Essay Abstract

If fundamental physics can be defined as axiomatic (deductive), then obviously the axioms are fundamental.

Author Bio

Former experimentalist, now obsessed with theoretical physics - relativity and thermodynamics.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Pentcho Valev,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Pentcho

Short, but meaningful. You nailed it with the quote from Einstein, and your follow-up was right on.

Best wishes,

Colin

    Dear Pentcho Valev,

    Yours is short and sweet and you lay the credit and the blame where it belongs: the axioms. I know you have interest in relativity, so I hope you might enjoy my analysis of Einstein's special relativity axioms. I would appreciate any comments you might have.

    Best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Pentcho,

    Short and sweet. Your statements are true. Nonetheless, I am disappointed. I was hoping for quite a bit more from you. It is one thing to identify what is wrong. It is another to offer a better solution. A forum such as FQXi is the perfect place for those alternative solutions.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

      This is the maximum possible heresy, Gary. In the 2012 contest I tried to introduce the following hypothesis:

      The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light.

      Things got nightmarish and I had to withdraw my essay.

      Pentcho

      Dear Vladimir,

      "Can there be a major axiom - "Axiom of axioms"?"

      I don't think so but still the answer to your question could be "yes", in an unexpected sense. There is a false axiom which, if introduced, can kill the whole branch of science called "physics". I'm not going to discuss this here - just a few quotations which, implicitly, do lead to this conclusion:

      "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much."

      "The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels."

      "...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

      Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

      Pentcho

      Pentcho,

      I sounds to me like you gave up too easily.

      FYI, Dr. Klingman has revisited the Hertz Equations to demonstrate that they are consistent under Galilean Transform.

      Also, I have shown (in a comment to Dr. Klingman) that a velocity quaternion

      V = c v

      where c is a scalar and v is a vector

      will produce the relativistic energy equation.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Dear Pencho,

      It looks like an essay is not finished.

      The essay contains meaningful Einstein quotation without any references.

      Regards,

      Ilgaitis

      Dear Cristinel Stoica,

      Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning.

      Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt to not just fabricate arbitrarily construced axioms like NBG, ZFC, etc. in mathematics but also to axiomize physics.

      I consider it more demanding work with little chance of reward to look for the primary embedding of chosen axioms into elementary logics from human perspective.

      Katz made me aware of an ignored by mathematicians decisive contradiction between the logical and the mathematical axiom of infinity.

      I tried to explain why I consider the assumptions causality and universal reality indispensable and so far confirmed by experience ones.

      Eckard Blumschein

      As usual, mathematicians will declare me wrong. The mathematical infinity was introduced by Leibniz and Bernoulli as something relative. Belonging set theory managed to hide the decisive contradiction to the compelling and older Archimedian reasoning: "There is no upper limit to counting".

      The so called axiom of infinity is just seemingly the same.

      The 7th axiom of ZFC claims:

      "There is a set U with the property 0 € U, A € U ==> A U {A} € U"

      The property correctly describes the Archimedian reasoning.

      What Dedekind called an axiom is hidden in the claim "There is a set U" in combination with the seven other intentionally fabricated axioms of ZFC.

      Eckard Blumschein

      Vladimir,

      Every expert knows the barber paradox and how it shocked Frege.

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      > "Pentcho Valev has a record of collecting quotes that are pointing to poorly understood issues rather than seriously contributing own reasoning."

      I don't judge essays by the previous achievements of their authors. You are free to express your own judgement and rate the essay accordingly. What I appreciated was the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established, but I think it is good to have an essay presenting this position in a clear and simple way.

      > "Here he lazily agrees with Hilbert's failed attempt [...] to axiomize physics."

      I didn't notice any reference to Hilbert's 1928 program, only to Einstein 1920.

      Was Hilbert's program a failed attempt? Yes and No. Yes, if we expect from axiomatics and formal proof (1) to allow one to give a finite length proof or disproof of any possible proposition that can be wrote in that system, and (2) to prove its own self-consistency. These won't work, as proved by Gödel. But axiomatics is not a failure, because each axiomatic theory can prove an infinite number of propositions in that system. The human reason can't go beyond this infinite anyway, so this may be enough, but even if this is not enough, it is the best we can have as finite beings. The same limitations apply to any sort of explanation we can construct using words. It's not a failure and it's not worthless. And Pentcho didn't make any controversial claims about (1) and (2).

