Mathematics and Empirical Evidence can Reveal Truths If Physicists Eliminate Theorists’ Tricks by James A Putnam

John C Hodge,

Great message. Here is a response on one point. Lets see how it is received.

JamesAttachment #1: Universal_Gravitational_Constant.pdf

A link to my essay The Absoluteness of Time.

It takes the universal increment of time, the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom, idea even further. Actually that increment of time is the key to achieving full unity for physics equations. It is the proper value to be substituted for incremental time in the denominators of incremental equations. The essay covers more derivations of electromagnetic equations and carries the same increment of time into deriving the link between two different expressions for the Fine Structure Constant.

James

Dear Neil,

"OTOH, people feel a need to rove beyond a stricter approach to reality, since they just can't empirically find all they want to, with means available."

That is recognized as the case. There will continue to be empirical discoveries that will further present opportunities to understand more. However, the process of understanding begins also at the beginning. My point is that introducing guesses that are made for the purpose of filling in blanks in physics equations is not a safe practice. While it is possible for one to make a good guess, that is very unlikely if the guess is made due to ignorance about how to proceed. This practice is fertile ground for theoretical guesses. It is not fertile ground for learning the nature of the universe. I stress this point with regard to the decision to make mass an indefinable property, joining with the naturally indefinable properties of length and time, actually duration. I argue, though I have not done so here, that fundamental unity is self evident. I have found that it is not generally obvious. Yet the universe obviously operates in an orderly manner. The self evident conclusion is that the universe is fundamentally unified. There is no meaninglessness in the universe. We don't know how the universe came into being or how it continues to operate in this orderly manner, that would involve knowing what cause is. No one knows what cause is. Cause is not a part of physics equations, although it is often spoken of as if it is a part of physics equations. Even though we do not know what cause is, we can conclude why the universe exists. It must exist for the purpose of producing its effects. The most impressive effect is human free will. My last essay Lead With Innate Knowledge dealt with what physics knowledge tells us about how we learn. Pattern recognition is key. In the case of f=ma, I argue that it is pattern recognition in empirical evidence that is key. We should rely as far as we can upon that which pattern recognition is communicating to us. What f/m=a communicates to us is that the if one understands that fundamental unity must exist, then the self evident way to proceed is to consider that the ratio of the units of f and m must reduce to those of acceleration. This conclusion is 'obviously' empirically supported. Acceleration is the empirical evidence. When physics chose to not follow this lead, it was choosing to introduce fundamental disunity into physics equations.

"My own essay involved theoretically extrapolating physics to spaces with various number of dimensions, since after all we cannot do experiments in such universes. Yet I concluded at the end, that exercise doesn't prove what "really exists" beyond our world, since it is ultimately just a demonstration (altho I'm proud of that) that a class of mathematical models (if other than three spatial dimensions) would not be consistent.

"Re your solution to the problem: I am not sure how clear reliance on defining in terms of fundamentals and observable behavior etc. would change the working physics that is mostly in actual use. I presume you expect the same experimental outcomes for electromagnetic experiments that conventional theory predicts. If the satisfaction of knowing he or she is doing things the right way in principle is important to a person, well then that justifies the attitude. It reminds me of those in quantum mechanics who do not think it necessary to elaborate on "what is really there" and we should just find ways to provisionally represent for the sake of calculations. I hope I got your point, because I think the "perspective" is the important thing, not any particular physical outcome you are predicting?"

The equation f=ma worked before it was decided to make either force or mass an indefinable property. The equation is the result of pattern recognition. The equations doesn't stop working because theorists introduced the indefinable units of kilograms into the equation. The definition E=fd will work even though it carries the fundamental unity that comes along with f. Yet that fundamental disunity must reveal itself somewhere. It does so in the cases of electric charge and temperature. That is why they are both indefinable properties. That is why they cannot be defined to this day by theoretical physicists.

In a very prominent physics forum, I once said that temperature is the rate of exchange of energy between molecules. I wasn't asked to explain why I thought so. I was penalized, some silly demerit type of penalty, immediately. Further discussion led to my being banned for life. Now this is the point of bringing this experience into this message: The current status of temperature as an indefinable property continues because physicists do not know what temperature is. The demerit occurred because physicists think they know what temperature is. They think it is something other than what I described. This behavior by theoretical physicists is one example of the damage done to the learning process as a result of allowing empirically unsupportable guesses to become established parts of physics equations. Continuing in that manner prevents physics from modeling that which the empirical evidenced has to teach us. It rather sends theoretical physics spinning off into unscientific, meaning having no means of establishing empirical support, speculation.

