Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
how much better physics would now be if it had axioms in 1900 #1199
New Physics #1319 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 4, 2013 1:42 AM
|
|
How much better current day physics would have been if it had a axiom
set in year 1900, the Maxwell Equations as axioms.
Axiom systems for physics, the 20th century had none and thus physics
is at least a 100 years behind of where it should be. That in 1911
with Onnes discovery of superconductivity, if he had known that the
Maxwell Equations were the axioms over all of physics, it is highly
likely that he would have discovered the true theory of
superconductivity-- Malus law theory.
Why would Onnes have discovered the true theory of superconductivity?
Because when you have a axiom set over your science, you measure all
ideas and facts of the science against that axiom set. That is what we
do constantly in mathematics, everytime we wish to make a mathematical
proof. So that if Onnes had accept the 1860s Maxwell Equations as the
axioms of physics, he would have wanted to peer into the Maxwell
Equations to derive Ohm's law, since it talks of resistance. Onnes
would then have followed up on all the laws known of photons and
matter and would have quickly come upon the Malus law which speaks of
a "resistance" to the passage of photons. Onnes would then have
derived not only the Ohm's law from Maxwell theory but the Malus law.
And in a final step, Onnes would have connected the R, resistance in
Ohm's law with the entire Malus law.
When a science has a axiom set hanging over it, then the science is
guided to the truth, not misguided by thousands of cranks of physics,
each with their own silly likes and favoritism-- some like springs,
some like strings, some like toruses, some like "wading in mud to gain
mass", some like being on a
space elevator to imitate gravity, and all of that is some cranks love
of irrelevances to physics.
When physics has a axiom set, then every cranks love of silly things
is thrown out the window, and the real work begins-- get it and derive
it out of the Maxwell Equations. So that when Onnes discovered
superconductivity, if the Maxwell Equations had been the axioms, Onnes
would have been compelled to search through the Maxwell Equations.
Now can we compare how retarded mathematics would be if they had no
axiom system? Well, we would not have Euclidean geometry, nor the
NonEuclidean geometries because we need axioms to pinpoint what is
missing. Mathematics would not be coherent, nor consistent, nor tied
together in large part. There would be no proofs in mathematics since
you eventually have to refer to an axiom set for justification. A
mathematics without proofs is like a physics without doing
experiments. We did have physics without experiments during Ancient
Greek times. I forgotten who is credited with experimentation for
physics, was it Roger Bacon in the 1200's?
So what I am saying is that I admit and subscribe to Physics being a
experimental science, but that in order for it to be true physics, it
must be experimental and arising from a axiom set.
It is hard to say how much stunted and crippled would be mathematics
without an axiom system. It would still be a useful and powerful
science but mostly a science of rules for calculations and a cottage
industry type of science, not unified under a few roofs but tiny
cottages of mathematics all over the place.
Physics without axiom system is easy to predict how stunted in growth,
because until 2012, physics was without an axiom system and physics
was at least 100 years stunted in growth, that it should not have been
stunted. Now if someone wanted a axiom system for physics before
Maxwell of 1860s, they could have used Newton and in fact they did use
Newton, even up to 2012 with a minor fix of relativity.
But the sad case of the matter, is that when Maxwell discovered the
unified Maxwell Equations, the best in physics should have started the
earnest debate of throwing out the Newton axiom system and replacing
it with the Maxwell Equations. It was probably premature from 1860s to
that of 1900, but when the Michelson experiment ended with the Lorentz
transformations and the Poincare Special Relativity noting that the
Maxwell Equations were relativistic in the first place. That the
Maxwell Equations should have become the axioms of physics by year
1900.
Now if physics had adopted the Maxwell Equations as the axiom system
in 1900, the 20th century would not have had a Big Bang theory, nor
black holes, nor neutron stars, nor quarks, nor strings, nor Higgs
boson, nor Doppler shift of light, nor BCS theory.
There are two major ways that a science is stunted and stalled in
growth, 1) it lacks a axiom system to guide it, 2) because it lacks a
axiom system, then a lot of fake science is accepted, since it has no
true measuring rod of consistency to place it against when experiments
could not be made to test those wild ideas masking as physics. For
example, if the Maxwell Equations as the axioms of physics had been
taken in year 1900, then later in that century, when some physicists
crowed about black-holes they would have been tarred and feathered,
since black-holes contradict the Maxwell Equations via the Pauli
Exclusion Principle which is derived from the Maxwell Equations.
So when a science like physics does not have a axiom set, it leaves
itself wide open to poppycock inconsistencies and contradictions and
nothing to guide it out of that nonsense.
--
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:
http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
|
|
|
