Alternative Models of Reality

Thomas Ray

"The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally."

That would be negative mass. I think I covered this before. A massive particle of zero momentum has negative mass, by E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2.

James Putnam

In my previous message I presented he natural standard for mass:

"Now the big one, mass, without theory. Just as the speed of light always measures the same locally, so does its acceleration. The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally. The local acceleration of light is calculated as 1/C/tc = tc/C = 5.344x10-28sec2/m or kilograms. Its symbol is ml = one standard mass."

Now to put this into context:

Explaining the empirically defined property of mass. First, the units are formed directly from those of the empirical evidence. There were a few possible choices, but the one that makes physical sense and establishes a fundamental principle of conservation is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration.

The next step taken is to calculate 1/mass to obtain the magnitude of the associated acceleration. It is huge, but, that is because the calculation is per second. There is a far shorter time period when almost all of the acceleration occurs. First, I establish that the property that is undergoing the acceleration is light. It is matter's effect on the speed of light that establishes what matter is for us. On example is that light slows as it approaches a proton. Light also slows as it approaches an atom, but, that rate is far lower than for the lone proton.

One such property is the time it takes for light to travel the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. Another is the radius length of the hydrogen atom.

It is that length of 4.8x10-11 meters that is also the distance over which almost all of the acceleration of light occurs. Beyond that length, the acceleration is very small and continues to decrease with distance for the proton. The electron's effect on the speed of light is different from that of the proton. It will be covered separately in a later message.

James Putnam

pjackson

Tom, Richard

Continuous uniform acceleration of the lift or box does the same.

In the lift case the springs will be compressed, as they would be when 'at rest' on the ground in a gravitational field. If 'hung' then they are equally under tension, but of course a body in a hung box would feel the same as on the ground.

BUT we must consider and compare with the case of acceleration by gravity in 'free fall'. This is that subtle but important non-equivalence; There is acceleration but ZERO compression or dilation effect on the body.

In the 'chest' case we must remove friction by considering the body to be on ice, or floating in water. You then described the case for constant motion (a 'rest frame'), but not for constant ACCELERATION. In the continuing acceleration case the body will always slide to the back of the case and be under compression from the back wall of the chest. i.e.

There is no case of a body under normal constant acceleration which is entirely equivalent (in terms of effects on the body) to the free fall case in gravity.

As Einstein didn't fully discern and analyse the subtle difference, It's no surprise it's tricky for mere mortals!

Richard Re; "...acting on the whole mass equally..." Hopefully that emerges from the above. The point is about what a body 'feels'. It can 'feel' the pull and push, of acceleration involving compression and dilation. The difference is that in free fall it feels nothing as every particle is being 'acted on' equally at once. (There are also complex subtleties to the concept 'acted on').

The book you refer is only a small and early part of his works. I'd suggest you could very usefully also read the 'Notes to the 15th edition' as giving his far more considered and final views, concepts and rationalisations.

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Quoting myself and Tom:

Me: "The natural standard for mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light measured locally."

Tom: "That would be negative mass. I think I covered this before. A massive particle of zero momentum has negative mass, by E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2."

Tom's equation isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here. However, the use of a full energy equation, or an analogous for of the equation Tom gives above, are needed and have been derived. Their derivation arises out of theory free physics so the ideas of Relativity theory are absent. I will present the corrected forms of the Lorentz transforms and Einstein's energy equation in an upcoming message. There are some important points about theory free physics that should come first.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Tom's equation isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here."

Only if E = mc^2 is false. Which of course, it isn't.

James Putnam

"James, what makes these values "natural" rather than arbitrary?

There are, after all, more fundamental physical objects than a hydrogen atom."

I took the lead from empirical evidence. There are two guides. One is that the natural units of measurement should drive from the properties of light. The other is that many of the constants of nature have properties of the hydrogen atom as their source of origin. I can, of course, show this. Some of it has already been presented here at FQXi.org by me. It just doesn't get read.

""Tom's equation, E^2 = m^2c^4 p^2c^2, isn't the one we need here. His equation results from manipulating Einstein's full energy equation. It, of course, represents the ideas of Relativity theory. Those idea do not apply here.""

"Only if E = mc^2 is false. Which of course, it isn't."

E = mc2 works. However, it is formed by incorporating some of the very guesses that I have removed thus far from physics equations. With those guesses gone the energy equation re-appears in its empirical form. I will present its fixed form in a later message. I do not deny that relativity type effects occur. I do recognize that E = mc2 works. It is based upon the same patterns in empirical evidence that I rely upon. Not the same theoretical ideas, but, the same patterns. It is the patterns that are communicating that which we can know about nature from the mechanical perspective. Without theory there to obstruct the view, we learn what it is that empirical evidence is making known to us. Uncovering that kind of knowledge is science.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"There is no case of a body under normal constant acceleration which is entirely equivalent (in terms of effects on the body) to the free fall case in gravity."

Every body in gravitational free fall accelerates at a rate dependent on the strength of the field, precisely calculable by the inverse square law.

