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

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

Hi Joe,

We have communicated in past essay contests. It always seemed to me that we have very different views of the nature of the universe. I am not a physicist so my opinion doesn't count. I guess if you are interested in receiving a response representing my opinion then I would point out to you that:

Quoting you: "All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously."

My response is that: No objects are traveling at the same constant speed. There are situations where several objects are moving at very close to the same variable speed (velocity would be more accurate) and so appear to each other to be moving at very close to the same constant speeds. (Again velocity would be more accurate). However, Everyone's velocities and speeds are always varying even with respect to one another.

James Putnam

Here is a paper from Vixra in which the author used one of my results:

Keplerian restraints on general quantized theories of gravity and the emergence of anomalous electro-gravitic couplings at the Compton scale

Edward Halerewicz, Jr.

University of Illinois at Springfield

One University Plaza, Springfield IL 62703

March 8,2006

Enrolled student. E-mail: ehale02s@uis.edu, halgravity@yahoo.com

Dear Marc,

The coincidence of magnitudes is not enough by itself. However, should you ever happen across other essays of mine there is something to notice about the equations. Even though I deal with several areas of physics, some of which in mainstream physics do not involve electric charge, you will notice that Delta tc appears everywhere. It is the key to unity in the equations for all areas. The universal constant magnitude of electric charge belongs to all of physics.

James Putnam

My essay includes a revision of the property of electric charge. The coincidence of magnitudes is not enough by itself. I show a new derivation of replacements for Maxwell's equations. Still more is needed. Throughout my work there is something to notice about the equations. Even though I deal with several areas of physics, some of which in mainstream physics do not involve electric charge, its replacement Delta tc appears everywhere. It is the key to unity in the equations for all areas. The universal constant magnitude of electric charge belongs to all of physics. I have attached an excerpt that in a couple of pages shows its presence in Planck's and Boltzmann's Constants.Attachment #1: Interpreting_Planck.pdf

It is not expected that many will read these attachments. They aren't complete presentations, but, are only excerpts. The point of presenting them is to show even by glancing how Delta tc appears both in electromagnetism equations and in other subjects also. This attachment shows how Delta tc unifies two expressions for the fine structure constant.Attachment #1: Unifying_the_Fine_Structure_Constant.pdf