That was a very clear explanation, thank you. However, I still have questions:

1)Are you proposing that the electrons are always colliding with virtual particles?

2)You also believe that these particles are not matter at all? But that these particles are something which we don't understand? Well if they are not matter, and if they are something which we don't understand than they are super-natural? They are magic particles?

Regardless I don;t think you understand how that this causes the original problem to shift. Lets pretend that the magic particles are responsible for the matter which we do understand, this only begs the question: Where do the magic particles come from?


Quote:
In an atom, the space between the nucleus and the electrons should not be empty
This has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt
The orbit of the electrons can be exactly calculated assuming that they collide with some " virtual " particles along their path


I have never heard of such a proof, where is the original source of this?

Quote:
Finally , you may read the " Elegant universe " by Brian Green
It is focused on the string theory ( an umproven theory ) but the authors explains also in detail, the Heisemberg's principle
I will take the time to do this Alberto, but I hope it illuminates some of the ideas you wish to promote.
Quote:
Physics, chemestry, bio etc on the contrary are based on real facts
Physics and chemistry are based on mainly real facts, but biology, especially evolution, is based upon many facts which cannot be verified. Computer science is also a science which is very much based upon real facts--more so than physics or chemistry. When I first went to school a couple of years ago I was originally interested in biology, but I have since found too much uncertainty in the field, recently I have switched to computer science because I want to program computers, I am also majoring in mathematics so that I can understand 3d graphics programming. I find math and computer science very satisfying because there is little place for people's subjective opinions.


Quote:
When a mathematician claims that a theorem is true he actually means that it is consistent with the initial assumptions i.e. with the rules of the game
Not at all, most of the proofs that I read have nothing to do with axioms, those proofs which include simple geometry postulates are really just for high school geometry class.


But there is one major error in your posts. You keep talking about math based upon fundamental postulates, but those fundamental postulates are all based upon common sense and intuition, so your entire theory that we must abandon intuition and common sense undermines all the initial postulates of mathematics. Ultimately all of mathematics is based upon common sense and intuition and logic, therefore there is no reason to believe in theories which abandon common sense.