"As Einstein didn't fully discern and analyse the subtle difference, It's no surprise it's tricky for mere mortals!"

Poor old Albert. The loser.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"I do recognize that E = mc2 works. It is based upon the same patterns in empirical evidence that I rely upon. Not the same theoretical ideas, but, the same patterns. It is the patterns that are communicating that which we can know about nature from the mechanical perspective."

James, I'm reminded of an old "Peanuts" cartoon. Linus and Charlie Brown are cloud-gazing, and interpreting what they see. Linus goes into an elaborate description of the stoning of Stephen, complete with all of Rembrandt's characters and the unconverted apostle Paul looking on. Then he asks, "what do you see, Charlie Brown?"

"Well, I was going to say a duckie and a horsy, but I may change my mind."

Our theoretical descriptions are the only *objective* standard that we have. Even for patterns of cloud formations, on which Mitchell Feigenbaum did a great deal of research, that helped launch the nascent science of chaos.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

"Our theoretical descriptions are the only *objective* standard that we have."

Theory is not objective. It consists of guesses about the unknown. It is not objective or it wouldn't need to invent artificial indefinable properties, Fix f=ma for an objective look at empirical evidence. Get rid of artificial indefinable units. Those are invented. Those are fog not clouds. You can't see clearly for all the theory in your way.

James Putnam

From a previous message by me:

"There are three properties that need to change in order to reformulate physics equations into their empirical forms. The first is being currently written about here with more to follow. It is the act of making mass a defined property and learning that the empirical units of mass are those of inverse acceleration. The second property of temperature is similar to mass in that it is currently a fundamental indefinable property. Its units of degrees are artificially made indefinable."

I went on to show that temperature is not a measure or ..., it is a measure of itself. A temperature scale measure temperature. Temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. We can know easily that temperature is a unique physical activity. One way is that it had to be given its own artificial indefinable units. That means it was not known what temperature was and still is not recognized what temperature is.

However, theory free physics demonstrates that temperature is dE/dt or energy divided by time. It is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. So long to "Temperature is a measure of...(where ... is something other than temperature).

The third property in need of change is electric charge. What could be wrong with something as familiar to everyone as electric charge is. I present here only the problem at this time. The problem is that there is only one cause for all effects and that cause is the variation of the speed of light. The old practice of inventing new causes to fill in for the unknown, when it was not understood how otherwise to proceed forward with developing physics equations, is being rooted out.

In the case of electric, two unknowns appeared in Coulomb's equation. It was guessed that those two unknowns probably represented the cause of electric force. That guess gave birth to 'electric charge. Here we see again how those guesses open the door to let theory rush in to fill a void that doesn't need filling because it is not a void. Nature didn't leave us a void to fill.

Electric charge definitely represents something real of great importance. One reason to know this is that its absolute magnitude for an electron or proton is a fundamental universal constant. That is a big deal and must be dealt with when the is only one cause and it is not electric charge. What then is electric charge? No one knows what electric charge is anyway, so the question is not out of line. The challenge is to learn what empirical evidence tells us about the cause of electric and magnetic effects and how they are part of the single cause for all effects.

James Putnam

Tom,

"James, what makes these values "natural" rather than arbitrary?

There are, after all, more fundamental physical objects than a hydrogen atom."

Yes that is true. However, I can give you two magnitudes that will appear at any scale. One is the value 1.602x10-19 and the other is 4.8x10-11. The first one will appear whether measurements are made remotely or locally. The second will show up as a local measurement. As the objects in question become smaller and smaller, local measurements should still be possible. As an example, temperature is a local measurement. Stick a macroscopic thermometer into a macroscopic quantity of liquid, take a reading and that reading is a local measurement on the molecular scale. The reading will fit with what an observer on one of the molecules involved in the test would measure.

James Putnam

Hi Richard,

"I see the distinction as follows: There is a force of gravity and we can measure it. As a result of the General Theory of Relativity we now understand the cause of the force as due to the curvature of spacetime so we can say that the gravitational force is not a fundamental thing as we can see that it has an underlying cause."

You put theory forward as the distinction that establishes reality? My response is to ask you to report on any experiment performed on either space or time or what you refer to as space-time. Notice I am not asking for experimental data on objects that are not space or time or space-time.

James Putnam

Richard Lewis

Hi Peter,

I thought we were comparing the cases where the chest is under uniform acceleration with the case where the chest is at rest in a uniform gravitational field. I am satisfied that the observer inside the chest will not be able to detect any difference between these two cases.

If the chest is in free fall in a uniform gravitational field, this would feel the same as if the chest is at rest with no gravitational field. The observer inside the chest feels no gravity or acceleration and so feels weightless.

Richard

James Putnam

Correction:

In two previous messages in this thread I said:

"However, theory free physics demonstrates that temperature is dE/dt or energy divided by time. It is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules."

This is not correct. The statement should read that: Temperature is proportional to the rate of exchange of molecular kinetic energy between molecules. Temperature is not quantitatively the same as the rate, because, temperature was assigned the units of degrees. The temperature scale was arbitrarily set to equal 100 degrees between the freezing and boiling points of water.

