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

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

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

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

There is no avoiding this change in theoretical physics: The removal of mass' indefinable status. Mass is clearly inferred to exist from empirical data. That empirical data never contains units of kilograms. It always consists of measures of distance and time. The empirical evidence for f=ma consists entirely of patterns in changes of velocities. Before mass was recgnized to exist, there were patterns of changes of velocities,i.e. measures of velocity with respect to measures of time. The only units involved at this stage were 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 varies. The reason why they vary remains unknown, but it is seen 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 physics equation, it is the units and their mathematical relationships, accurately modeled, that 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 additional 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. The empirical evidence is acceleration. 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 reveals nothing about the natures of either force or mass. If physicists continue to accept this position, then 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. Indefinable units represents an indefinable property. An indefinable property whose nature remains unknown. 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.

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. 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 for physics, 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 before either mass or force are meters and seconds. For fundamental unity to be returned to physics equations, the units for both force and mass must consist of combinations of meters and seconds.

looking back at f=-ma, it gave 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. Inspection will show that there are a few 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 yet to be revealed.

I replace the artificially indefinable units of kilograms with units of inverse acceleration. To answer anyone's question, I say and show that the acceleration that is represented by the inverse of mass 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.

What I have written concerning mass is not a single isolated incident. There is a second incident that is just as revealing of 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, officially an indefinable property. In my work, defining both mass and force led quickly to defining temperature. There remains a problem with the definition of electric charge. However, the task of correcting the definition of electric charge is too much to include in this message.

It is mentioned in this message for the purpose of making it known that the magnitude of electric charge is the only true fully universal constant, and eliminating the circular definition of electric charge with an empirically directed definition reveals an incremental universally constant measure of time that produces full fundamental unity into physics equations.

James Putnam