*Reference: **A Logical Approach to Theoretical Physics*

It has been a while since any major contribution has been made to physical sciences in terms of fundamental theoretical research. It has not been easy to examine physical phenomena at the atomic levels. More mathematics is being demanded in modern scientific investigations in lieu of objective reality.

Newton used mathematics to “describe” the void, which could not be realistically described. Maxwell used mathematics to “describe” a postulated aether. Einstein used mathematics to “describe” space and time as mathematical objects. The increasing use of mathematics in quantum mechanics and particle physics has only served to further lose touch with reality.

Although Newtonian mechanics, the Electromagnetic theory, the theory of Relativity, and now Quantum mechanics and Particle physics predict remarkably verifiable results in selected areas, they are not integrated enough to predict verifiable results for all physical phenomena.

**The very fact that the fundamental theories of physics cannot be reconciled indicates that there are basic assumptions underlying physics that are inconsistent with reality.**

The subject of physics started out considering material substance moving in a complete void. It stumbled over the question: How do material objects influence each other across the void? Any influence requires contact. The void does not allow any contact.

From the study of electricity and magnetism arose the idea of invisible force fields that could transmit force. This idea of field has changed considerably from Faraday’s lines of force to Quantum physics’ abstract mathematical objects. But the interaction between matter and void has yet to be described realistically without using the prop of mathematical symbolism.

This book is written on the premise that physics is taking certain concepts for granted, which needs to be examined more closely. For example,

**What assumptions underlie the current ideas about matter and void that are hidden behind mathematical symbolism?**

.