Alternative Models of Reality

What causes Things Move in Universe?

Things move when encountering a pressure that is stronger than its inertia and its current surroundings'. Simply put, moving is constantly seeking and heading toward emptiness or space with less pressure.Attachment #1: What_causes_Things_Move_in_Universe_D.pdf

The Creation of Momentum

From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the smallest particle in the Universe, everything with mass > 0, regardless of size and shape, when in motion, always disturbs the DM surrounding it. It displaces the DM part in front, leaving behind a void that attracts DM to fill in quickly. Therefore all the particles that make up an object, or a spacecraft, are producing momentum, too, while moving.Attachment #1: The_Creation_of_Momentum.pdf

I am aware of an everyday phenomenon that is comparable to the quantum probability curve. It is something anybody can test for themselves with no effort whats so ever.

Are people aware that the weight transition of a pole in a gravitational field, beginning from a zero weight while balanced on its end at 90 degrees to the ground, then incremental increases in weight as the pole is laid over onto the ground. The weight transition of the pole models the quantum probability curve.

As you lean the pole over in a gravitational field, the weight transition begins disproportionately little at 66 degrees when the pole is still expressing a balance, then normalizes before then transitioning to disproportionately greater weight at 22 degrees from the ground. You can easily feel this yourself by picking up a fence post or some other pole laying around the yard. If you place scales under the pole as I did, you can chart the weight curve that matches the probability curve shown here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#/media/F

ile:Bell.svg

This leads to a very interesting consideration of hidden variable, a classical system which models a quantum probability curve. In the case of the pole, the considerations are of the poles angle of leverage to fight against the force applied to it by a gravitational field. So could be stated as a poles ability to resist changes to its current state of angle, and gravity has to apply a force to overcome the poles current state of angle. The poles ability to resist force applied to it by gravity. So conceptually, it is not hard to imagine a photon being in possession of an ability to resist changes in state of angle, and that the polarization filter applies a force to the photon to alter its state of angle. The results of the interaction between photon and polarizer might then be an issue of angled leverage. The hidden variable would need to make an account of the polarization filters influence on the results of the probabilities.

I am going to pause there and see if I cannot get somebodies interest with this observation? Although I do have a good deal more to say on the subject.

Steven Andresen

In my previous message something important did not get included. My challenge results from a discussion i have been having with Steve Agnew. Steve claims that the units of Action or Planck's constant are either kilograms*seconds or kilograms*meters. This is the context from which my challenge in my previous message arises. It is the case that both meters and seconds are units of Planck's constant and are unit of action. My point is that there is no way to introduce kilograms with either meters or seconds as the units of action.

"Handle mass your way, then proceed from the introduction of the property of mass through the mathematics that finally reveal that the units of Planck's Constant include the units of kilograms."

The units of Planck's constant are newtons*meters*seconds. I know why, and have made known here at FQXi.org, that these units predict the existence of the 'least action principle'. Why does the principle of least action work? Saying that "It works because it is a principle.": is theoretical evasiveness. I say it is predicted to work by its units. This new understanding results from first finally defining mass.

James Putnam

I find your word twists interesting because you seem to really believe that your axioms are the only way to address identity recursions. Force and acceleration are reasonably good axioms as are space and time. You accept these as physical properties revealed by empirical evidence and then go on to define mass in terms of force and acceleration.

There is nothing wrong with this math, but this approach does not seem to result in any more useful physics than what you started with.

Likewise, my approach is to accept matter and action as axioms, which are physical properties revealed by empirical evidence. You exclude certain kinds of empirical evidence like balances and scales in order to show that mass needs a new definition. By redefining what measurements are, you claim to reveal some kind of hidden knowledge by redefinition or reexplaining definitions.

It certainly seems like you have simply created a huge Gordian knot in these explanations of definitions. My approach is simpler with just matter and action. Note that my approach does not use space and time as axioms. Rather, space, time, force, acceleration, charge, and temperature all emerge from the action of matter. This means aethertime is consistent with the principles of both GR and QM.

