets to magnets use a time scale particle in Valence space and that constant method created a constant number in c.

 

To modify the timescale of interaction will modify the constant in the Lorentzian shift which will create new observed space/time interaction. The loss of efficiency in the Special Relativity can be overcome by condensing or increasing the relative(direction matters) timescale of the quanta used to accelerate the object.

 

The nucleus is dark to most particle interactions until you accelerate or decelerate a particle. In the same breath a nucleus can be used to interact with a particle in motion to change the probability of transferring motion.

 

The experiment would require a stepped acceleration where at each new velocity the frequency or energy of the quanta of the propellant will need to go up and up. A nuclear reactor turned on will provide a wide range of those quanta. So propellant heated by a nuclear reactor will not suffer the same problems. However when an object is accellerated beyond c normal matter(earth) will still see zero time or dark space. Like the cosmological horizon.

 

To recreate the effect in a magnetic accelerator would require heavily ionized conductors which are very unstable. Its possible and cheaper to do it that way and you would know if it worked when you lost track of the particle. But the engineering is still beyond me.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I understand this may not be common knowledge(/cry), but Einstein modified Newtons equations to create a new form of math with new rules. Recently they did it with string theory which is up to 26 dimensions and each one of the dimensions defines a brand new unit that isn't consistent with Newtonian math.

No.

 

Mathematics has a consistent set of rules which does not change on the whim of any particular physicist. You can do the same algebra, calculus, and arithmetic with Einstein's equations as you can do with Newton's. What changed is the equations themselves, not the rules of mathematics.

 

Units, incidentally, are not part of mathematics either. One can assign units to numbers, but a new unit is not changing the rules of mathematics. If I define a "penguin" to be the weight of one average Emperor penguin, I am not creating new mathematics; I am using existing mathematics to give new physical meaning.

[A Tripolation]

This is a great opportunity to show the difference between physics math and math math.

 

Under Newtonian Calculus the Root Definitions where V=x/t and F=ma; the dimensions of time where V/x. This is what you guys use. It's wrong.

 

Physics math is math math. Newtonian mechanics works perfectly fine for introductory physics courses. The margin of error between it and general relativity are so small, that there is no point use relativity where classical mechanics works.

 

No physicist or mathematician goes around thinking that classical mechanics is completely accurate and true.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Special Relativity created a function that described the loss of energy for a quanta to propel an object as it accelerates.

Which function is this, specifically?

 

In order to accelerate an object we only use one form of quanta in propellant and that's called Valence Energy quanta. That's the outer electrons of an atom that require the least ionization energy to move.

Are you suggesting that any given propellant uses the excited states of valence electrons as a source of energy?

 

As you jump down quantum levels and space begins to become more massive, the Uncertainty principle describes a similar property to special relativity where static quanta have an ever increasing reduced efficiency to interact.

Could you expand on this? This is not what the uncertainty principle says.

 

I'll stop here, since your post is mostly word salad and difficult to make sense out of. Terms in physics have precise meanings; abusing those terms makes it confusing for those of us who do actual physics.

[Time Mechanics]

Which function is this, specifically?

 

 

Are you suggesting that any given propellant uses the excited states of valence electrons as a source of energy?

 

 

Could you expand on this? This is not what the uncertainty principle says.

 

I'll stop here, since your post is mostly word salad and difficult to make sense out of. Terms in physics have precise meanings; abusing those terms makes it confusing for those of us who do actual physics.

 

Surely

 

First Question: Length contraction and Time Dilation under Special Relativity. http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity

 

Second Question: Yes. The energy state of the emission of a photon is measured by its frequency. A chemical reaction is a change in the electric field. You have to understand under the standard model there is Gravity, Strong Force, Weak Force, and Electromagnetic Energy. All known propellants have only every used one of those forces. The frequency range for Valence energy is very low Ultra violet to infrared. Radio and Higher than Ultraviolet (i.e x-rays, gamma rays) are energy states well below and well above respectively to the energy states of any chemical reaction. A X-ray match for example does not exist.

