The Race to Replace the Kilogram

Steve Andresen,

Hi, It has gotten late. I will just explain why I say that there is no place in the Universe where the speed of light is really 'C'. Another way of saying this is there is no place in the Universe where length is not contracted to less than it could be. Object activity, the very thing that we substitute to serve in place of actually being able to measure time, is never quite as fast as it could be. The reason for these two effects to miss their ultimate mark is that that ultimate mark is unreacheable. It is unreachable because of the infinite extent of mass. The speed of light is regulated throughout the Universe. It varies, but it is controlled. It is the most important property in this orderly Universe. That orderliness is constant proof that fundamental unity exists. Fundamental unity is always the product of a single cause for all effects. Since physics is a mechanical interpretation of the operation of the Universe, I limit what I say to this: The variation of the speed of light is the cause for all mechanical effects. Measuring the ultimate speed of light, true 'C', would be like witnessing the end of the universe. What I mean is that there is never a time during the life of the Universe that the speed of light is not varying.

Mass is the inverse representation of the variation of the speed of light for a single particle. Particles gather together and become complex assemblies of particles. Their masses combine together. As their sum of masses increase in magnitude, the speed of light for them locally is decreasing in magnitude. This is how I find that mass varies and, inversely the speed of light varies for a neutral atom: I don't think that mass begins as a singularity, but, I will let that be the case just for the sake of simplifying this description. If mass begins from a singularity, then it begins with a magnitude of infinity. Again, I don't think this is the case, but it simplifies the curve that the magnitude of mass follows as a function of distance from its center of origin. To be exact, it is mass that is the particle, meaning that a particle consists only of its ability to control the speed of light. Mass represents the magnitude of that speed inversely. So the particle is not made of mass, but, instead is a curve representing the speed of light beginning from its singularity with a speed of zero, and increasing its speed with distance from its singularity.

The shape of the curve that the speed of light follows has a short length where it increases very rapidly. That length is approximately the radius of the hydrogen atom. When that length is reached the speed of light slows very rapidly giving the curve a knee where instead of rising rapidly it bends over until its increase in speed is very small with respect to distance from its singularity. The speed of light does continue to increase, but does so very slowly with distance. When two particles combine their masses, and therefore their control of the speed of light; their masses add together meaning that the two particles cause the increase in the speed of light with respect to distance to slow down. The larger mass becomes, the slower the speed of light increases. For an isolated particle, or an isolated combination of particles, the speed of light does not decrease, but the increase in the speed of light with distance approaches zero. That value of zero would only occur at a distance of infinity. The speed of light would approximately reach its maximum possible value of 'C' only if the Universe expanded to a size that could be mathematically treated as approaching infinity.

The property of mass for protons, electrons, neutrons, or whatever is more complicated than this message indicates. So there is more to be said, but for a neutral atom of group of neutral atoms, this description is adequate as an introduction. My intent was to indicate in physically meaningful way why I said that the speed of light is never actually 'C' anywhere in the Universe. The speed 'C' is the ultimate maximum speed of light.

James Putnam

Probably more discourse will not be helpful, but I am forever fascinated by how people believe so deeply in notions that seem to me to have deep flaws. Naturally I include myself but mainstream science is really in a blind alley right now and your beliefs do not seem to help...nor do mine evidently.

Needless to say, instantaneous communication is impossible and that is something that I don't even have to defend since it is self-evident...no has every done it.

As for the theory of relativity...mass-energy equivalence (MEE) has so many far reaching applications that it is likewise hardly worth further discourse. Relativity does have its flaws and limitations, but the dilation of space and time are simply consequences of MEE.

It is really matter and action from which space and time emerge and matter and action depend on MEE and the Schrodinger equation to predict the actions of sources. Without quantum phase, there would be nothing to hold the world together...

You have your own spectrometer that measures the spectrum of a single photon. Somehow, though, your spectrometer cannot measure phase and amplitude and only measures the intensity or energy of the photon.

My spectrometer measures both the amplitude and phase of a single photon and that allows me to calculate the photon intensity and energy that therefore agree with your spectrometer measurement. However, unless you can measure phase and amplitude with your spectrometer, you will not come to know the underlying reality of phase coherence, superposition, and entanglement.

My photons also have mass...a very, very tiny mass...and the underlying reality of the universe is the mass of that discrete aether. The wave-particle duality is simply a restatement of the notion that particles are aether phase condensates while waves are pure aether phase. A photon is just the simplest aether condensate as a phased aether pair and so particles and waves are made up of the same basic stuff...aether.

"Needless to say, instantaneous communication is impossible and that is something that I don't even have to defend since it is self-evident...no has every done it."

It needs to be said that instantaneous communication is possible. It is always happening. The claim that it is impossible will have to be defended. What is self-evident is that the orderly operation of the Universe requires that it have a controlling property that is instantaneously communicated. Without it, the Universe would be disorderly. There has to be a reference upon which control is maintained. The entire Universe must be in communication with that reference. No I won't say in this message what that reference is, although I have stated it here at FQXi.org repeatedly. Your resistance is total. So is mine! I suggest that universal constants are evidence of immediate Universal communication. I understand that theoretical physics refutes miracles but accepts givens. The theoretically satisfying justification is to call givens natural. You have been given a Universe that is orderly and its orderly continuation requires immediate communication at the most fundamental level. You are witnessing immediate communication when you witness entanglement. But, there is more to see in immediate communication. In the case of gravity waves there will be, according to me, two waves. The first will be immediate and the second (No they will not be of the same magnitude.) will travel at the speed of light. How could that be true? Consider the photon and the constant C. This is not far out compared to believing that photons do not experience the passage of time, for which there is no empirical evidence. Think about it! Have an answer one way or the other that isn't just an evasive rabbit hole type of remark.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

" ...My photons also have mass...a very, very tiny mass... "

What effect tells you that they have mass? What did they get that mass from?

