Other areas we are seeing Golden ratios embedded include quantum mechanics (eignenvalue probabilities), ratios of atomic hydrogen radii in some molecular structures, black holes physics, natural Quasicrystals and in theories on Quantum Gravity (given the black holes stuff I guess this isn't surprising).

Assuming for a moment that these are valid examples, this still kind of showcases how the Golden Ratio is just a godawful teaching tool to learn about science.

WHY is the golden ratio showing up in these situations? In the previous post you claimed it was the optimal ratio for staggering leaves in plants. Really? Has someone calculated the overall number of photons of light that are incident on leaf surfaces based on the geographic location and growing season, adjusted for the efficiency of chlorophyll and other photoactive compounds, estimated energy expenditures for either the formation of buds or the overall growth of a leaf, and then proved that setting (L1+L2)/L2 = L2/L1 maximizes overall energy intake? Based on those factors I listed, I'd bet that whenever you get something close to the golden ratio it is a coincidence rather than a fundamental organizational structure. I could (maybe) write out some differential equations and boundary conditions where the golden ratio really *does* represent some sort of min or max, but I doubt they'll correspond to any realistic situation that we encounter in biology or physics. We should also consider the fact that just because a particular design is optimal does not mean there is an evolutionary pathway to get there or maintain it. Perhaps a lot of classes of plants reach ~1.5/1 distances between leaves but then hit a kind of barrier where there's no way to further increase without drastically altering their morphology.

This is what bugs me so much about this topic - instead of inspiring people to think about the why or the how, the Golden Ratio is just thrown out there like it's some sort of mythical force that automatically explains everything. If it's not immediately intuitive why it's so special, or if there's doubt about it's significance, it's up to people that tout its utility to do actually do the math and prove their thesis. Or even those that tout the aesthetics - come up with something beyond Psych 101 explanations of why people find it pleasing.

Sorry to be a dick, but if you can't tell is dislike 99% of talk about this topic, both for and against.