There is no math needed to define an axiom...that is the point of an axiom: axioms are revealed by empirical evidence, just as you say. An axiom is self evident and intuitive and axioms then define all other properties. That the world is made up of something called matter and changes in ways called action seems about as simple as any axioms can be. Your world starts with space and time where matter, charge, and temperature all emerge from force and acceleration. Nothing wrong here, just doesn't seem that useful.

That a matter-scaled Planck action constant has units of kg s as h/c^2 should not be very contentious. Why a matter-scaled Planck constant is useful is the issue, not whether it can have the units of kg s. If you want to see my math, here it is again:

Universal_Quantum_Action_with_Discrete_Aether.

I like the way that you stick to your guns because it makes me really work to better understand your unique approach to reality.

Steve Agnew,

Quoting a message of yours located in your essay forum:

"It is necessary to have a special dictionary with your explanations of definitions in order to properly understand your discourse."

Other Readers need to know the criterion for making physics definitions of properties and their units. There is no need for me to write my own dictionary so that today's theoretical physicists can understand how I define physics properties and their units. All that is needed is the first page of an introductory physics textbook:

College Physics; Sears, Zemansky; 3rd ed.; 1960; Page 1, Chapter 1:

1-1 The fundamental indefinables of mechanics. Physics has been called the science of measurement. To quote from Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), "I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of Science, whatever the matter may be."

A definition of a quantity in physics must provide a set of rules for calculating it in terms of other quantities that can be measured. 聽Thus, when momentum is defined as the product of "mass" and "velocity," the rule for calculating momentum is contained within the 聽definition, and all that is necessary is to know how to measure mass and velocity. The definition of velocity is given in terms of length and time, but there are no simpler or more fundamental quantities in terms of which length and time may be 聽expressed. Length and time are two of the indefinables of mechanics. It has been found possible to express all the quantities of mechanics in terms of only three indefinables. The third may be taken to be "mass" or "force" with equal justification. We shall choose mass as the third indefinable of mechanics.聽

In geometry, the fundamental indefinable is the "point." The geometer asks his disciple to build any picture of a point in his mind, provided the picture is consistent with what the geometer says about the point. In physics, the situation is not so subtle. 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. ...

Chapter 15, page 286; 15-1:

To describe the equilibrium states of mechanical systems, as well as to study and predict the motions of rigid bodies and fluids, only three fundamental indefinables were needed: length, mass, and time. Every other physical quantity of importance in mechanics could be expressed in terms of these three indefinables., We come now, however, to a series of phenomena, called thermal effects or heat phenomena, which involve aspects that are essentially nonmechanical and which require for their description a fourth fundamental indefinable, the temperature. ...

[My work is completely separate from establishing how to define a physics property. It was established without my input. My work begins by revealing to physicists these two points: The first is that both mass and force could have been and should have been made defined properties. The second point is that I have defined mass in accordance with the directive quoted from Sears Zemansky. If you do not like these two points. If you consider them to be unimportant for physics, then our works will definitely differ. Your work will necessarily not include a physics definition for mass. Mine includes a physics definition for mass. Your work will necessarily not include a definition for kilograms. Mine includes a definition for kilograms. You work with properties and units that are loose in meaning to the point that you can write and use E=M as if it was an equation, which it definitely is not. You made use of it when you suggested that the equivalence of mass and energy justified your exchanging the units of kilograms to replace those of Joules as a unit of action. There is no way that E=MC2 can be reduced to E=M except by making units disappear with non-mathematical 'slight-of-hand' handling.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

"I find your word twists interesting because you seem to really believe that your axioms are the only way to address identity recursions. Force and acceleration are reasonably good axioms as are space and time. You accept these as physical properties revealed by empirical evidence and then go on to define mass in terms of force and acceleration."

