dear dieu tat le, please please read my essay posted just above yours because you will get your answer for your question...

...well...you keep switching indefinable and undefinable and my dictionary says they mean the same thing.

It is certainly the case that the 3rd Ed. of Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) uses more confusing terminology than the 13th Ed. It is simply very confusing to say that a fundamental quantity is indefinable and then go on to say that it is defined by rules of measurement. Doesn't that mean it is definable after all.

Knowing your dictionary is very important for my making any sense out of what you write and I would encourage you to publish a dictionary of terms whenever you find that your definition is different from the standard dictionary. I suspect that many others have trouble making sense out of what you write, but I do think there is some value in your intuitive approach and in your evident desire to better understand the universe.

It is interesting to me when very intelligent people seem to get lost in deep recursions of identities. Okay...S&Z physics defines mass, length, and time fundamental quantities, which means that only rules of measurement define them. All other quantities are secondary quantities that derive from the fundamental quantities.

You like to use the term indefinable for these defined quantities, which is a self contradiction that confuses me, but I have it now listed in your dictionary.

Then you believe that you have revealed a truth missed by S&Z and all of science that length and time actually define mass. Your argument is that the ratio of force to acceleration is what defines mass and that both force and acceleration derives from just length and time as well.

Whew!

That was probably more difficult than it needed to be. Fundamentally what you are saying is that although science finds it convenient to use the three axioms of mass, length, and time to define all other constants, you have found a way to define mass as well as all constants with just length and time by also using F = ma to define mass.

The definition of axioms means that all constants derive from axioms and that includes axioms as well. This means that it is always true that by definition, two axioms necessarily define the third and so you are correct in your statement that mass derives from length and time...but only with the proper measurement rules of time.

This is true for any set of axioms and so it is the case that mass derives from action and time as well. In fact, when it comes to the quantum nature of the universe, mass and action are very useful conjugate axioms since time is often problematic. Length and time turn out to be less useful since time's rules of measurement are problematic. It is more usual for science to use length and momentum as quantum conjugates and that will persist until quantum decoherence as quantum phase noise also becomes a part of time's definition.

There are undoubtedly those who are wondering how in the world can length and time define mass. It has to do with how science defines length and time...with the energy of light.

So definitions of both length and time implicitly incorporate h nu, which is then normalized out as a wavelength to get length or a frequency to get time. Since h nu / c^2 = mass, both length and time definitions implicitly carry the definition of mass as the third axiom, just as logic implies.

So there is nothing wrong in this approach in defining mass with length and time...as long as it is useful in predicting the futures of sources. And this approach is really not that difficult to understand or explain, either.

You are correct that some dictionaries will circularly define undefinable as being indefinable. I will concede that victory to you.

However, Merriam Webster defines indefinable as: "impossible to describe or explain."

Merriam Webster then defines undefinable as: "unable to be defined or precisely described: indefinable * a seemingly undefinable term"

They contradict themselves.

A "seemingly" undefinable term is a term that may, with additional knowledge, become definable.

The word indefinable, as applied by Sears and Zemansky, to length and time means: Impossible to define. The inclusion of mass as a third indefinable property of mechanics is both a choice and a guess. It is guessed that either force or mass must be accepted as a third indefinable property of mechanics. Mass is chosen instead of force. There is no choice to be made for length and time. They are undeniably indefinable according to the rule that a physics property must be defined in terms of pre-existing properties. There are no properties that pre-exist length and time. However, there are properties that pre-exist both force and mass. There is a need for two similar descriptions that acknowledge this difference. The word indefinable means: Impossible to define. The word undefinable means: A property is "seemingly" indefinable, i.e., it is not known how to define a property for which there is some reason to think that it should be definable. In the case of mass, the pre-existence of length and time give reason to think that it might be definable even though it is not known how to define it. Therefore, it is not correct to label it as "indefinable".

S.A.:"It is certainly the case that the 3rd Ed. of Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) uses more confusing terminology than the 13th Ed. It is simply very confusing to say that a fundamental quantity is indefinable and then go on to say that it is defined by rules of measurement. Doesn't that mean it is definable after all."

Where does it say that? The quote I provided says:

Quoting Sears and Zemansky: "Physicists from all over the world have international committees at whose meetings the rules of measurement of the indefinables are adopted. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition. ..."

