The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: missing neutrino energy Pauli's 1930s #1207 New Physics #1327 ATOM

Replies: 5   Last Post: Feb 9, 2013 5:38 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
no physicist today knows how axioms of math work #1213 New Physics
#1333 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 9, 2013 3:53 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Feb 7, 8:01 am, "Christopher Strevens"
<christopher.strev...@hotmail.co_1.uk_1> wrote:
> Superconductivity is to do with the electron travelling as a wave
> through the lattice of the crystal so that the wavelength fits the
> lattice. The lattice has to be cold otherwise lattice vibrations scatter
> the electron waves.
> The electron in an atom has a wavelength that fits the orbit. It's as
> simple as that. It is quantised because only harmonics fit the orbit. A
> photon is created because the old electron wavelength interferes with
> the new one and this vibration makes the photon which is also a wave.
> Actually electrons are electromagnetic radiation that is trapped by its
> own self gravity and so "stuck".
> Dr Chris

Alright, I do need to apologize to Chris, because in a manner, I have
been making a similar mistake.

What Chris, or Dr. Chris is ignorant of, is how axioms work. Chris is
not a mathematician, nor a physicist of any worthwhile caliber. A
mathematician knows that axioms are no longer reducible. We cannot
take the Hilbert axioms of Euclid's axioms any further down, reduce
them further. We cannot. However, we can find equivalent statements
which would help us in understanding. Equivalent is not a reduction to
lower terms because axioms themselves are in the lowest terms. Now I
do not expect Dr. Chris to understand any of this talk of axioms. But
every full fledged mathematician understands what I mean about axioms.
In fact, I doubt that a single physicist of today understands well,
how mathematics works with axioms. Dirac probably understood the
relationship of axioms and how they derive all of mathematics, but no-
one in the physics community of today understands the relationship of
axioms to mathematics and how they derive all of mathematics.

So I apologize to Dr. Chris since he is ignorant of how axioms derives
all of mathematics, because if you take the axioms of physics to be
the Maxwell Equations plus all the facts of chemistry, then what I
called the "silliness" of Dr. Chris is plain silly. But I am to blame
also for my own silliness, since I did not strictly adhere to the
understanding that if the Maxwell Equations are the axioms, that I
cannot reduce them further, yet I tried to reduce them further.

I myself is guilty of not adhering to the understanding that there is
no further reduction of the Maxwell Equations.

In my chapters on rest mass, spin, double-transverse wave, neutrinos,
etc., I kept trying to make further reductions.

I am accusing myself for trying to reduce the view of how a photon
lashes onto a electron and guide it through a superconducting material
to avoid having resistance or friction. I am accused of internal parts
of the electron and proton and photon so that they would explain the
equations of Maxwell. Well, if they are the axioms, then I could never
reduce them further down in explaining them.

Should I list the axiom of geometry of parallel lines, or the axiom of
numbers of mathematical induction or the axiom of probability of a
outcome divided by total possible outcomes.

If I were to try to reduce those axioms further down, I would fail,
because the best I can do is find a equivalent statement of those
axioms, I could never find a more basic and fundamental statement.
I could correct the statement if it had an error or flaw, but I could
not reduce it. I could correct Faraday's law by including the magnetic
current density, but I could not reduce this law, since it is a axiom.

An equivalent statement of Faraday's law is that it is Ohm's law with
a displacement-magnetism. I could replace the Gauss's law with the
Coulomb law, because they are equivalent statements of a axiom.

So, I need to backtrack here and talk about how axioms work, since
there really is no physicist alive today that understands how axioms
work in mathematics, and so, none of them can be expected to
understand how the Maxwell Equations as axioms work. And because no
physicist knows how axioms work, they will fall into error by
immediately trying to
reduce the Maxwell Equations.

For example Dr. Chris attaches the silly force of gravity to the

Another example, Dr. Murray Gellman, Dr. Lederman and Dr. Weinberg
attach silly quarks to the proton or neutron, when the Maxwell
Equations never allow such a nonsense and silly attachement.

Another example, the BCS theorists attach a phonon to
superconductivity or attach Cooper pairing of electrons, when the
Maxwell Equations as axioms never allow such attachments.

Lastly, I have tried to reduce all the particles of physics to the
double transverse wave, but the Maxwell Equations, as axioms do not
allow that.

So I apologize to Dr. Chris for his silliness for he could never be
expected to know how axioms truly work, and I apologize to myself for
being rather ignorant in many chapters of this book of where I tried
to dig deeper down into the Maxwell Equations by reducing them, for
which I was never allowed such a reduction. I was allowed equivalence
but never reduction.

Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.