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 be with Axiom set  Maxwell Equations #1214 New Physics #1334 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Feb 10, 2013 1:10 AM


Let me reverse the previous post so that the import, the meaning is clear. That if you take the Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of physics, that you no longer can think about or having any meanful concepts or ideas that are lower than the Maxwell Equations.
This is important, because all these ideas are then just fakeries of physics:
a) quarks b) blackholes c) strings d) Cooper pairing e) phonons f) Higgs boson
All of those are lower than the Maxwell Equations and thus are just fantasy fiction.
For example, here are two axioms of mathematics, one in number theory and one in geometry:
Natural Numbers Mathematical Induction axiom: If M is a set of Natural Numbers and if it contains 1, and if we suppose it contains k, and can thence show it contains k+1, then that set is the set of all Natural Numbers (with 0 appended).
Euclidean geometry Parallel axiom: given a line and a point not on the line there is one and only one line through that point which is parallel to the given line.
Now, may point or reasoning in displaying two axioms of mathematics, is that in mathematics, mathematicians are not ignorant in wanting to find a more primitive set of axioms.
But in Physics, where physicists have never before set up their subject with axioms, then physicists have no guidance, no measure of whether they are logical, and worst of all, they constantly keep trying to lower themselves to more primitive terms and ideas.
For example, in Old Physics, they are not satisfied by saying the proton is a ball, a tiny ball particle, and so they lower themselves to dreaming up cranky and crackpot quarks. Some are not satisfied with quarks and they dream up some more stupidity such as strings or superstrings. With silly accessories such as phonons and other nonsense, even Higgs boson is thrown in.
Now going back to the mathematician. How silly would it be to ask a mathematician, "I am not satisfied with the axiom set of geometry, and I want something lower than the point and line". What if I told the mathematician I wanted a point to be composed of three quarks, or that a line as we move along the line that it picks up Higgs boson and becomes a "thicker line". So the reader can begin to understand that in mathematics, where precision is demanded, that they must have axiom sets, and those axioms cannot go lower, for they must be at rock bottom foundation of mathematics.
Yet the physicists with their 20th century physics that never pinpointed the axioms of physics: 4 Symmetrical Maxwell Equations plus all the facts of Chemistry, that the physicists could never go below the Maxwell Equations in thought or ideas, because those equations were the final rock bottom foundation of physics.
So that when Dr. Chris talks about electrons stuck together by gravity, he has failed to recognize the Maxwell Equations do not allow that. Or when Murray Gell Man talks about quarks, he has failed to understand the Maxwell Equations do not allow that. Or when Weinberg talks about the Standard Model, he has failed to appreciate that the Maxwell Equations do not support such a contraption, or when Peter Higgs imagines the Higgs boson, that Peter has failed to understand the Maxwell Equations as axioms never supported any of that pathetic nonsense.
When mathematics has its axiom sets, it does not waste the time and career of mathematicians trying to find more lower concepts than the axioms. But when physics never states its axioms the Maxwell Equations, then it is safe to say that over half the physicists waste their time and their career on silly stupid concepts that are lower than the Maxwell Equations.
Now I myself have wasted some time on looking for ideas that were lower than the Maxwell Equations can bear, and so I also have made silly comments. So I am also guilty of silliness.

Google's archives are topheavy in hatespew from searchengine 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 electrondotcloud are galaxies



