Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: comparing the history of axioms in mathematics and physics #1221 New
Physics #1341 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Feb 13, 2013 10:53 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 7,388 Registered: 3/31/08
comparing the history of axioms in mathematics and physics #1221 New
Physics #1341 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 12, 2013 2:27 AM

axioms for Physics 2012; axioms for geometry ancient Greeks; axioms
for algebra 1860's

Now let us do some history lessons about a science and having the
smarts and intelligence to ground the science in a axiom set.

Geometry started out in Ancient Greek times with the recognition that
it needed a axiom set in order to prove things for that science of
geometry, and by doing so, laying the axiomatic foundation of geometry
so long ago, that geometry became the most advanced science in both
mathematics and physics. So advanced was geometry that by 1830's the
Euclidean axioms developed the Non-Euclidean geometry. In other words,
if geometry had not been a science based on axioms, we would not have

Geometry is an example of a science that starts with a axiom set, but
Algebra is an example of a science that had no axiom set until the
axioms of the Natural Numbers of 1860s. So before 1860s, Algebra was
mostly a loose collection of a lot of rules and topics not connected
into a whole. Algebra before axioms was compartmental.

Now let us look at Physics. It has never had a axiom set over all of
physics and it has suffered tremendously because it is today a vast
array of unconnected compartmental vagaries and irrelevancies.
Remember the saying that a "horse is a camel, designed by a
committee". That is the state of affair of Physics by 2012. When
Physics does not have a axiom set, then it has thousands of cranks and
crackpots with their pet theory in our (your) face.
Without axioms for physics, then Hawking can peddle his pet crankery
of dense matter going into black-hole, or Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer
can peddle their crankery of electrons joining up in pairs, or Peter
Higgs can peddle his crankery of a boson that creates mass, or Gell-
Mann and Weinberg can peddle crankery of quarks and Standard Model.
And a huge list of so-called physicists peddling whatever it is they
like and cherish at the moment and peddle it as if it is physics, when
in truth, it is just they silly idiosyncratic like and pleasure, not
science.

When you have a axiom set on the subject of physics, you are not
allowed to violate or trespass beyond the tenets of those axioms.

Physics could have established the Maxwell Equations as the axioms of
physics, just as Number theory started the axioms in the 1860s which
ended up as the Peano axioms for the Natural Numbers and gave algebra
a firm foundation.

But physicists were not bright enough, not clear nor logical enough in
the 20th century, a century where any foolish crank and crackpot could
bowl over the entire physics community with their silly and stupid
ideas. They could do it because there was no axiom set to raise alarm
that they were beyond true physics.

If the Maxwell Equations had been seen as the axiom set, then we would
not have had a black hole theory, nor a Big Bang theory, nor quarks,
strings, BCS theory, Standard Model, Higgs boson and numerous other
nonsense. We would now be not burdened by all that worthless nonsense
because all of those items violated the Maxwell Equations.

If geometry had never started with Euclid axioms and polished into the
Hilbert axioms and the nonEuclidean geometries, then geometry would be
similar to the state and condition that Physics finds itself in by
2013. In geometry without axioms we would have horoscopes as geometry,
or we would have rapp-geometry (similar to rapp-music). And today's
physics, because physics has no axiom set to control it, is best
described as rapp-physics for it is so poor in truth content, that it
is like being in music class, not physics class. "Let me sing you a
song..."

Now it is not as bad of a picture as I painted above of Physics. Even
though Physics has never had a axiom set, per se, plainly in view,
that Physics as had a tacit, hidden, underlying axiom set. I speak of
the "units measure" pervading physics. The units of force,
acceleration, velocity, momentum, angular momentum, energy, distance,
time, and other units.

Ever since Ancient Greek times to 2012, physics has had a hidden axiom
set that imposed its logic upon physicists of "Units Measure", but
that axiom set needs to be replaced by a far better axiom set. In year
2012, I realized as the first physicist, that the Maxwell Equations,
the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations is the axiom set over all of
Physics.
We need to add a fifth axiom that says all the facts of Chemistry is
the 5th axiom.

Now what a axiom set does for physics, is that it not only eliminates
the shenanigans of nonsense of Standard Model, Higgs boson, quarks,
strings, black holes and Big Bang etc etc. But a Maxwell Equations
axioms instantly unifies all of physics and all the forces of physics.

So where early 1900s physicists were looking to unify the 4 forces and
unify thermodynamics to other physics, that immediately all is unified
since the Maxwell Equations derives all things of physics (along with
the Chemistry axiom).

So my point in this post, is to paint the broad wide picture of the
history of science. That a science without an axiom set, is a science
that is riff with nonsense and polluted with crankery and
crackpottery.

--

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

Date Subject Author
2/12/13 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
2/13/13 bacle