Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: how much better physics would be with Axiom set -- Maxwell Equations
#1214 New Physics #1334 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,539
Registered: 3/31/08
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
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply


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) black-holes
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 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



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.