Entanglement Builds Space-Time. Now "Magic" Gives It Gravity

which is fine, but the point is still valid. who looked at the state of science education in today's world and though that "magic" was a word that belonged anywhere near legitimate discourse? and more importantly WHY?

Without tests it’s just pretty math that can be coaxed into agreeing with reality but that proves nothing.

Physicists try to indirectly test all the time via cosmological observations but that is extremely hard and limited to what you can infer and how well you can eliminate other explanations or sources of error.

If it is competing against another model that does both that and offers new testable hypothesis (which experiments match), the other model is the clear winner. But lacking that, if no other model explains all existing data, is new testability really necessary when it is the only model that currently explains all existing tests?

That said, aren't most of theoretical models only contenders for such, as in they haven't been expanded to actually explain all testing results, only that, as far as they have been expanded, there are no contradictions yet? So they need physicists to expand them, but if the model is wrong, the effort might largely be wasted, and we have some models that there is disdain for not because they contradict existing experiments, but because they have eaten too many careers without showing value in return?

Who has ever used that phrase?

Now just add massive scale and distances.

It may help your intuition to consider the extreme case of a black hole. The event horizon is where time is so warped that no possible future trajectories lead outside of the black hole, and you need a magical time machine to escape. (Of course, the best way to gain intuition is to work through the mathematics, either symbolically or with diagrams, rather than reading English-language descriptions.)

There is a sense in which an orbit is a straight line. Obviously, an orbit is not a straight line through space (unless you count the perfect and unobtainable orbit of a beam of light around a black hole, some distance from the event horizon), but we often think of them as spirals through spacetime: there's an argument that really we should think of them as straight lines through spacetime, much like how a great circle is a straight line along the earth's surface.

If you view gravity as a mattress, you're stuck. There's nothing to do with it that you couldn't already do, because it's fundamentally wrong. Another way to say this is that it's actually an analogy for Newtonian gravity, not for GR, despite apparently including something curved.

If you view gravity as a field of local clocks that tick at different rates, you can make many correct predictions:

- Clocks at different heights will tick at different rates.

- GPS needs gravity corrections.

- Light climbing out of a gravitational field is redshifted.

- Radar signals passing near the Sun should be delayed (the Shapiro time delay).

- You can have no gravitational pull but still have time dilation (inside a perfectly spherical shell, Newtonian gravity seems to cancel out).

- From the outside, it appears to take an infinite amount of time for something to fall into a black hole's horizon.

- Aging can be path-dependent.

- Gravity affects every physical process: chemical reactions, radioactive decays, biological aging, atomic transitions, molecular vibrations, computer processors, pendulums, pulsars.

- A sufficiently precise clock can measure height.

- Objects in eccentric orbits should have periodic clock-rate changes.

- Quantum matter waves should accumulate gravitational phase shifts.

- Spectral lines from compact stars should reveal compactness.

- Thermal equilibrium in gravity should involve a temperature gradient.

The main take away for a lay person is that _like_ the mattress space is being deformed. That's where the analogy stops. Taking it further, like with all analogies, breaks the analogy.

If the analogy was a perfect one, then it would just be the reason and not an analogy.

My main gripe is how hard for most people it is to extrapolate that deformed mattress into a 3d space.

They use that to explain why you don't feel acceleration when you jump off a building or out of a plane.

They say you DO feel it when you are standing, because the earth is impeding you and pushing you away from the geodesic you naturally want to follow.

So it is counterintuitive. the standing still person is being accelerated/pushed. The freefall person is free.

John wheeler said "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". I think it explains the circular nature.

Mass curves spacetime, that changes how mass moves , mass moving to a new position changes the curvature, that changes how the mass will move next. The dimple in the mattress staying with the mass.

The only plausible example I can think of that isn't purely theoretical / speculative would be gravitational waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwinger_limit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_quark

It's not just a bad idea because of that BS, but even within the field it's just asking for trouble. We may all wish we were perfect Vulcans who have perfect mental separation between all concepts and emotions, but we aren't. It's going to have a small, but extremely persistent and long-term effect on the field if you seriously name a major part of it "magic". The emotional connotations simply can not help but smear into the putatively mathematical term. It's a high price to pay for what isn't really all that funny of a joke even the first time.

And of course the BS will crank up even higher. People get hurt by that, but I don't know how much to lay at the foot of people who are all but taunting them by naming something "magic", because most of the hurt was going to come anyhow and what particular guise it is wearing is of minimal importance. Still, why even sign up to be in the line of fire of responsibility for that sort of thing?

I don't think that this was the formalization that was used when the term was coined, given how late set and measure theory were formalized.

Does using words that are more of a mouthful make scientist more credible?

Obviously. Because the fact that they use this word for something modernly scientific means that its meaning is as far from the commonfolk meaning of the word as possible. Magic doesn't mean anything sensible yet. So it's basically free real estate for something physical, especially something very foundational.

That is, the concern is that instead of studying the real world, theoretical physicists are spending more and more time studying mathematical constructs and their properties.

Is this actually stated somewhere by the institutions that take taxpayer money for this research, or just your opinion?