When a physicist cannot define a property, they cannot explain that property. They can say how they measure a property. The rule for measuring the property is not a definition of that property. It does not explain to us what that property is. All that the rule for measuring accomplishes is to tell how much of the undefined property you have. The rule for measuring an indefinable takes the place of a definition only when there is no definition. The rule for measuring a property does not become a definition by default.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #1866

"There are undoubtedly those who are wondering how in the world can length and time define mass. It has to do with how science defines length and time...with the energy of light.

"So definitions of both length and time implicitly incorporate h nu, which is then normalized out as a wavelength to get length or a frequency to get time. Since h nu / c^2 = mass, both length and time definitions implicitly carry the definition of mass as the third axiom, just as logic implies."

" ... is then normalized out ..." is where I say that a slight-of-hand, non-mathematical type of theoretical maneuver occurs. Repeating this part:

"...definitions of both length and time implicitly incorporate h nu, which is then normalized out as a wavelength to get length or a frequency to get time."

Could you please show, mathematically, those of us who are "wondering" how h nu "is normalized out as a wavelength"?

James Putnam

Your work has shown how normal physics like S&Z mass, length, and time have the same logic as other trimal axioms like matter, action, and time. It never occurred to me that this is true, but it certainly is.

The math time = 1/nu defines time while the math r = c/nu defines length. Since nu is embedded in each of these definitions, mass emerges from time as just mass = h/time/c^2 while mass emerges from length as mass = h/r/c. Once you use light to define time and length, mass is already there, which is what you have said. While this is true, it is still not really clear that this is that useful.

...and of course, once you have mass, you have force and so on from the proportionality between light and energy.

"The math time = 1/nu defines time ... "

Nu is cycles/second. 1/nu is seconds per cycle. Please show the mathematical justification for writing time = 1/nu? What was the step that introduced time into the equation on the left side of the equals sign instead of a symbol for 'period'. Period being the length of time that a cycle takes to complete itself. Are you suggesting that any period of cyclic activity is actually a definition of time? It tells us what time is? It appears that you are substituting a rule for measurement in place of a definition and calling that rule a definition.

What you see on your oscilloscope or computer is a picture of a clock's cycles with respect to a change of position along one or more cycles of a second 'clock'. The form in the picture is not a plot of the rate of time changing, but plotted as the change in the 'reading' of a 'clock' with respect to the change of a point's-position moving along a picture of one or more cycles of a second clock.

Your equation places the word 'time' where the symbolic letter 't' should be seen. That 't' is not a symbol for the non-measurable, undefined, unexplained property of time. Time has never been directly represented in physics equations. In spite of your slipping the word time into your equation, You do not have a direct representation of the property of time on the left side of your equation. You haven't defined anything. You do have a rule for measuring 'duration'. The units of duration are seconds/cycle. Seconds are officially a count of a number of cycles of the vertically scaled clock. You do not get to arbitrarily, meaning you have no supporting empirical evidence to justify your claim that your equation is about 'time', insert the word time into yours or any physics equation.

James Putnam

These are operational definitions just as S&Z state in the 13th Ed. just because mass, length, and time are all axioms. Science simply has to believe in the measurement rules using light to define all three.

I should have also mentioned that practically speaking, science can measure the mass of light as momentum, but the IPK is still more precise. The new watt balance that is mentioned in the article will replace the IPK and will weigh the power in a superconducting loop of electrons. In essence, this will define mass by weighing temperature instead of weighing the IPK.

You are correct in that light defines all three, but practical measurement precision means that mass needs an operational definition that necessarily brings in other quantities. You need to consider the limitations of practical measurement precision, not just how mass derives from length and time...

Sears and Zemansky 13th ed.

Summary of Chapter ! (page 26):

"Physical quantities and units: Three fundamental physical quantities are mass, length, and time. The corresponding basic SI units are the kilogram, the meter, and the second. Derived units for other physical quantities are products or quotients of the basic units. ... "

'Physical quantities' means the modern authors are speaking of rules of measurement. "Derived units for other physics quantities ..." means the same authors are speaking of a derivation process which is not the same as citing rules of measurement.

