Modern Physics: Are You Really Serious in Your Scholarship?

This paper compares the scholarly methods of modern physics with our own. Modern physics is highly rigorous in form and extremely precise in experiment, but it exhibits a systematic avoidance when it comes to questioning fundamental issues. It accepts the wavefunction without asking what geometric structure it represents; it accepts the imaginary unit i without asking for its physical origin; it accepts Planck's constant h without asking why it takes its specific numerical value; it accepts symmetry assumptions without asking whether symmetry is necessary. In contrast, we start from three postulates, give every symbol a geometric definition, support every step of derivation with postulates, and produce testable predictions for every conclusion. But we also explicitly acknowledge: our postulates are assumptions, not proven truths; we are ignorant of what lies deeper; we may be wrong, and we are willing to revise. This paper does not attempt to disparage the achievements of modern physics, but rather to point out: its seriousness in form is high, but its seriousness in fundamentals is low. At the same time, we declare: we do not claim to have discovered absolute truth; we are builders of a testable framework built on clearly stated assumptions. Keywords: scholarly method, modern physics, geometric definition, postulate-based derivation, origin of symbols, honest declaration