James

I should make this point clearer: Temperature remains an indefinable property to this day because physicists do not know what it is. If physicists did know what it is, it would now be a defined property. I said it is the rate of exchange of energy between molecules. I say this because the first act of defining mass led to the definition of temperature. In my work, temperature is a defined property. This result demonstrates that fundamental unity is present in the introductory equation f=ma and its presence joins mechanics with thermodynamics. There no longer exists the divide between them that was evidenced by the indefinable status of temperature.

James

Regarding theorists' tricks:

I used the word 'Tricks' because it is part of the contest title. It isn't my first choice. I choose the word 'mistakes'. The difference for me is that the word 'tricks' implies a deliberate attempt to mislead, while, the word 'mistakes' communicates my opinion without accusing anyone of deliberately misleading science. My essay included some examples of my view of mistakes by theoretical physicists. Now I will for posterity list more theoretical mistakes.

The actual first error of theoretical physics is to say something to the effect that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. This is self-evidently incorrect. I will wait a day to see if anyone arrives here and has interests in either arguing for that claim or asking what is the cosmic speed limit if not that of C?

James

Dear Lutz,

Thank you for visiting and commenting. Should you return, I would appreciate your view on this response of mine with regard to temperature:

"Concerning the definition of temperature you are on the proper track. But we need statistical properties in order to calculate thermodynamics. It will always be the properties of a collective giving us meaningful results."

When I specify equilibrium conditions, I can do so because of the application of statistical considerations. A definition of temperature is dependent upon direct reliance of empirical evidence and on numbers of molecules so great that statistical analysis can be replaced with equilibrium conditions. Those equilibrium conditions are not representative of actual physical conditions, they follow only abstractly from statistical analysis. But, they are 'perfectly' valid when defining temperature and even more so when it is used as in Clausius' definition of Thermodynamic Entropy. I purposefully used the word 'perfectly' because of its applicability to the justified approximation of equilibrium conditions. This is written as a statement because it does represent my opinion. But, it is intended as a question with regard to your opinion.

James Putnam

The speed of light is the limit of the speed of light. All effects that are dependent upon the behavior of light share in this limit. However, there is something that is not limited by the speed of light. It is that which causes order to be maintained throughout the universe. One of its functions is to control the speed of light. Its own speed is infinite. In other words, control is always maintained everywhere in the manner necessary to have all of the universe remain orderly. That orderliness has extended all the way from the beginning of the universe until now and the next now. We look far out and far back and what we see of the universe makes sense today.

James Putnam

The next question is: What controls the speed of light? The second error of theoretical physics, already mentioned in my essay as the 'first error', is the indefinable status of mass. The empirically led definition of mass answers the question above.

James Putnam

Here is an essay that describes the need to chose a system of units carefully: Natural Truth and Systems of Units. It covers much of what I use in my current essay. I may need to write something more where I specifically address the relationship between seconds and coulombs in detail.

James

Dear Edwin,

I am aware that the work I have presented in my essays has not received recognition of having value. But, I think perhaps the buck stops here with regard to your point that:

"If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant."

The buck stops because what you ask cannot be done. All and any properties are represented in physics equations, and therefore in any physics that matters, by their units. I included a link to an essay that helps to make the point that systems of units are not equal in the search for empirical truths. The correctness of physics equations requires careful design of the system of units used. The MKS system serves the purpose of demonstrating how to learn new empirically justified knowledge. The specific example shown in my referenced essay has to do with the proportionality constant of Coulomb's equation.

Later in my work I explain why the MKS system of units is not satisfactory as a universal system of units. I derive my view of a universal system, usually referred to by physicists as natural units. I don't think I have explained them here at FQXi.org. Long before they matter physicists, in my opinion, must address and correct their practice of having introduced artificial indefinable units.

If what Marc Séguin challenged was so flagrantly wrong, close coincidences of magnitudes of electric charge and the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom would never have occurred so readily. Furthermore, replacing coulombs with seconds could never have been put to useful results as I presented in my first essay of the first essay contest.

As I pointed out to Marc, the unit of coulomb is dependent upon the unit of seconds. I didn't realize that I would have to make this point since its basis rests in the MKS definitions for ampere and coulombs. I will write it out.

I think though of greater immediate importance is to make the claim here in this message that names of properties are of no consequence insofar as physics equations are concerned. Everything that I must argue in defense of must rest upon direct reliance upon the units of empirical evidence for all definitions of units that follow them. If this guideline is not followed, then theoretical physicists have an open door to make the equations of physics after their own image.