(Going back to pages 4 & 5)

"Some physical quantities are so fundamental that we can define them only by describing how to measure them. Such a definition is called an operational definition. Two examples are measuring a distance by using a ruler and measuring a time interval by using a stopwatch. In other cases we define a physical quantity by describing how to calculate it from other quantities that we can measure."

"Time

From 1889 until 1967, the unit of time was defined as a certain fraction of the mean solar day, the average time between successive arrivals of the sun at its highest point in the sky. The present standard, adopted in 1967, is much more precise. It is based on an atomic clock, which uses the energy difference between the two lowest energy states of the cesium atom. When bombarded by microwaves of precisely the proper frequency, cesium atoms undergo a transition from one of these states to the other. One second (abbreviated s) is defined as the time required for9,192,631,770 cycles of this microwave radiation (Fig. 1.3a)."

"Length

In 1960 an atomic standard for the meter was also established, using the wavelength of the orange-red light emitted by atoms of krypton in a glow discharge tube. Using this length standard, the speed of light in vacuum was measured to be 299,792,458 m s. In November 1983, the length standard was changed again so that the speed of light in vacuum was defined to be precisely 299,792,458 m s. Hence the new definition of the meter (abbreviated m) is the distance that light travels in vacuum in 1 299,792,458 second (Fig. 1.3b). This provides a much more precise standard of length than the one based on a wavelength of light."

[With no explanation there is a third "so fundamental" ... "physical quantitiy" introduced.]

"Mass

The standard of mass, the kilogram (abbreviated kg), is defined to be the mass of a particular cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures at Sèvres, near Paris (Fig. 1.4). An atomic standard of mass would be more fundamental, but at present we cannot measure masses on an atomic scale with as much accuracy as on a macroscopic scale. The gram (which is not a fundamental unit) is 0.001 kilogram."

I knew textbooks had changed by becoming less rigorous. This introduction not only lacks rigor, but, is deliberately claiming it has presented material that it has not presented.

From the summary: "Three fundamental physical quantities are mass, length, and time."

Mass was not introduced as a fundamental physical quantity. It was placed, without explanation, following the "operational definitions" of length and time. It was given, by placement alone, the appearance of being associated with length and time. Length and time are the names used by physicists of the two properties of empirical evidence. Those two properties " ... are so fundamental that we can define them only by describing how to measure them." (The word define is an example of the adoption of layperson type of terminology.) There is not a third property involved in communicating empirical evidence. Mass is not associated with length and time. It is not a property that is " ... so fundamental that we can define it only by describing how to measure it. " It is associated with all other properties of mechanics that are learned from empirical evidence and must receive their definitions in terms of the only two fundamental physical quantities limited to being represented by their rules of measurement, length and time. The equation f/m=a gives us guidance that empirical evidence shows that the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. The properties of acceleration are length and time because acceleration is the form that empirical evidence arrives in. The 'a' in f/m=a is the empirical evidence.

James Putnam

How Dark Matter Creates Objects' Inertia

While revisiting Newton laws of motion, especially the First one --"An object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force " - I stumbled upon this question:

What makes objects REMAIN AT REST? And how is it done? Or more specific: What creates Inertia, the resistant force of any physical object to any changes, in its state of motion?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-dark-matter-creates-objects-inertia-dieu-le?published=tAttachment #1: How_Dark_Matter_Creates_Inertia.pdf

    QUANTUM GRAVITATION....ZERO ABSOLUTE....SINGULARITIES....

