Alternative Models of Reality

James Putnam

Richard,

From your discussion of Einstein's chest and hook example:

"This example leads me to believe that the observer would not be able to feel any difference between the chest being in a uniform gravitational field and the chest being in uniform acceleration."

I submit that the correct conclusion is still the one I gave in my discussion of the elevator example:

"There is a revealing connection between this example and the importance of first properly understanding force. This connection is: An analysis of force tells us there is a difference between gravity and acceleration by another force. In the case of gravity we know there are two forces at work on the scientist. Gravity exerts a force on him trying to pull him downward. The floor of the room is exerting a second and separate force pushing upward against him. There are two equal but opposite forces at work. These two forces cause compression and distortion.

In the case of acceleration, there is only one force at work on the scientist. This forces is the floor pushing upward against him. Therefore, the difference between the two situations is a difference in the number of forces applied. The fact that the scientist cannot distinguish between the two cases does not prove that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. All he needs is a window to prove they are different.

What we learn is that we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect. In the two cases, the effect felt is not acceleration. It is identical compression and distortion to the scientist's body. Therefore, it is force that is shown to be of a common nature. The equivalence principle belongs to force."

Pointing specifically to: "...we cannot distinguish between different combinations of force so long as they add up to the same effect." and "The equivalence principle belongs to force."

In other words, neither example demonstrates that gravity is not a force. It does not matter what the force is. If it is applied uniformly, the object or person undergoing the acceleration will have no sensation by which to detect that their velocity is changing.

What I find very telling is that scientists are asked to disregard evidence: "All he needs is a window to prove they are different."

James Putnam

The kinetic theory of gases yields: Ekinetc = 3/2 kBoltzmannT. It is heralded as extraordinarily successful attempt to bring the behavior of gases within the realm of classical mechanics. The equation's final form is correct. However, the kinetic theory derivation was not necessary to find a way to justify the correct form of the equation.

The 3/2 fraction was the problem that the kinetic theory is credited with justifying. Actually, that fraction occurs in the equation because of the difference between measuring remotely and locally. In other words, it results from the relativistic type effect of length contraction. The length contraction is not noticed for local measurements. Temperature is a local measurement.

In order for the final equation to give the correct molecular kinetic energy, as evidence by the macroscopic properties of pressure times volume, the local measurement of length must be adjusted to agree with length measured macroscopically. The 3/2 fraction is an inverse representation of a 2/3 fraction that adjusts the local measurement of length up to that which matches with the remote measurement of the length. It is adjusted to make the equation consistent with remote measurements of both length and kinetic energy.

James Putnam

Just in case my last message about the kinetic theory of gases vs length contraction isn't strong enough to attract interest, I offer this food for thought:

The equation for molecular kinetic energy of a molecule of an ideal gas is equally valid while including Planck's constant as shown here:

Ekinetic = 3/2(hPlanck/radiushydrogen atom)T

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"I should have said that modified temperature is the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules."

James, I don't understand how that "modifies" the meaning of temperature. If you mean, that instead of taking temperature as an average of total molecular motion within some chosen volume, we measure the average exchange of energy between any two molecules -- then it's the same thing. When one sums all these exchanges, the numerical result is temperature, measured by whatever degree standard one chooses or invents.

I have honestly tried to follow what you are saying, but all I find are assumptions of that which was to be proved. If you deny that you need a theory to drive your conclusions, you'll continually go in circles.

Best,

Tom

Richard Lewis

Hi James,

This is an attempt to reply to your statement that: A clearly identifiable property should be falsifiable. In other words if spacetime curves then its acceptance should be based on experimental evidence that spacetime curves.

I agree with your position on this but claim that the General Theory of relativity is falsifiable. The light from the distant star is bent around the sun to the amount predicted by GR. This is direct evidence that the sun curves spacetime. Other observations have been used to verify GR such as the observations of the change in the orbit of mercury.

I think that requiring direct testing of spacetime without the use of any other objects is impossible so I am content to accept that, once light has left a distant star it is travelling through space independently and acts as a good indicator of the curvature of spacetime.

It seems to me that you are questioning the validity of the general theory of relativity which was deduced by careful thought experiment and logical deduction and subsequently verified by observations. If I am right about this, can you tell me the alternative theory that you would put in place instead of GR?

Richard

Thomas Ray

"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?"

No, because they don't. The equation for mass-energy at rest, E_0 = mc^2 is precisely the same as m = E_0/c^2. What you're assuming without justification, Peter, is that algebraic manipulation creates a different physical description. You are not understanding that rest mass-energy is a singular quantity that varies according to the amount of rest energy converted from potential energy to kinetic energy.