This discrepancy between what temperature is and what it should have been can be moderated with the introduction of a constant of proportionality. My work shows this constant to be 1.29x0-4 unit free.

The use of this constant allows me to work with a modified temperature. It is that modified temperature which should have been defined as the real property of temperature. I should have said that modified temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. That is the way I wrote about it in my last essay.

James Putnam

Richard Lewis

Hi James,

I am not sure that I have understood your request for an experiment performed directly on spacetime without reference to objects. The closest I can think of is the famous verification of the general theory of relativity by observing the light from distant stars during a solar eclipse. Light provides a very good indicator of the curvature of spacetime but the experimental observation does involve objects such as the sun and the distant star.

The concept of reality is a bit tricky so I prefer to talk about whether a property e.g. force is fundamental or not. Something is not considered fundamental if it has a clearly identified underlying cause e.g. the force of gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime due to other masses.

Please come back on this point if I have not addressed your point.

Richard

Richard Lewis

Hi Tom,

I have my own ideas on the nature of electric charge which is described in:

Electric charge

The basic idea is that an electron is a looped wave in the medium of spacetime. This interpretation fits in with the wave model of the electron which yields all the beautiful results of atomic spectra. The important new idea is that the waves are in spacetime so that as well as the space wave expanding and compressing space (local spacetime curvature) there is a wave variation in the time dimension.

This means that the rate of passage of time varies during each cycle of the wave so that there is a net component of expansion or compression. The area under the curve is used to represent this and it turns out to be independent of the mass of the particle so electrons and protons will have the same magnitude of charge. This net compression or expansion leads to a force of attraction or repulsion which is exactly the effect we observe as electric charge.

This I would place as the underlying cause of the electrostatic force which means that we no longer consider charge a fundamental property.

The parent web site is:

The nature of mass

Richard

James Putnam

Richard,

Hi again,

"The concept of reality is a bit tricky so I prefer to talk about whether a property e.g. force is fundamental or not. Something is not considered fundamental if it has a clearly identified underlying cause e.g. the force of gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime due to other masses."

My point was that a clearly identified property should be falsifiable. In other words, if spacetime curves then its acceptance should depend upon experimental evidence that spacetime curves. The interactions of mass with light and light with mass and mass with mass are testable. Spacetime as an underlying cause is not testable. Such a test would require that space and time undergo testing on their own.

The empirical evidence for change is change of velocity with respect to time. Matter undergoes such verifiable change and light undergoes verifiable change. In other words, it is observed that their velocities change with respect to time. There is no evidence that either space or time or spacetime undergoes changes of velocity or even has velocity. So my point was that the claim that spacetime curvature is the cause of gravity is a purely theoretical explanation that cannot be falsified.

My apology for this condensed version of a long ongoing discussion. My position is that the door remains wide open for an alternative explanation that is falsifiable. It would probably help to make clear that I view theory as consisting of guesses about possible substitutes to serve in place of that which remains unknown in physics equations.

It has been my goal to remove those guesses from physics equations and return the equations back to their empirical forms. That is why I engage in discussions about fixing f=ma. The fundamental indefinable status of mass is one of those guesses. Hope that clarifies matters so that you can think about it or dismiss it depending upon your view of the value of theory.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Spacetime as an underlying cause is not testable. Such a test would require that space and time undergo testing on their own."

That would be impossible, since space and time independently are not physically real. The tests of spacetime in general relativity, however, have been successfully met.

James Putnam

"That would be impossible, since space and time independently are not physically real. The tests of spacetime in general relativity, however, have been successfully met."

So there have been an experiment or experiments where the change of velocity of spacetime has been observed. What were the measured initial and final velocities of spacetime, and, what values of its acceleration were observed and recorded?

James Putnam

pjackson

Richard,

Precisely. That case what Tom's missing, or avoiding Tom?

For complete equivalence we must compare like with like. The case you first chose is fine, but full equivalence means that; "If the chest is in free fall in a uniform gravitational field," (i.e. being accelerated by gravity) then there should be an equivalent "acceleration" case (NOT by gravity). But there is not.

More importantly; There is no case of non gravitational acceleration where the EFFECT FELT BY A BODY is equivalent. So there is a subtle difference which may be of great help in better understanding gravity (which nobody denies is needed!).

If we avert our eyes and pretend that difference doesn't exist then I suggest we're not doing science and can't apply our intellect to improve our knowledge. Is that not a fair comment?

I've gone beyond this and considered assumptions about momentum and inertia in more detail which seems to give insights. But let's ensure you understand what we are discussing before (if you wish) moving on.

A Hint; Have you ever considered the issue (under the carpet) that E=mc^2 and it's converse equivalent M=e/c^2 use different descriptions of mass, rest and inertial, which vary? The postulates seem to emerge from a possible resolution without the apparent paradoxes attached.

Peter

« Previous Page Next Page »