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: when a science is run by axioms, not by idiosyncratic cranks of
physics; are there 10^603 magnetic monopoles? #1224 New Physics #1344 ATOM

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
when a science is run by axioms, not by idiosyncratic cranks of
physics; are there 10^603 magnetic monopoles? #1224 New Physics #1344 ATOM

Posted: Feb 12, 2013 5:18 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Now if we examine the history of the axiom system of geometry in
mathematics, we realize that the two NonEuclidean geometries would not
have come about without axioms, because it is easy to pinpoint the
error of the Euclidean axiom of parallel lines. So that it was a
mistake in the parallel axiom itself.

Now using that fact for the Maxwell Equations as axioms, we can
understand that the equations without magnetic monopoles is another
error of axioms. And just because the illogical physicists for the
most of the physics community of the 20th century were illogical
bards, just because they were ignorant of axiom systems and how they
keep a science community logically sound in mind and experiment, that
they ended up deleting magnetic monopoles and wanted experimental
proof of magnetic monopoles.

Now we cannot blame Maxwell for deleting magnetic monopoles, because
Maxwell never knew of the neutrino. But in the 20th century, the
neutrino was available about 1930s and for the next 70 years or more,
a logical physicist should have recognized that the neutrino was the
magnetic monopoles.

Unfortunately, physics in that 70 years was so filled up with kook and
propaganda physics of Standard Model, that there was not a hope or
prayer for any physicist to shuck that propaganda for which they had
been fed. Especially when you anoint kook physics with several Nobel
prizes. By year 2013, the Nobel prize is running a batting average of
more fake and fiction physics rather than true physics. There is a
greater chance of physics fakery being awarded each year now than a
chance that the award goes for something true and lasting physics.

When you have the true physics of Radioactivity, then, since it is the
true physics, you are able to use the Maxwell Equations to begin to
tell the mean life, and half life of radioactive nuclei. Something
that the fakery of the Standard Model with its silly claim of Weak to
EM unification never was able to do, and in fact, it never predicted
anything. The Nobel prize in physics has become a kook award in

But let me mention one other fact about Axiom systems because in
mathematics the great house of geometry has the best axiom system
ever, except for now, in that the Maxwell Equations is a far better
axiom system for all of Physics and because mathematics is a subset of
physics, that the Maxwell Equations subsumes the geometry axioms. In
other words, in the future going forwards, we are able to derive the
axioms of geometry and number theory right out of the Maxwell
Already, in a prior post of mine, I was able to show how to derive
both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations by a summation of terms of
the 4 Maxwell Equations.

But math has a second house called Number theory or Algebra and it
never had its axioms until starting around 1860s and culminating with
the Peano axioms. The Peano axioms have a major flaw, just as the
geometry axioms had the error or flaw of the parallel postulate which
when fixed allowed the NonEuclidean geometries. The flaw of the Peano
axioms, its major flaw, is that it never relates the boundary between
finite and infinite. Number theory has constant incessant chatter
about finite and infinite, yet these illogical bards never had the
mental acuity to seek that borderline. I discovered that boundary some
years back to be where pi digits have three zero digits in a row,
about 10^603 as the borderline between finite and infinite.

Now, since Physics is the larger science than is mathematics and where
math is a subset of physics. I wonder if we get a number of 10^603 as
points in space for physics. So, I wonder if the Universe at large has
10^603 points comprising the total Universe. Those points would be
neutrinos as magnetic monopoles and thus there are 10^603 magnetic
monopoles for the total of Space. Mind you, there would be only say
10^80 or 10^160 electrons and protons. But they reside in a Universe
that requires at least 10^603 magnetic monopoles.

You see, when your science is not grounded in an axiom system, then
what happens is old codgers of men impose their own silly and stupid
idiosyncratic views upon that science, masquerading as the truth.
This is inevitable because the pressure by society as a whole is for
an explanation, and if there is no axiom system in between and in the
way of cranks telling the world how it runs and operates, then those
cranks are going to be honored and given Nobel prizes when they are
peddling fake physics.

When a science has axioms as the guiding light of their science,
chances are cranks and kooks are not going to intercede and impose
their fakeries on the rest of society. And with an axiom system in
guidance, chances are that the true physics is revealed and reported.


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.