Best,

Tom

Richard Lewis

Hi Peter,

"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.

I dont agree with your assertion.

As I see it the point is that when the chest is in free fall then the perception of the observer inside the box is that he is at rest without gravity or acceleration and freely floating in space. I dont understand why you think that there should be an equivalent acceleration case.

If we were to start to accelerate the chest which is not in a gravitational field by say a third of one g then we are no longer equivalent to the case of the chest in free fall in a uniform gravitational field. In this case the observer inside would experience a third of one g. This would be equivalent to the chest being in a uniform gravitational field of one g with an externally applied acceleration of two thirds g in the direction of motion so that the observer inside the chest experiences a third of one g. A bit like the feeling when you initially descend in an elevator.

This illustrates the point that you can compare two cases where there is acceleration. However, the gravitational field accounts for one g so naturally there is always a difference of one g when comparing the movement of the chest in a gravitational field or no gravitational field.

Richard

Thomas Ray

Hi Richard,

I am not ignoring the very interesting links to your research. It's just too much for me to bite off at the moment.

Something occurred to me, relevant to your reply to James about testing the physical reality of spacetime, "I think that requiring direct testing of spacetime without the use of any other objects is impossible ..."

is true. However, besides the indirect testing of general relativity, I think there are other classical ways that imply spacetime is physically real. John brings up the case that compressing a volume of an ideal gas raises the temperature, and he claims (erroneously) that the measure of temperature is a physically real quantity.

Of course, we know that the work invested in compression is equal to the energy output measured as the temperature of the gas. Energy input-output from potential to kinetic in this case illustrates the relation of space -- taken as the bound volume -- to time. A slow compression rate allows the gas molecules time to store the energy by coming to relative rest (equilibrium), resulting in a phase transition from gas to liquid, and conversion of kinetic energy back into potential energy, released again as the kinetic energy of heat when the gas is uncompressed. So there's a very definite space-time cause associated with this cycle of effects -- a slower rate of time applied to a bound volume of space transfers more energy to the molecules than they would possess in a free state. While we can't speak of "molecules of space," we can speak in this context of energy stored and released in exact proportion to the time. Because the spatial distance input-output is symmetric, and the time input-output is symmetric -- the extension of spacetime to relativistic distances/velocities is natural.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

"I don't understand how that "modifies" the meaning of temperature. If you mean, that instead of taking temperature as an average of total molecular motion within some chosen volume, we measure the average exchange of energy between any two molecules -- then it's the same thing. When one sums all these exchanges, the numerical result is temperature, measured by whatever degree standard one chooses or invents."

I said that temperature is a rate. It is energy per unit of time. Energy is the numerator. Temperature and energy are not the same thing. Temperature does not get summed up. It is a local measurement of the rate of exchange of average molecular kinetic energy between molecules. That exchange of energy can be happening between multiple molecules simultaneously with the thermometer. Degrees are an artificial indefinable unit. They can't tell you what temperature is. My act of working with a defined mass and defined temperature with defined units yields units that do tell us what mass is and what temperature is.

"I have honestly tried to follow what you are saying, but all I find are assumptions of that which was to be proved. If you deny that you need a theory to drive your conclusions, you'll continually go in circles."

I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"Degrees are an artificial indefinable unit. They can't tell you what temperature is."

So how does one know the difference between hot and cold? If what you say were true, there is no demarcation at any point between the extremes -- it would be the case that everything is either infinitely hot, or infinitely cold.

"I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions."

By your calculation, then, what is it? -- is the world infinitely hot or infinitely cold?

Best,

Tom

pjackson

Richard.

I agree "As you see it" is certainly as it's commonly seen. It also covers one case very well. But not all cases. You also then agree;

"If we were to start to accelerate the chest which is not in a gravitational field by say a third of one g then we are no longer equivalent to the case of the chest in free fall in a uniform gravitational field."

Firstly "start to accelerate" is unnecessary. Acceleration is a constant change so no 'start' parameter has any effect. Then 'say a third' is also a red herring as I described the case of 1g acceleration. So I describe two clear cases of a body "under acceleration and responding by accelerating";

1). Under freefall acceleration in a 1g gravitational field.

2). Under an acceleration force of of 1g but NOT by gravity.

Now in this particular case there is a difference in the way the force acts on the body. That is what I'm saying. We've always ignored it, so assumed it's irrelevant, which is, I assume the stance you're taking. I'm pointing out that in fact there IS a difference of 'some kind' in that case, and I have indeed tracked down what it it.