You twist words. I do not need to twist words. I do not accept length (misrepresented by you as 'space'), and duration (misrepresented by you as 'time')" as physical properties revealed by empirical evidence". You seem to really believe that that is what I have done. Fortunately my words do not depend upon making 'facts' up and calling them axioms. How is it that you do not know that I make use of empirical evidence to learn what it reveals to us? Empirical evidence does not reveal length and duration to us. We must use length and duration as givens in order to obtain empirical evidence. How is that you do yet acknowledge that physics empirical evidence consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects? How is it that you do not understand that physicists must make use of length and duration in place of the non-measurable properties of space and time? How is that you do not understand that your loose use of the properties of space and time in place of length and duration are what prevent your ideas from being empirically supported? How is that you do not know that the properties of space and time have never been directly included in physics equations? They have always been substituted for by properties that are not space and time. How is it that you do not understand that you nor anyone else can tell us anything about effects suffered by either space or time? How is it that you are not aware that there has never been empirical evidence to support the idea that either space or time can cause effects upon anything? Why do you not know that all physics empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects, and, that that evidence tells us only about what objects do? Why do you twist my words to serve your needs?

James Putnam

I keep using normal definitions of words and of course, I need to use your definitions to effectively discourse. Length is not space...and duration is not time.

Okay. Got it.

The foundation for any discourse is to understand each other's axioms. You do not like the word axiom and so you call your axioms indefinables. You define indefinables with rules based on empirical evidence...so what is empirical evidence of a definition? It has to do with rules for defining properties in one huge recursive identity that then defines itself.

You like space...oops...length and time because they are simple and mainstream physics agrees. You also say that mass is undefinable, which means that it is an axiom. Since your approach will eventually end up with the same conundrums as mainstream science with length and time and mass, that is why it is not that useful. You are doing nothing really wrong, just not that different from what has been repeatedly done already and therefore not that useful.

There are simpler axioms than length and time. The radius of electron charge is the simplest discrete length and the period or duration of electron spin is the simplest discrete time duration. In other words, continuous length and time both emerge from discrete matter and action and have no meaning without matter and action.

There is nothing wrong with length and time and mass as axioms and you mention the infinitesimal point as the axiom of space, but normally a length is also an infinity of points as well. Time is likewise an infinity of moments and these infinities can be a little annoying.

The discrete action of matter is a much better way to begin a universe since these pesky singularities end up tying spacetime into knots of black holes. Why you do not like E = mc^2 as the basic mass-energy equivalence is a complete mystery to me. The pathologies that embed into any model without MEE are quite problematic.

You never mention quantum phase and of course, without quantum phase coherence, atoms and molecules do not make any sense. I do appreciate your extensive elaborations, though, since the identity recursions in your logic are at least three or more levels removed. Really all you need to say is length is length since there are already plenty of rules for measurement and length does not really need any more special rules than mass or time for measurement.

I do agree with that for you defining the indefinables length, time, and mass is a necessary. Why you use this contrapositive is contrapositive since by definition, it is impossible to define an indefinable. It is like defining nothing as something, which of course is the same conundrum. It would be better if you simplified your identities into just what they are; identities. Otherwise people end up arguing about which axioms are better. Some axioms are simply more useful than others for predicting the future of sources, that is all.

Steve Agnew,

Untwisting your words:

"You also say that mass is undefinable, which means that it is an axiom."

I did not and do not say that mass is undefinable. What I have said to you repeatedly is that both force and mass could have been and should have been made defined properties. I have defined mass. Force is then defined in terms that include mass. The idea that mass is undefinable was accepted by physicists at the time that mass was introduced into physics equations. It remains undefined by physicists. The meaning of the word 'defined' is explained by Sears Zemansky in the quote I provided two of my messages ago.

James Putnam

Actually you said indefinable, not undefinable. Okay...so it was Zemansky that claimed length, time, and mass were undefinable, not you. Your work instead defines length, mass, and time with rules to measure these physics quantities in terms of other quantities.

So you define Zemansky's undefinables...but is that really useful? Sears and Zemansky's point is that the three axioms of length, time, and mass can then define all the rest, but one must simply believe in certain rules to measure length, time, and mass. So there is no way to define an undefinable according to Sears and Zemansky...you simply must believe in the rules as axioms.

Of course, switching a definable for an undefinable is always possible and you define mass and so defer to force as an undefinable along with length and time. These are then the undefinables in which you must simply believe certain rules. Honestly you should use simple identities instead of these complexified multilayered explanations of definitions. You do seem to agree that there are some physics quantities that are self evident and defined by rules that you simply must believe and I call those things axioms.

