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

Dear James,

I wrote out a nice long reply to you and I've lost it. The gist of it was as follows:

I did not realize that you are working in natural units rather than MKS, cgs, or other conventions. That may (or may not, I'm not sure) make a difference in numerical 'coincidences' [such as 1.602... ~ 1.602 for different entities.] I do think you have a point that "close coincidences of magnitude of electron charge and the time required for light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom would never have occurred so readily." Even bearing in mind that "the radius of the hydrogen atom" is also a convention, and also depends on the state of the atom, it is still conceivable to me that you can be right. I do know that it takes the mind a while to absorb new concepts, especially when these are 'out-of-kilter' with the old, well-known, established concepts. I repeat that I found the time I spent thinking about your F=ma issue to be very worthwhile.

For this reason I continue to read and put thought into your unorthodox essays, and I'm pleased that you will read and put thought into my [also unorthodox, even unpopular!] essay.

And I certainly concur that recent physics is heavily based in speculative imaginings. While this is appropriate when there are as many anomalies and as much confusion as is displayed in current physics, it only becomes negative when groups form around a given speculation and become invested in it. Then it's like pulling teeth to get rid of inappropriate speculative theories.

My best wishes for you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

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

Dear Mr. Putnam,

As I see it, I have a complete skin surface. Every real object appears to have a complete surface of one form or another. one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. 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. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

    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

    James,

    I like it that you give direct mathematical ties to individual physical laws and studies. I agree with your remedy for fixing physics in a return to empirical forms. In my "Connections" I show the connections of mind, physics, models, and math to practical solutions in quantum biology, DNA, and the LHC. Certainly empirical evidence not delusion resulted in these achievements.

    Good job.

    Jim

    Dear James,

    Thank you for your detailed answer about the relationship between the definition of the second and the definition of the coulomb. I still don't know what to think about the significance of two numerical values with different physical units (at least, according to traditional physics) being equal or almost equal... I'll have to think about it some more, and will go back to reading your essay!

    Marc

    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

      Dear Edwin,

      I accept that while matters look clear to me, I am assuming too much from the reader. It may go so far as my expecting the reader to do work that I should be showing. "Your essays are hard to read because you focus on radical physical understanding, which is not obtained by simply reading sequence of equations. ... . If you can write something more to relate seconds to charge, independent of units, that would be significant."

      I have thought more about your advice. I have to show the link between electric charge and the speed of light. While I argue that the magnitude of electron electric charge is actually a measure of time in seconds for how long it takes light to travel the radius of the hydrogen atom, it is, more completely, representing a fundamental relationship to the speed of light. I have mentioned polarity and that it is a property of mass. That will have to be explained also, but after I explain two things. One is why does the coincidence of magnitudes apply to a simplistic inaccurate model of the hydrogen atom? The second thing to be explained I mentioned above: How do electric charge and the speed of light become joined together so fundamentally? The answers to both questions lie in derivations of their units.

      James Putnam

      I should mention that it isn't just Delta tc that should draw attention, it is also Delta xc. For example, Planck's constant divided by Boltzmann's constant yields a magnitude equivalent to the simplified radius, Delta xc, of the hydrogen atom. The conventional units don't match, but, the new empirical units that follow from defining mass do match. Lastly, Delta xc/Delta tc is the speed of light.

      I guess that it should be said that Planck's constant and Boltzmann's constant are physically related, as evidenced in the message above, and that both describe properties that originate with the hydrogen atom. Even the Universal Gravitational constant can be calculated from properties that include measurements from the simplified hydrogen atom.

      My thought while writing these last three messages is that, generally, physicists seem to me to be preferring hidden likenesses to plainly seen likenesses.

      James Putnam

      James,

      Thanks for your kind comments. While our approaches may vary I found no inconsistency with our key elements. I think yours is by far your best to date and covers important matters. Actual maths aside not only did I find all your assumptions consistent but also a well written expose on the tricks of maths, which I describe more as 'application' errors, but we don't disagree.

      Unfortunately I find, even here, such fundamentally important ways of thinking are too different from standard entrenched academic doctrine to be even countenanced by the judges. Will another 5 years of intellectual evolution help? I still hope so.

      Very well done.

      Peter

      Dear James A Putnam,

      I do not get the logic why you removed mass from the empirical units. Mass, distance and time appear to be natural to all casual observers of nature. Then why do you single out mass? You say, "The lost fundamental unity cannot be regained until mass is made a defined property with direct dependence upon empirical evidence for its interpretation and use". But you have not provided an alternate interpretation of mass in the essay. I would like to know how you account for mass, and also why you think distance and time to be empirical units.

      I agree with your arguments that force, energy, charge, and temperature are not well defined. In my opinion, bodies always remain in motion, and there is no energy other than motion. In my essay, A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics, I argue that the mathematical equations can be tricky that the conclusions we arrive at from the equations can mislead us. I fully agree with your opinion about space-time: "All empirical evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Neither space nor time nor space-time has ever been shown to have velocities or to have experienced changes of velocities".