I note you didn't comment on the issue of the switch between inertial and rest mass in the inverse expressions of E =mc^2. amd M= E/c2. Again this has been little addressed and not resolved. (The resolution will emerge from a new understanding of the subtle 'difference' FELT by the body in the two apparently comparable cases above).

Best wishes

Peter

James Putnam

Tom,

You are incorrect as usual about what temperature is:

"So how does one know the difference between hot and cold? If what you say were true, there is no demarcation at any point between the extremes -- it would be the case that everything is either infinitely hot, or infinitely cold."

Put your marks on a tube. Set the divisions between those marks with the Carnot engine as your guide. But, you still do not know what temperature is. The evidence that you do not know is that you are calling your marks degrees. Degrees is a fundamental indefinable units representing a fundamental indefinable property. Give you indirect explanations about a measure of ... , referring to something other than temperature such as average molecular kinetic energy. Every measure of average molecular kinetic energy has units of Joules. You have units of degrees and you have no definition by which to explain them. Those inexplicable Degrees represent temperature and you have no definition of temperature by which to explain what it is. You can't learn what it is from degrees because degrees are themselves not definable. Your acceptance of a theoretical guess about something that can serve temporarily in place of the unknown so that you may move forward with developing your equations, leaves you indirect answers.

Your gamesmanship of infinitely hot or cold demonstrates that you have no understanding yet of the inadequacy of a theoretical physics that employs the use of artificial fundamental indefinable units. They continue to exist because they continue to represent inexplicable properties. The two artificial indefinable units are kilograms and degrees. I don't have that problem. I work only with defined units other than the units of empirical evidence, meters and seconds. They represent properties that will never be defined.

Me: "I haven't been going in circles Tom. If you continue to use artificial indefinable units you will continue to give indirect answers of questions."

Tom: "By your calculation, then, what is it? -- is the world infinitely hot or infinitely cold?"

By my calculation, a defined temperature allows inexplicable properties such as thermodynamic entropy to finally be revealed. Also, Boltzmann's constant the Universal Gas constant now have physical origins. I am not going in circles Tom. The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

"The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch."

You are correct. My crutch, however, holds me up. Your who-shot-John beating around the bush is supported by nothing -- I asked for a calculation, and I get hot air. Something about defining inexplicable properties, and no clue as to how you can possibly distinguish hot from cold.

James Putnam

Tom,

"Something about defining inexplicable properties, and no clue as to how you can possibly distinguish hot from cold."

Unbelievable. You won't crack an introductory textbook to learn the difference between a defined property and an indefinable. Undefinable means indefinable.

Pretending that you can explain that which is indefinable is not scientific. My temperature calculates the same way yours does except in order for mine to correct for your arbitrary magnitude, I need a proportionality constant. The other more important difference is that my temperature is a defined property. Being defined means its physical explanation is known. You can't give anything but an indirect answer for what is temperature. The correct defined units for temperature allow for those, who understand the significance of having defined units, to give a direct answer for what is temperature. Your calculation challenge has nothing to do with anything that I have said. The problem still lies with your inability to understand what is being said.

James Putnam

Tom,

""The problem is that you have no understanding of how to proceed without theory as your crutch.""

"You are correct. My crutch, however, holds me up."

It doesn't hold you up. That is why you are forced into a position of giving indirect answers about mass and temperature. That is why you have no supporting evidence for the existence of spacetime and yet will make the misleading statement that its existence is confirmed. Your theoretical foundation has missing pieces and invented substitutes for the unknown. Those foundational problems adversely infects all theory built upon that incomplete foundation. Get rid of those artificial indefinable properties and replace them with defined properties. Then your foundation will be scientific instead of pretend.

James Putnam

Richard,

"...can you tell me the alternative theory that you would put in place instead of GR?"

Yes I could with a large amount of supporting work. However, it deals very strongly with finishing the unfinished fundamentals. otherwise, it is sometimes like talking in two different languages. I wrote some about this in an earlier message to you.

"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."

Instead of my just jumping into providing answers to compete with higher level theory, it would help if we agreed on the importance of defining properties. I mention fixing f=ma by defining mass. Nature provides us with empirical evidence that fits with the decisions it made since the beginning of the universe. Nature didn't leave it up to us to decide that either force or mass would be an indefinable property joining the status of the indefinable properties of length and time.

