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
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
James,
Thanks for your comments on my essay. It prompted a review of yours to see if I rated it and found that I did on 3/26.
A Wired Magazine article inspired my Euler Identity reference: http://www.wired.com/2014/11/eulers-identity/
Jim
Dear James,
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
Dear James,
Well done on your thought provoking essay. I fully agree that there might be error in not properly understanding mass but I think with the amount of knowledge available at the time this was unavoidable. Nevertheless, this historical error has led to advances in some understanding the calculable aspects of dynamics and the implications of F = ma.
Since we talk of fundamentals, and you have identified length (space) and time (seconds), it seems to me that since all that has mass has some length, i.e. occupies space, then space is more fundamental than mass, making mass to then in some sense be a derived property from the peculiarity of behavior of some region of space. If such behaviour changes, mass can be lost from that region.
Einstein's E = mc^2, also suggests that mass can be lost and converted to energy, i.e. what has mass can become massless, and what is massless can acquire mass. What do you think?
Regards and all the best in the competition,
Akinbo
James,
Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read to assure I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 3/27, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. Thanks for checking out mine as well.
Jim
Adding a correction to my message above so that a universally more important correction can be made to theoretical physics.
"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."
Corrected:
Fundamental unity was revealed to natural philosophers by the empirical evidence of variations in patterns of changes of velocities of objects, but, it went unrecognized then and now by physicists. This monumental misstep is the continuation of mass as an indefinable property with indefinable units. Natural philosophy cannot return until this correction is made. This correction will lead to the undoing of theoretical interference into the equations of physics. It was theoretical interference that entered f=ma when mass was accepted as a permanent unknown property. When mass becomes a known property to physicists, it will mark the beginning of learning all that has been missing from that which empirical evidence has to teach us about the mechanical operation of the universe. Physicists will know that they know what mass is when they have defined mass in the same terms as which its empirical evidence is expressed. Its empirical evidence is patterns of changes of velocities of objects. Velocity and its changes are expressed in physics equations in terms of meters and seconds only. F/m=a leads us to know that the units of f/m must reduce to those of acceleration. They must themselves consist of combinations of meters and seconds in order to meet this empirical requirement. The correction to the original error imposed upon f=ma by theoretical intrusion, is to accept units of inverse acceleration for those of mass. This conclusion is based upon inverse acceleration making sense while reintroducing fundamental unity into the equations of physics from their beginning and remaining seen in the equations that follow. The property whose acceleration is represented as 'mass' in physics equations is the property of light. it is the variation of both the speed and direction of light that produces the effects that are the empirical evidence of physics.
James Putnam
Hi Akinbo,
I think I will take my show on the road. Years have passed. Contests have come and gone. I have presented many of my mathematical results, but not all. I have a few more important ones. My website does very well for Google searches of "new physics theory" and "new theoretical physics". It is long overdue for me returning my full attention to it. I am finding that my work is received better at Academia.edu. I will improve my presence there also.
With regard to each one of our's ideas, they are all quite different. Mine are very different from yours and the others. Fqxi.org is a very special place on the Internet for discussing one's views about physics. Most of what is tolerated here would not be tolerated in other forums. What makes this even more remarkable is that it is a serious physics organization. Its contests include submissions by true professionals. Amateurs and professionals engage in discussions. One can put their ideas forward here for testing by others. Mine don't pass the test here. I hope for better results for you and the others. I have papers that need written and placed on the Internet.
James Putnam
The magnitude of electric charge is the same as the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters, the radius of the simplified hydrogen atom. No matter how many times I point out this amazing occurrence, it is ignored by others. So, I will write a paper explaining how the cause of this occurrence is in the definition of units. The units are the vehicles by which errors about the natures of properties become pushed into physics equations. There are other errors that followed this route, and, they have been explained in my essays and discussions. With regard to the magnitude of the time it takes for light to travel 4.8x10-11 meters it is the only truly universal, both local and remote, constant. The length of 4.8x10-11 meters is a local constant. The two together form the speed of light. They are the two givens of magnitudes of constants. All other constants can be calculated from physical conditions. This includes the 'Universal Gravitational' constant for which I have also provided the calculation.
James Putnam
A little to neutralize the 1-bombers. As a regular with me on this forum we will engage more after the contest.
Akinbo