- #1

- 31

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

In the book, 'Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time: A New Approach to Unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics', the author, Laurent Nottale, makes a few interesting comments in the introduction of his book which seems a bit unclear to me.

In the general introduction of the book, Nottale reveals to the reader that the present foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theories are founded on axiomatic postulates and rules, as compared to experimental derivation.

I brought this to the attention of one of my undergraduate physics professors, and he shook his head vigorously and commented on how stupid it is that only one of those ways is preferred, rather than utilizing both. Unfortunately, our conversation was cut short. In addition, I feel he may be a bit biased in that question, considering his background in fractional calculus.

My question is this: Is there a preference in the academic community towards one of those ways of founding knowledge compared to the other? If so, why?

Thank you for your time.

In the general introduction of the book, Nottale reveals to the reader that the present foundation of relativistic quantum mechanics and quantum field theories are founded on axiomatic postulates and rules, as compared to experimental derivation.

I brought this to the attention of one of my undergraduate physics professors, and he shook his head vigorously and commented on how stupid it is that only one of those ways is preferred, rather than utilizing both. Unfortunately, our conversation was cut short. In addition, I feel he may be a bit biased in that question, considering his background in fractional calculus.

My question is this: Is there a preference in the academic community towards one of those ways of founding knowledge compared to the other? If so, why?

Thank you for your time.