Length and time are naturally indefinable by reason of their being the properties of empirical evidence. There are no properties before them by which they may be defined. The situation is very different for force and mass. They do have the pre-existing properties of length and time by which they may be defined. If that is not accomplished then a guess is the only other option. The guess option won out. The guess was that either force or mass would need to be made an indefinable property. That means that we did not learn what mass is from the empirical evidence. We instead invented a third indefinable property, mass, joining the status of length and time. Mass pops into existence without explanation.

It was the first intrusion of theory onto a physics equation. Instead of the equation representing that which empirical evidence is communicating to us, f=ma combines empirical evidence with human invention. The equation is changed from an empirical equation into one that is made subservient to a theory. The theory is that mass is a fundamental indefinable property. The answer to the question you posed lies in correctly defining mass. The correct definition of mass tells us what the cause for all effects is. I will end it here unless there is interest.

James Putnam

In the interest of taking physics back from the blackboard and placing it on a firm empirical foundation, it is necessary to repeat for the umpteenth time that there are two naturally indefinable properties. They are the properties of length and time. There are no pre-existing properties by which they may be defined. They will remain always inexplicable beyond recognizing that there is room and time for activity of objects to take place.

All other properties must be defined properties. Defined properties are those that are definable in terms of pre-existing properties. All these other properties have the availability of two pre-existing properties. All properties that are not empirical evidence must be defined in the same terms as is the empirical evidence from which their existence is inferred.

There cannot be any indefinable properties other than length and time. There can be no indefinable units other than meters and seconds. Otherwise, empirical leadership is traded off for human inventions. As a first step, both force and mass must be definable in terms of length and time. Their units must be definable in terms of meters and seconds.

This must be understood and corrected resulting in the removal of theory from physics equations. The equations, beginning with f=ma are returned to their original empirical forms. These are the forms that tell us what it is that empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

Temperature, with the addition of a proportionality constant to negate the effect of arbitrary units of degrees, is the rate of exchange of molecular kinetic energy among molecules. This rate is the same everywhere in the medium by definition. Temperature is a state of equilibrium. There is no variation of temperature during equilibrium conditions.

If energy is to be added to the medium without upsetting the condition of equilibrium, then that energy must be put into the medium at the rate set by the temperature of the medium. This is the condition that prevails for the Carnot engine. The scale of degrees Kelvin is based upon a series of connected Carnot engines. Degrees is presently an indefinable unit. However, degrees can be defined in terms of the units of its empirical evidence.

When this is done, the definition of degrees in units of meters and seconds tells us what temperature is. No more indirect answers. No more of equating being proportional to with being the same as. Temperature is not energy. temperature is the rate of exchange of energy per unit of time.

James Putnam

Temperature and its units of degrees can both become defined. However, temperature comes after f=ma. Everything comes after f=ma. Therefore, everything depends upon fixing f=ma. The fix that is necessary is to define both force and mass in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. It happens that force cannot precede mass for its definition. Mass must be defined first and then force is definable in terms of mass, length and time. Mass is the property that is most relevant to that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

The fix for f=ma begins with defining mass. Then, the definition of force follows automatically. Later, temperature appears as a property and is immediately definable. We learn immediately what temperature is. What follows are physics equations that no longer contain artificial indefinable properties and units. The equations are made completely empirically based. Human intervention in the form of invented units and properties is prevented from interfering with the natural development of physics equations.

James Putnam

The universe is controlled. This is made clear because it contains no lack of control. the existence of lack of control in any amount, no matter how small, would destroy all control. Even mechanics, the lowest form of scientific interpretation of the operation of the universe, would not exist. The control of the universe is immediate everywhere. The laws of physics apply everywhere. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same everywhere at all times.

The importance of recognizing the absolute controlled nature of the universe is that it is evidence that there is only one case for all effects. There can be different appearing causes that are different aspects of the single cause, but there cannot be more than one independent unique cause.

The science of physics should reflect the existence of a single cause for all effects. That reflection is not something to be added on by artificial means after physics equations are formed. It is something that should be seen at all stages and in all equations. Its existence should be always recognizable in any equation

the practice of separating cause into separate unique forces such as the "four fundamental forces of nature" is evidence of early errors. The empirical evidence, whose patterns are being modeled by f=ma, informs us that there is force and resistance to force. There is no information about separation of forces.

The practice of identifying separate forces came about because of lack of understanding about how else to proceed forward with physics equations. We didn't understand how to begin with a single cause so we invented the idea of separate causes or forces. This practice is another example of theory intervening into physics equations. The equations not only do not need our intervention, but, they cannot remain correct while enduring our intervention. We became led by our own inventions rather than by that which empirical evidence is communicating to us.

James Putnam

« Previous Page Next Page »