      This being said, I am happy for his interest, and also for your interest in axiomatics and in Dedeking's views about set theory, and I don't see a problem here :)

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

      Cristinel Stoica wrote: "the simplicity of the argument, which may somehow be seen as implying that the contest's theme has a well established answer. I think it is far from being established"

      I agree, and this would have become evident if I had gone further and asked the following questions:

      Which of the theories in modern physics are axiomatic?

      Are the non-axiomatic theories not even wrong, as I suggest in the essay?

      I decided to avoid this discussion - laziness perhaps.

      Thanks, Cristi, for the good words.

      Pentcho

      Dear Cristinel,

      Hilbert's illusory program dealt exclusively with mathematics, see

      https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbertprogramm

      I should add, it only dealt with mathematics based on set theory, of course not necessarily Cantor's naive one. NBG stands for Neumann, Bernays, and Goedel. ZFC is more popular. There are others too, e.g. NF (new foundations).

      While I am a fan of the good old axioms as summarized by Euclid, I question the value of intentionally fabricated ones.

      When I wrote "Hilbert's failed attempt to axiomize physics", I refer to something else. Hilbert did even hope being in position to create corresponding axioms of physics. Unfortunately, I forgot where I read belonging details, maybe in the journal Physics in Perspective.

      When I a bit sloppy mentioned Dedekind who was G. Cantor's alley for a while, I mixed Dedekind's excuse for his unability to provide an evidence for his cut with the words "nobody can prove it, it is an axiom" (in his 1878) paper with the tricky maneuvers to rescue set theory in the 1920th.

      Having understood that the mathematical (relative) infinities are logically contradicting to the logical (absolute alias potential) infinity, I too have no problem with Dedekind anymore.

      I don't intend rating Pentcho's essay. When I critcize his notorious habit to back his own preferences with again and again repeated putatively matching quotes instead of having own arguments and dealing seriously with counterarguments, I am perhaps not wrong when I recall his utterances in discussions of other current essays, maybe by Schlafly?

      Best wishes,

      Eckard

      Prof Pentcho Valev

      Very nice thinking almost parallel with Dynamic Universe Model...."The wavelength of light at reception is always equal to the starting wavelength (at emission): λ' = λ. Therefore, in accordance with the formula f = c/λ, any measurement of the frequency shift is in fact a measurement of the shift in the speed of light."..............

      Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

      Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

      -No Isotropy

      -No Homogeneity

      -No Space-time continuum

      -Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

      -No singularities

      -No collisions between bodies

      -No blackholes

      -No warm holes

      -No Bigbang

      -No repulsion between distant Galaxies

      -Non-empty Universe

      -No imaginary or negative time axis

      -No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

      -No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

      -No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

      -No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

      -No many mini Bigbangs

      -No Missing Mass / Dark matter

      -No Dark energy

      -No Bigbang generated CMB detected

      -No Multi-verses

      Here:

      -Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

      -Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

      -All bodies dynamically moving

      -All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

      -Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

      -Single Universe no baby universes

      -Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

      -Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

      -UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

      -Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

      -Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

      -21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

      -Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

      -Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

      - Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

      I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

      Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

      In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

      I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

      Best

      =snp

      10 days later

      Pentcho,

      Quite brilliant. However ....are there not more questions?:

      Are our axioms correct? or flawed, so must we not think better to correct them?

      Do we need more fundamental axioms, then if so ..what?

      I think we do! to both. So OK the current axioms are fundamental to doctrine, but are they preventing advancement by causing us to ignore the real ones not yet derived?

      Anyway, top marks for concision (that's concise and precise I just invented that word)

      Good to see you still active.

      Peter

      ps. If you don't like to be shocked and amazed don't read my essay, or Declan Traill's with the proof by way of computer code and CHSH >2 plot.