I have been helping to babysit my granddaughter and helping her parents to move. Tonight is my first free time in days. I value our conversations and friendship highly. I have waited to rate your essay for two reasons. The first is tactical. If I receive a ten, I very quickly receive a one, contest after contest. The last contest I had very nearly all tens and ones. The ones outnumbered the tens just enough to cause my elimination from the finals. Whatever I rate your essays as it will be a last moment filing. The second reason is that I have had to study to prepare myself to address "... a simple model of spin in a constant field to derive their understanding of an experiment based on the scattering of dipole moments in a non-constant field.

Thank you for asking for me to comment on your essay. It is an honor to receive that request from a physicist. By the way, I observe that Sylvain Poirier is not a physicist. My opinion is that several of his opinions extend beyond his expertise. However, after considering the blog discussions and looking into his links, and, despite his interest in bull excrement, I will give him credit for this: Unlike those who have left ratings for my essay, Sylvain Poirier leaves his comments and signs his name. Should he happen to read this message, I would appreciate being named should he ever express his opinion about my work.

James Putnam

Edwin,

I need to qualify this statement: "I am aware that the work I have presented in my essays has not received recognition of having value." I was thinking in terms of its reception in general here at FQXi.org. It took me a while to understand that the use of the word "foundational" here does not mean "fundamental" in the way that I understand the meaning of the "fundamentals of physics". It appears to me that "foundational" here means the next steps on top of existing theoretical physics. The fundamentals are considered settled. I find that possibility to be self-evidently wrong. I find that it is self-evident that properties must be actually defined in the strict sense that physics owned historically but has apparently abandoned recently in favor of moving steadily through speculative imaginings.

James Putnam

Fixing the Units of Physics Equations:

All that we will ever learn about effects we learn from empirical evidence. Furthermore, we learn only about effects. Empirical evidence is always about effects. We receive no empirical information as to what cause is. Empirical evidence tells us only what cause does. For this reason, the equations of physics should include only units of effects. Cause is not represented except possibly in a general way by the symbol of the equals sign. The left side of a physics equations represents initial conditions. The right side of physics equations represents final conditions. The equals sign can be read as '...are caused to change to... '. It is the case though that theoretical physics takes empirically unsupportable liberties and one such liberty is the inclusion in physics equations of the units of coulombs representing electric charge. A corrected system of units would not include coulombs. It would include only units that represent effects.

Empirical evidence tells us only about effects. It tells us that everything that we will ever learn about the operation of the universe we will learn from effects. If we are to learn that which empirical evidence is telling us, then we must maintain direct dependence upon empirical evidence. All properties and their units must be justified for their existence by empirical evidence. What this means is that all properties that are inferred to exist by empirical evidence must be definable using a combination of the properties of empirical evidence. For physics equations it means that all units of those inferred properties must be defined in combinations of the units of their empirical evidence. In this way fundamental unity is preserved. If theoretical physics intrudes upon the equations of physics and substitutes artificial indefinable units then fundamental unity is immediately lost. It is lost because the direct dependence upon empirical evidence is broken.

There are just two naturally indefinable units. They are meters and seconds. They are naturally indefinable because they are the units of empirical evidence. There were and still are no other units existing before them by which they may be defined. However, meters and seconds preexist all other units that follow. All properties that appear in physics equations are represented only by their units. If a property's units are arbitrarily declared to be indefinable then that property is also arbitrarily made indefinable. I refer to these arbitrary indefinable properties and units as being artificially indefinable. I say that they are artificially indefinable because their indefinable status is not empirically supported. Empirical support is demonstrated by defining properties and their units in terms of preexisting properties and preexisting units. A defined property is one that is defined in terms of preexisting properties. A defined unit is one that is defined in terms of preexisting units.

There are three artificial indefinable units in current systems of units. Two of them have been historically admitted as such. Those two are kilograms and degrees Kelvin. Physics textbooks used to use the words definable and indefinable pointing out clearly that both kilograms and degrees were accepted as indefinable properties due to ignorance about how to define them. In equations of mechanics kilograms was accepted as one of three indefinable units, kilograms and meters and seconds, from which all other units of mechanics could be defined. The equations of thermodynamics were treated separately from those of mechanics. They had to be treated separately because they included their own artificial indefinable unit of degrees.