    This quantum weakest force is really fascinating.Like if this gravity correlated with this cold permitted to electromagnetic forces of our baryons to be balanced with heat.If we consider a gravitational aether form the cosmological singularity,we see that our standard model is encircled by this cold gravitation.Paradoxally when we fractalise the main spherical volume,we have a serie of spherical volumes ,primoridal implying that we have forces stronger than nuclear gluonic forces and also weaker due to particles of gravitation encoded weaker than photons.It is there that it becomes relevant because we have the road towards this entire infinite paradoxal entropy ,the singularity,gravitational.The cold dark matter if it exists is probably these particles of gravitation.And if they exist so they are produced by something,I see only one solution, the BHs in the cold also.Like if the universe and its singularity and its seriesz primordial was a relative photo of our quantum serie, gravitational and primoridal from the quantum singularities.Like if all was coded and continued to encode in a pure evolutive increasing mass.If it is the case and that my Equantim E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² is correct we must even recalculate the mass of matters and the correlated proportional energy.Because we must insert this cold not baryonic matter simply.The other relevance is that these waves of gravitation are speeder than c and not constant because proportional with the Vol of BH where they are produced.We can easily in seeing the whole of the universe and with intuition that the aether is a gravitational sphere tending to infinity encircling others gravitational aether due to spherical volules and that the luminiferous aether is just a photonic sphere.Our Big Bang must be rethought also at my humble opinion.The dark energy can be seen like an anti gravitational primordial push necessary for God to create the balance in the future due to this increasing mass.This push is spherical and the aether is gravitational.The gravitational aethere from the singularity, the gravit aetehrs and the luminiferous aether so are Under this spherisation by quantum and cosm UD sphères baryonic and not baryonic if I can say.This cosmological singularity, the biggest BH where all turns around is the secret of all...All quantum singularities dance around it....

    Steve Agnew,

    "Okay, I think that I finally have a handle on your revealed truth. Sears and Zemansky (S&Z) is a standard physics textbook now in its 14th edition although the one you quote is the 3rd Ed. The 13th S&Z no longer uses the awkward terminology that ends up defining indefinable quantities."

    I find that at no time did the 3rd edition end up " ... defining indefinable quantities." However, I have read the introduction from the 3rd edition several times since last communicating. I do see that the 3rd edition is not clear about saying that which I say is meant. While it seems clear to me that 'indefinable' means, for Sears and Zemansky, that a property cannot be defined, they do not actually say what I say. One way of saying what I say is: A property that is definable is a property that has units that can be and must be expressed in terms of pre-existing units. In practice, I find that they do this, but, you are correct that their wording is awkward, and, my quote from them is not sufficient support for my position. Since they did not clearly say so, I say that: A definable property is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing properties; and, a definable unit is one that is expressible in terms of pre-existing units. I acknowledge that, from your intelligent perspective, when you disagree you are disagreeing with me. Good luck in the contest. I have read your essay but will not be rating it until the last few minutes of the contest. The one votes never run out of their supply, but, they can will out of time.

    James Putnam

    Strangely enough, I finally understand what you mean and the discourse has taught me a lot. I did not have S&Z, but rather Feynman's I, II, and III were my undergraduate texts along with Kittel for thermo and some other text for E&M.

    Oxymorons like defining indefinables are like making nothing into something and is all too common in physics as well as humanity. The main point is not that there are no indefinables, which I call axioms, but rather that it is possible to have many different sets of axioms. The set that you choose is simply the ones that are useful for predicting the futures of sources that interest the observer.

    Hi Zeeya Merali and all of FQXi,

    I Think I made a calculation that is rather eye opening. I can calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR.

    see: http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163

    I believe it is free to download. If not let me know: don.limuti@gmail.com

    This work is also available on my website www.digitalwavetheory.com (but not as cleanly expressed).

    This work provides a model of both dark matter and dark energy (IMHO). This is not a complex paper (just unbelievable), understandable to any high school student.

    Is GR wrong.....I do not believe so, but something is going on, and it would be very cool if FQXi participants can figure out this very interesting puzzle.

    Check this out.

    Don Limuti

    PS: Steve, You will like these humongous gravitons even if they aren't spheres :)

      lol Don,

      Indeed I like.We search tO unify these unknown infact, the dark energy, the dark matter, the quantum gravitation,the BHs.I ask me if we must consider this quantum gravity like bosonic or not in fact.I consider the quantum gravity like a not emergent electromagnetic force.It is a big puzzle.We shall check it one day this quantum weakest force.The cold and dark matter seem the answer.