 

Third Question: %x%p=h/2; (Excuse the lack of greek symbols, limits of tech)

Heisenberg did more with the Uncertainty Principle than state a problem of measuring imaginary concepts. It DEFINED wavelength as measurement of certainty(%x). And it supported the quantifying of orbitals using planks constant(h/2).

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Balmer_series -Such that electrons can have quantified orbitals with unique energy states.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Spectral_line -In order to emit EM waves at quantified frequencies and that he was correct to define a probability curve.

 

I suppose it is my fault and I should say Quantum Mechanics, but the Uncertainty Principle established the Uncertainty of a probability curve. No one actually thinks there is a position or momentum of an electron anymore. But the principle lives on in Quantum Mechanics.

 

In regards to my use of the term "massive", that's particle physics confusion. Ionization energy is measured in electron volts. Mass is measured in electron volts as well. I'm being technically correct. Its easier to understand as electrons are harder to move as the quantum levels approach the nucleus.

Edited February 4, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

First Question: Length contraction and Time Dilation under Special Relativity. http://en.wikipedia....cial_relativity

Which of these terms describe the energy loss of a quanta? As far as I know, they are spacial and temporal coordinates, not energies.

[Time Mechanics]

Which of these terms describe the energy loss of a quanta? As far as I know, they are spacial and temporal coordinates, not energies.

 

I would like to know your field of expertise. Those terms describe what is called an energy tensor which led to E=mc²+pu. And led to E=pu=hf.

 

If spacial dilation can be described as an energy term, then an energy term can be described as spacial dilation. So according to everyone, the math indicates that the act of acceleration becomes a loss of energy to the observer. And the frequency shift observed shows that true and true.

 

Another confusion would be the lack of taught vector analysis outside of astronomy. Most think of dilation as vector-less but think of energy as vectored. Such that....

 

10J @ 180^o + 10J @ 0^o = 0J.......... but that velocity under Special isn't vectored which would describe observed dilation..........10m/s @ 180^o + 10m/s @ 0^o = 20m/s. In astronomy you simply use one equation for blue shift(Negative) and one for red shift(Positive) and thus avoid the twin paradox because paradoxes are bad in their line of work.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[swansont]

Most think of dilation as vector-less but think of energy as vectored.

 

Really? Not around here they don't.

[Time Mechanics]

Really? Not around here they don't.

 

Excellent...then lets move on to something more complex. //Edit from previous post: The predicted AVERAGE velocity would be 10m/s instead of 0. The 20m/s was me being even dumber.

 

Dilation as a measurement of energy and not space......

 

Variable Particle Time Scales(Dark): Black Hole->Dark Matter(Strong Force)

 

Dilation as a measurement of space and not energy......

 

Variable Particle Position(Dark): Horizon(Schwarzschild Radius)->Uncertain Absorption(Wavelength)

 

In quantum mechanics are spectral lines and uncertain absorption are the dark areas. By collapsing or expanding a medium and even heating/cooling changes the relative position of the electrons, you can change the spectral lines.

 

Variable Particle Time Scales(Bright): Planet/Star->Normal Matter

 

Variable Particle Position(Bright): Light Year->Nanometer

 

Any bright position has dimension and is described by its Newtonian definition. Such that the Earth has a radius, a number that doesn't factor in warped space/time.

 

Variable Wave Time Scales(Dark): Dark Energy->Dark Matter(Weak Force)

 

Variable Wave Position(Dark): Horizon(Cosmological)->Uncertain Emission(Time,Half-life)

 

In quantum mechanics there are no nuclear spectral lines, so its the dark wave interactions we only map with time. Why do we measure it with time? Because a wave has no defined dimension because it has no position. This is a dark photon by property as it has all the properties of a wave but exists dark to Normal Matter.

 

To pontificate even further, this where x=d/dt; As position is equal to a constants(see half-life charts) time derivative such as half-life. We use the same definition to age the universe as we take the position of a celestial body and set it equal to the constants(Hubble's!) time derivative. AND that Hubble's constant is changing with time because the observer(you and me) are aging as well.

 

Variable Wave Time Scales(Bright): Gamma Waves(frequency)->Radio Waves(frequency)

 

Variable Wave position(Bright): 13.7 billion years->An instant

 

Time Scale becomes 1/s, Position is age #, the Observer is the definition of a second. This is the conceptual understanding of the three references of time.

