Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

There is no doubt that many who believe they are physicists have lost their way and are so absolutely clueless about the foundations of physics that they don't even know the meaning of a fundamental theory.

 

Now compare that to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:

 

"If geometry is to serve as a model for the treatment of physical axioms, we shall try first by a small number of axioms to include as large a class as possible of physical phenomena, and then by adjoining new axioms to arrive gradually at the more special theories. ...The mathematician will have also to take account not only of those theories coming near to reality, but also, as in geometry, of all logically possible theories. He must be always alert to obtain a complete survey of all conclusions derivable from the system of axioms assumed." David Hilbert, International Congress of Mathematicians, Paris France, 1900.

 

Shubee

The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1

Posted

Shubee, I don't see how anyone could look at the equation f = MC^2/h and not conclude that all matter is made of a waveform or waveforms. Due to the experiment in 99 at the Stanford linear accelerator I think the proton is made of four of the positive going electric components of the wave and four of the positive going magnetic components of the wave. The opposite of this would be the anti-proton. The mass would be determined by the frequency. The same scenario would be true for the electron positron.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...