 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Axiomatizations by means of a set-theoretic predicate abound in philosophy of science but are omitted in this article. Maybe a reference should be added.
For reference, see the work of Patrick Suppes, J.J.C. McKinsey, Joseph Sneed, Wolfgang Stegmüller.
Claude: These ideas do not pertain to physics, so they should not be cited in this article, in my view. --ClaudeDes (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schiller, whoever he is, is certainly not comparable to Hilbert, Noether, Wightman, or Haag. The reference is to unpublished, unrefereed material. Finally, it is a mere proposal, and does not deserve mention in an encycopedia article even if he really has or will solve the problem tomorrow. 69.157.56.61 (talk)
The first glaring problem I encountered is in quote of the problem: almost always when "already" is the product of a translation from the German, the translator has bungled their task. (Even worse is "already today", lol) Mary Winston Newson's (author approved) 1902 translation (http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1902-08-10/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3/S0002-9904-1902-00923-3.pdf), page 454 is exactly the same as the above except it correctly excludes the "already today". Not having bothered to read the original Deutsch, I don't know if a "now", "currently", or "today" would be more appropriate than nothing, but my guess is Dr. Newson's work should be considered (for the non-German English speaker) definitive. My recommendation is: remove the "already today" in the lede and insert the reference citation. Additionally, rather than belaboring the point with the inclusion of the second quote, I recommend that that quote be deleted - it adds no clarity to the lede in my opinion. It would be better to describe what a formal axiomatic system is, and perhaps why Physics was identified as needing such a foundation. The second problem is describing Hilbert's contributions to his problems after 1900. How were his contributions more significant that the host of others: why is it mentioned so prominently (and at length)? Surely, the importance of Hilbert's 23(24) problems doesn't rest on the question of whether or not he personally contributed to their resolution? The third problem is in describing Emmy Noether as his assistant...it is technically correct (1915-1919) but diminishes her importance as one of the most important people in 20th Century physics. Was she acting as his (secretarial) assistant? I doubt. The fourth problem involves moving the goal posts: why on earth would special (1905) or general (1915) relativity or quantum mechanics (1923...) or quantum field theory be included as subjects here? They do not follow from the known Physics of 1900 (arguably). The last problem is the weasle phrases:" Dirac formulated quantum mechanics in a way that is close to an axiomatic system" and "modern quantum field theory can be considered close to an axiomatic description". "close to"?? like being pregnant is "close to" being not pregnant? I challenge anyone to point out any physics known in 1900 (that is established as part of Classical physics) which has not been axiomatized. That is, it is my understanding that THE Classical Physics problem to which Problem 6 refers is complete. Thats it for now.173.189.79.42 (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The early reference to semantic analysis of the notion of physical reality and Gorban is not only tendentious, but a confusion of levels. The model for what Hilbert intended was his own axiomatisation of Geometry, which he regarded (see Corry) as a part of Physics. There was no semantical analysis there. To call for a semantical analysis here is a confusion of levels. Certainly Hilbert was interested in the notion of reality and existence, as his correspondence with Frege shows. But that is a different level. Syntax is not semantics. Axiomatics ignores all semantical issues.
Although Gorban's work is, without doubt, interesting, it is tendentious to bring it up so soon in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.189.209 (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
or Everettian gravity resulting from many partial collapses which appear overally like Newtonian gravity due to the theory of large numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1E4C:B1CD:5E5B:5D0B:33E4 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A false theory which claims that the many worlds interpretation "shapes" gravity if many "partial collapses of the wave function" happen. The collapses are random within their predicted range, but because they are many, gravity gradually appears normal in bigger orders of magnitude (size and longer time durations).
It is a junk theory. Very complicated, but it has to be mentioned. A failed theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1E4C:B1CD:5E5B:5D0B:33E4 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
______
Partial collapse and uncollapse of a wavefunction - University ...intra.ece.ucr.edu › ~korotkov › presentations › 10-UCR
PDF
University of California, Riverside. Alexander Korotkov. Partial collapse and uncollapse of a wavefunction: theory and experiments. (what is “inside” collapse). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:1E4C:B1CD:5E5B:5D0B:33E4 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