 

These are the physical representations derived from Time-Mechanics. I figured it was unification because I don't have a property left that doesn't fit into the full equation. Hopefully this is easier to read than the math.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[mississippichem]

These are the physical representations derived from Time-Mechanics. I figured it was unification because I don't have a property left that doesn't fit into the full equation. Hopefully this is easier to read than the math.

 

What full equation? No, the math is easier to read for many of us.

[Time Mechanics]

What full equation? No, the math is easier to read for many of us.

 

T₀ | T | T = T₀ | [(x,y,z)t₊ | (x,y,z)t_-]t_s - The three reference of time are equal to the observers defined universe in reference to the wave energy(t₊) and particle energy(t_-) whose ratio of energy states is observed as a magnitude of regional dilation in t_s. The paper builds the equation piece by piece.

 

It can be hard because physicist include new operators and tend to ignore coefficients and set constants equal to 1. Like.....Maxwell-Faraday equation that has an upside down triangle to denote "curl". And Quantum Mechanics that uses bras and kets.

 

I'm going to answer your question ahead of time. ( | ) means "in reference to". In classical math is represents another order so T | T | T would be T³ , but in physics(i.e the universe) each order is a unique measurement and so there is no functional connection. It's the mathematical way to say it is what it is.

 

I'm going to be unavailable for the rest of the day(some sports event) so I wanted to tell you guys about my favorite math equation. It's called Dirac's equation. Or more specifically his origin of bras and kets.

 

<m|n>=dmn;

If m-n=0 then d(m-n)!=0;

If m-n=1 then d(m-n)=0;

 

If you ever asked a physicist what determines whether or not a particle decays chances are they'll respond in a ghostly tone that we don't know and that's its quantum. In a nutshell that what this explains.

 

Before it became funny, this was a serious issue. So Dirac represented this as a graph with vertical asymptotes. In the equation d(m-n) m represented a root cause and n represented the observation. If cause and measurement were equal than a value of infinity or 100% certainty existed. If cause and measurement weren't equal then a value of 0 or a value of 0% certainty existed.

 

The really cool math component that only exists in Quantum Mechanics was that d symbol. Dirac combined the derivative and integral symbols to create an operator that isn't sure what function is in play. Just that the universe seems to know and that's all that's important. You can draw the symbol by making the integral and put a loop at the bottom to create a d.

 

Heisenberg established the area under a wave as a measurement of certainty. And that all measurement(in the quantum world) is the commutation of a wavelength(uncertain) and momentum(certain).

 

Why do I love this equation? Because that funny looking d which described an unknown function was in fact the wave function(|w>). He knew something existed before it actually existed.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Time Mechanics

[steevey]

 

 

My biggest problem has been, even with the internet, that I don't believe in the magic of Quantum Mechanics or the magic of Mathematics.

 

 

Your getting it all wrong. Math and science are systems of logic based on observation of the universe around you. There's nothing magic about it. The reason math works isn't because of magic, it's because that's how its logically summing up how things observational work. And quantum mechanics, well the proven things are based on observation, not magic, meaning I'm saying "look, that particle acts like a wave" and not how you seem to think it is where "I got a PhD and through no observation this logically makes sense"

[Time Mechanics]

Your getting it all wrong. Math and science are systems of logic based on observation of the universe around you. There's nothing magic about it. The reason math works isn't because of magic, it's because that's how its logically summing up how things observational work. And quantum mechanics, well the proven things are based on observation, not magic, meaning I'm saying "look, that particle acts like a wave" and not how you seem to think it is where "I got a PhD and through no observation this logically makes sense"

 

Do you realize the sentence you quoted is in full agreement with you. I said I DON'T believe. My issue has always been the note worthy physicists who all have books published extolling their belief in the magic of mathematics even when the math is in direct conflict with the observed science.

 

There are people who will openly profess meaning in the Fine Structure Constant. I can't reach those people because I can't even propose an origin for their constants because they believe, publicly and published, in the extra-meaning(magic) of a number.