Degrees represents the property of temperature in thermodynamic equations. The units of kilograms represents mass in the equations of mechanics. The circumstance of the artificial indefinable status of kilograms and degrees means that physicists do not know what either mass is or what temperature is. All additional physics equations that include mass necessarily carry along both the ignorance of the nature of mass and the lack of fundamental unity. All additional equations that include temperature necessarily carry along both the ignorance of the nature of temperature and the lack of fundamental unity. None of these conditions were necessary. Both mass and temperature could have been made defined properties. Both kilograms and degrees could have been made defined units. That is what will be explained. (In the case of mass and its units of kilograms the solution is not to make force an indefinable property. Force will remain defined in terms of mass, length and time. Its units of newtons will remain defined in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds. The change involves defining mass and its units.)

To be continued...

James Putnam

Fixing the Units of Physics Part Two:

Here is a link to an essay that uses the MKS system of units to show how to learn that which empirical evidence is telling us: Empirical Truth and Units of Physics.

My next installment will show why the MKS system must be replaced with a system of units that always maintains direct dependence upon empirical evidence. The MKS system does not do that. The final installment will use empirically supported units to derive basic natural units.

James Putnam

Dear Marc,

As you know, in the MKS system of units the ampere is defined as a constant current present in empty space in each of two parallel conductors infinite in length, one meter apart, and experiencing a force of 2x10-7 newtons per meter of conductor lengths. This definition refers an ampere to a measure of force at a measure of distance. The ampere then is established by empirical measurements. These measurements firmly establish the value of the constant current.

Also in the MKS system of units the coulomb is defined as the quantity of charge in a constant current of one ampere which crosses a section of a conductor in one second. The ampere is a firmly established constant current. The definition of the coulomb includes a property called electric charge. The existence of electric charge is taken for granted. The property of electric charge is not itself defined. However, it is known that particles of matter are flowing in the conductors and that they are the physical representation of current. For the purpose of this message, the property of electric charge will be taken for granted and its nature will not be challenged.

In my essay, however, I show that the value of electric charge of one of the particles of the hydrogen atom is numerically close to the magnitude of the period of time it takes for light to travel the length of the radius of the hydrogen atom. The model used is the Bohr model.

You questioned that a different definition of a second would cause the two magnitudes to no longer be close. It is accepted that one is free to define the second differently. However, it is claimed by me that the magnitudes of the two values will remain just as close. The reason for this claim is contained in the definition of a coulomb. Specifically the part "...the quantity of charge in a constant current of one ampere which crosses a section of a conductor in one second." If the unit of second is cut in half the quantity of charge in a constant current of one ampere which crosses a section of a conductor in one new second will be cut in half.

If the coulomb's definition is unchanged then the quantity of charge of the electron will be twice its old value. The reason for this result has to do with dividing the coulomb by the number of particles that make it up. The number of particles is cut in half. Dividing one coulomb by their new number establishes their quantity of charge as 2x1.602x10-19 coulombs.

The speed of light is the number of meters traveled per second. The new value of second cuts that number of meters in half. The new value of the speed of light has a magnitude of one half that of the previous speed of light. The result is that it will require twice the number of new seconds for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom. That time period is twice as large but the charge of one of the particles of the hydrogen atom is also twice as large. The close relationship between their magnitudes remains.

I apologize for writing this out so deliberately detailed. I had other potential readers in mind and wrote it out to be understood by the maximum number of readers.

Marc,

With regard to your observation:

"At the top of page 3 in your essay, you divide the radius of the hydrogen atom by the speed of light and you find dt = 1,602 x 10-19 seconds, which is NUMERICALLY equal to the elementary charge in coulombs: q = 1,602 x 10-19 C. The way I understand it, this is what prompts you to replace the charge q by dt later on in your essay."

This does accurately describe what I saw and did. However, it misses the larger picture. I spotted the close magnitudes because I knew beforehand to look for it. I didn't know where the closeness of magnitudes would appear but I knew beforehand that it would appear. The beginning of knowing that that would be the case occurred simultaneously with defining mass. That first successful step held the promise that if fundamental unity does exist then that act of defining mass was the first step in preserving that unity.

However, it could have been lost unless each following step was careful to allow for it to be preserved. Since fundamental unity has need for only one cause, then any extra causes that have been added on by theorists needed to be proven to have clear direct empirical support or it needed to be removed. Electric charge represents the cause of electromagnetic effects. Yet electric charge, as shown by the definitions of the units of ampere and coulombs, was introduced as a given without establishing direct empirical support for its existence.

I argue that fundamental unity must exist or the universe would not exist because its existence requires orderliness and orderliness requires only one single original and continuing cause for all effects. The essay argues for the removal of one of the causes introduced by theorists. Others will follow. The force of gravity for instance is also removed. There can be just one cause for all effects. That is the nature of fundamental unity. The definition for mass reveals what that single cause is. The correction to f=ma reveals a lot if one chooses to look at it.

James Putnam