      Thanks for sharing Don,

      Best

      If we analyse the problem in its generality.We know that we have a problem with this weakest quantyum force etending to infinity if Ican say.The fact to consider that this force is an emergent electromagnetic force impies a problem of equivalence.We have also a problem with the newtoniam motion of galaxies ,that is why Zwicky has inserted this dark matter that I consider in the cold for the equilibrium with thermo and electromagntism.Now if we consider that this matter is produced by supermassive BHs central to galaxies and that we have a serie of BHs towards the central main spherical volume, the cosmological singularity in fact,so we have a superimposing of gravitational aethers Inside the gravitational primordial aether tending to infinity.The problem so is solved when we insert also quantum BHs with the same relative logic considering the serie of uniquenss towards the singularities.We have so forces stronger than nuclear forces due to these quant BHs and we have also particles of gravitation encoded weaker than electromagnetic forces and photons.That permits to encircle the standard model by the cold gravitation.That balances the system.The gravitons are bosons and are interesting if we consider them like an other boson explaining the GR.The particles of gravitation them are speeder in logic than c and the bosons and gravitons them are Under c.That implies that if they are a reality these gravitons, so they are simply bosons of our GR.But they cannot in logic explains the quantum gravity due to these speeds.That said if they are bosons photons, it is relevant to analyse them for a better understanding of our GR and special relativity.But if we want to check the quantum gravity we must utilise a other reasoning it seems to me humbly.What a big puzzle Don :)

      Steve,

      Thanks for responding. Here is the reason we miss the quantum nature of gravity.

      1. The standard model of a graviton considers it to be a subatomic particle. It isn't!

      2. Gravitons connects two masses separated by the distance d. The distance d is the wavelength of the graviton. Using the Planck Einstein equation gives the energy of the graviton as: E = hc/d for a single graviton.

      3. A single graviton's energy can also be expressed as E = mc2.

      4. hc/d = mc2 Gives the mass of a single graviton as m = h/cd

      This is a weak skinny long string. We cannot detect it because its wavelength d exceeds all our instruments.

      Mercury and the Sun are connected by many such gravitons. This graviton bundle provides the force of gravity, and it also contributes some mass of its own.

      How do I know that this is not BS? Because I can use this unanticipated graviton mass to calculate the precession of Mercury. That is what the paper is all about.

      Quantum gravity has been missed because it is too simple!

      I am posting here to see if others can see a way of testing this theory and if it can fit with GR.

      This is new, and I would not expect there to be much agreement since there are a lot of competing theories.

      Wishing you all the best,

      Don Limuti

      You are welcome,I have always liked read your general ideas.

      I am understanding your line of reasoning.I beleive that this graviton in your work is a boson with a mass calculated baryonic.

      I beleive that if GR and these gravitons are correlated with the wavelenghts,so it is a new particle of our standard model but I don't beleive that it explains our quantum gravity.

      This force seems really not baryonic.That said if you are right about these gravitons correlated with the GR ,it is relevant for a better undertsnading of this relativity and the effects of mass on the space time.

      It is a wonderful tool for the taxonomy and ranking of our evolutive universe.

      This dark matter and this quantum gravity are probably linked and this cold permitting to balance seems important when we analyse the whole of our universe and the singularities and main primoridal codes .

      If this Dark matter exists, so it is produced by something in fact?And when we correlate the cold and BHs and singularities ,that becomes relevant considering the road towards the entire infinite entropy and the eternity even.The photons are not in logic the main piece of puzzle.The quantum of E, primordial seems gravitational and not electromagnetic,thermodynamic.

      The photon is a photon because it is coded in its singularity by this gravity.The spherons if they exist them are probably the answer.The relevance is to consider a serie for these spherons.It is paradoxal because we have a road towards this infinite force present in all at this paradoxal infinity.The photon so is a spheron coded possessing a serie ,finite of spherical volumes in my theory and that this gravity permit to electromagntism to be like it is simply.

      The relevance is to consider these quantum BHs also.These forces tend also to infinity pardoxally when we consider the central sphères, the singularities,the biggest volumes ,coded by the cosmological singularity.

      The zero absolute and the heat are in a dance of evolution by rotating 3D sphères in fact.It is a little like if I said that the gravitational singularities encoded the gravitational informations ,spheronic and photonic.We see that all is Under this main chief orchestra the gravitation at all scales....

      Regards

      Steve,

      The long stringy particle I am proposing (the graviton) comes in chunks of energy as per the Planck-Einstein equation, however it is not a photon and is not bosonic because of its "spin" (aka the way it moves). Photons can be considered to propagate in a straight line, gravitons hop back and forth.....they have a different spin. See:

      http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/29_Visualizing_Spin.html

      What are the dimensions of your spherical thingies and how do they move?

      You have a large sphere of influence,

      Don Limuti