You see, arguments about the best axioms for prediction of a source future are simple; whatever works, works, and some axioms simply work better than others. A useful theory should predict the future of a source at least as well as mainstream science. A really useful theory should predict the future of a source that mainstream science fails to predict.

But really there are any number of equivalent ways to predict the future as well as mainstream science. The real gold ring is to predict the future where mainstream science fails, not where it succeeds.

...and of course indefinable is the same as undefinable...

Sears and Zemansky 13th Ed. does not use undefinable or indefinable, which really helps. They do note that length, time, and mass are all physical quantities that physics defines only by describing how to measure them. In other words, physics simply believes in length, time, and mass as axioms.

However, it turns out that the action of light defines both length and time as either a wavelength or a period of one cycle. In other words, length and time both really just emerge from action and so there are really just two physical quantities that define all others.

This is consistent with QM since Planck constant is in dimensions of action. Now discrete aether's action is the matter-scaled Planck constant, h/c^2, which is the real constant since both h and c vary with the action of the universe pulse, which is decoherence time.

Although temperature is a very useful property, temperature is not axiomatic and the classic definition of temperature is the result of the product of pressure and volume for a given mass of gas. The product of PV/c^2 has units of mass and so temperature is equivalent to a mass fraction of gas. Evidently, the 3rd Ed. used this undefinable terminology, but the 13th Ed. is now clear...temperature is equivalent to a mass fraction.

Steve Agnew,

You really don't read what is there:

"Of course, switching a definable for an undefinable is always possible and you define mass and so defer to force as an undefinable along with length and time."

I just finished repeating to you that both force and mass could have been and should have been made defined properties. Either one could have been chosen to be a third indefinable property. Mass was chosen. I have defined mass. This does not represent a choice to make mass a defined property and make force the third indefinable property. Bot mass and force are defined properties. There are only two properties that are not defined. They are length and duration, the permanent substitutes to serve in place of the unmeasurables space and time. The difference that you cannot see is huge. The first benefit gained is that fundamental unity is restored to f=ma; and, after temperature and electric charge are defined, I define them. Physics equations exhibit consistent clear fundamental unity.

It is true that around the seventies, physicists began to teach that indefinable properties would henceforth be referred to as primary properties and definable properties would henceforth be referred to as secondary properties. The units of indefinable properties would henceforth be called primary units, and, the units of definable properties would henceforth be called secondary units.

With this act, the goal of having physics be an empirical science was abandoned, and, theorists took control of physics. Now is the age of inventions and guesses. Difficult unsolved problems have been assigned answers that are permanently out of the reach of empirical verification. Theorists rule and teach that the Universe is far weirder than the weird unempirical physics that Einstein introduced as spacetime.

It is fruitless to counter each of your twists of my words. For readers though, I do find that I need to make clear that I do not deny the success of E=MC[sup2. However, part of that success does not include proving that mass and energy are equivalent. The non-equation E=M is the form credited with proving it. The full equation says only that energy and mass are directly proportional. Many equations say that many properties are directly proportional to one another. The non-equation E=M represents the non mathematical basis for your false claim that joules can be replace with kilograms. You make use of action while all the time not understanding it. If you understood it you would not need to abuse it. The units of action are newtons*meters*seconds. It can be written as joules*seconds or (newton*meters)*seconds where (newton*meters) are the units of momentum. I have solved the reason for the success of the Least-Action-Principle. That reason was revealed after defining mass.

You work with theory and defend its need when it is now the case that theory can be removed from physics equations. That is what I do. I remove theory from physics equations and return those equations back to their empirical forms. Their empirical forms are directly dependent upon empirical evidence as their source for revealing knowledge about the mechanical operation of the Universe. Everything we will ever learn about the nature of the Universe will be learned from its empirical evidence. In the meantime, theorists rule and physics suffers from having to entertain guesses and experience flights-of-fancy.

Best wishes to you. Respectfully,

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

More cleaning up to do. You wrote:

...and of course indefinable is the same as undefinable...

It is the case that you did not put it in quotes; however, readers might think that your three dots indicates that I said this. If I knew for certain that they knew that you said it, then, I would not respond to it. Let it remain public. It is obviously a false statement.

James Putnam

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

"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.