      Regarding hypotheses or guess work, everybody will agree with you 'in principle': "Guessing, even by professionals, is a temporary convenience or it is a fault. Prove it or remove it. There is a third temporary position: Admit that it is a placeholder so that all, without personal attacks or censorship or banning, may work toward removing it". However, 'in practice', things may be different.

        Hi Jose P. Koshy,

        Thank you for expressing your opinion about my essay. I think I could have written it better, but, I don't think I could have added to it. Choices had to be made. I will be happy to read your essay.

        "I do not get the logic why you removed mass from the empirical units. "

        Expressing my response from my viewpoint: I didn't remove mass from empirical units. I called for the removal of its indefinable status. Mass is clearly inferred to exist from empirical data. That empirical data never contains units of kilograms. It always and ever consists of measures of distance and time. The empirical evidence for f=ma consists entirely of patterns in changes of velocities. Before mass is known to exist, there are patterns of changes of velocities that are graphed as measures of velocity with respect to measures of time. The only units involved in this graphing stage are meters and seconds.

        An inspection of graphs of patterns of changes of velocities reveals that there are two other properties that are inferred to exist. The most obvious is 'force'. We don't know what force is, but we see what it does. Secondly it is seen that the patterns in changes of velocities, for the same force but on different objects, also vary. The reason why they vary is unknown, but we see that something causes it to vary and we name that cause as 'mass'. At this point neither force nor mass has units. The only units in existence are those of the empirical evidence, meaning the units in which the patterns in changes of velocities are graphed. Yet both mass and force need units by which they may be both measured and then represented in physics equations. The names mean nothing to the equations. The units mean everything. In the future use of a physics equation, it is the units and their mathematical relationships, accurately modeled, among them that will reveal truths to us.

        Before any step is taken to assign units to either force or mass, it is necessary to recognize that it is the empirical evidence that has gotten us started and it must be the empirical evidence that moves us forward into producing other physics equations. What I mean is that we must receive our guidance from the empirical evidence. To be more exact: All properties inferred to exist from examination of empirical evidence must be expressible in the same terms as that empirical evidence is itself expressed. That empirical evidence is expressed in units of meters and seconds only.

        The reason why both force and mass must have units that consist of combinations of meters and seconds only, is that if this is not done, then, to assign either of them indefinable units is to say that we believe that empirical evidence appears to us to have nothing to reveal about the natures of either force or mass. If we accept this position, then in order to move forward we must assign indefinable units to at least one of them. That is what was done and remains the case today. Mass was arbitrarily chosen to be assigned indefinable units. In other words, The nature of mass cannot be revealed by physics equations for the reason that its indefinable status was an admission that empirical evidence did not reveal its nature to us.

        Taking this a step further, the universe operates in an orderly manner. The fact that the universe operates in an orderly manner proves that there is one cause for all effects. The existence of one cause for all effects means that fundamental unity exists. That fundamental unity might have been revealed to us by the empirical evidence of f=ma, but, was not recognized by us. If this is what occurred, then we permanently removed fundamental unity from physics equations by the act of making mass an indefinable property with indefinable units. In order to establish fundamental unity into physics equations, mass must be made a definable property. This cannot be accomplished by choosing force to be an indefinable property instead of mass. Both force and mass must be defined properties. A defined property is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A defined unit is one that is defined in terms of pre-existing units. The only pre-existing units are meters and seconds. The units for both force and mass must consist of combinations of meters and seconds.

        looking back at f=-ma, it does give us guidance as to how to make both force and mass defined properties. Solving for f/m=a shows that the combinations of meters and seconds for the ratio of force to mass must reduce to units of acceleration. Some inspection will show that there are a few different possible combinations that will reduce to units of acceleration. However, the one solution that moves physics equations forward while clearly retaining fundamental unity is for mass to have units of inverse acceleration. In other words m=1/a where a is to be determined. To answer your question about how I replace the units of kilograms, I replaced them with units of inverse acceleration. To answer anyone's question about what is that acceleration that is represented by the inverse of mass: It is the acceleration of light. It is the acceleration of light that is the single cause for all mechanical effects in the universe including those of electromagnetism and those of gravity. To go further would best wait to see if there is interest. However, my work has been on the Internet since 2001 and it explains how the variation of the velocity of light causes all mechanical effects. Actually it causes all effects, but it can't be shown to that extent so long as light is interpreted as a mechanical property. Mechanical properties explain only mechanical effects.

        A last point to be made. What I have written concerning mass is not a single isolated incident that I might have misrepresented. There is a second incident that is just as revealing the mistake of theoretical physicists to introduce artificial indefinable units. The second property for which the same erroneous treatment was given is temperature. Temperature is to this day, other than in my work, an indefinable property. For both mass and temperature, and for any physicist that reads this, their natures remain officially unknown. In my work, the act of defining both mass and force led quickly to defining temperature. There is one last problem and that is the definition of electric charge, but, that case is really special by virtue of it being even more difficult to expose and correct.

        Much of what I have written here is covered in my essays entered in all of the essay contests, plus, I have been debating these matters for years here and elsewhere. There has been, of course, for all this time, my website newphysicstheory.com.

        James Putnam