James Putnam

"What is temperature? Temperature is energy ..."

Show the mathematics that supports this claim. " ... and energy is mass."

Show the mathematics, not just putting up the letters 'M' and 'EE" which do not appear in mathematical equations.

"Something that is hotter weighs more than something that is colder."

So something that is proportional to another thing is that thing?

"Temperature is not hard since it is not axiomatic."

In other words, temperature is easy because it does not involve physics. Physics is a science. One does have to provide empirical support and put that support to work in equations.

"The mass that defines temperature is hard because mass is what everything is made of and mass is simply something in which we must believe."

This is not even theoretical physics. That is unless theoretical physics no longer needs to show the mathematics for its "beliefs". In that case,

"Mass is simply mass, an identity."

In other words, you don't know what mass is. You don't know because mass has never been defined. The physics method of defining properties has always been, and rightfully so, to define a property in terms of pre-existing properties. That way the empirical evidence tells you what you need to know about mass. The alternative is to not know. "Its an identity." It should be physics.

"Likewise for action. Action has no definition and is a pure belief or identity. Action is simply action."

Again, you are saying you don't know how to learn what action is? The methodology of historical physics, before theoretical physic is took rule, will show you how to learn what things are.

So I haven"t done quantum phase because its too hard!? When I do it, it will follow the same practice I have presented in my work: Empirical evidence is a must and the mathematics is a must. Beliefs are for stuffing theoretical holes.

James Putnam

Classical physics as it is right now predicts action very well and reformulating classical physics is simply not that useful. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reformulating a nicely working theory, reformulation simply does not reveal any new truth. In fact, reformulation can obfuscate the simple truths with a lot of obscure math.

You ask very simple questions and I give you very simple answers, but unless your axioms align with mine, we will always disagree. I make no claim that my axioms are the only way to formulate reality and in fact agree that there are many equivalent axiom formulations.

Your theory has certain axioms in which you dearly believe and that is where you begin. You really believe in something that you call theoretical physics, which of course is simply a supernatural belief that you have about the nature of reality. Where does theoretical physics come from? Why does it exist?

My universe begins with the simple axioms of matter and action and the mathematical theory is then simply a tool that predicts the future. Your universe begins with a belief in the complexities of some kind of math. Since you get to exactly the same place as the classical beliefs of mainstream science, it appears that your theory simple restates mainstream theory in a more complex manner.

When I point that out, you seem to get upset. There are many equations for temperature, but the simplest is that T = 2 E/k per degree of freedom. For the classical empty box, there are three dimensions and so T = 2 E/3k. So temperature is always proportional to an energy, energy is proportional to mass, and so temperature is equivalent to mass. A source that heat up, weighs more. A empty box weighs more with photons inside.

You keep stating the obvious that empirical evidence is a must and I could not agree more. However, at the basis of any well-founded theory lies unfounded assumptions or axioms or beliefs. This is true by Wittgenstein and by Godel's theorem and this is simply how the universe works...it begins with belief.

Photons have both inertial mass as m = h nu /c2, as well as a very, very tiny rest mass as 2mae. That photons have inertial mass is shown by all physics. That photons also have a very tiny rest mass is something that science argues about. Since all sources in the universe are made up of aether, photons are made up of a phased aether pair.

The aether particle mass follows from Plancks constant and the time size of the universe, mae = h / (2 Tu c^2) = G h mH^2/(2 q^2 10^-7)= 8.68e-69 kg. The time size of the universe simply emerges from the ratio of gravity and charge forces and so does the aether mass. So the photon is the charge action of the quantum phase of aether. Similar, the biphoton of gravity is the gravity action of a single aether particle.

Thus, the aether mass fundamentally comes from the measurements of G and q, gravity and charge.

I am guessing that the message that this excerpt is from might be directed to me. It is not possible to be certain because this statement has no connection to anything I have written.

"You really believe in something that you call theoretical physics, which of course is simply a supernatural belief that you have about the nature of reality."

I don't believe in theoretical physics. I remove the empirically unsupported intrusions into physics equations by theorists. Theoretical physics is not about the nature of reality.

"Where does theoretical physics come from?

It came into being when physicists decided to make mass an indefinable property. That first error of physics was a theoretical choice. The theory adopted was that mass was an indefinable property. This empirically unsupported act permanently removed fundamental unity from physics equations. The only cure that can bring fundamental unity back is to define mass and temperature and to remove the circular definition of electric charge.

"Why does it exist?"

It exists because physics has not cured its fundamentals. The quest for lost answers is filled with imaginative substitutes that lie outside of our ability to directly test them. It exists for a more general purpose as a quest to achieve unity. Since the fundamentals have not been fixed, fundamental unity cannot be regained. The substitute effort invents properties, dimensions, geometries, and

nothings-that-become-somethings, all lacking verifiability by direct experimentation. Theoretical physics is a mathematical facade that prevents us from learning the actual nature of the Universe.

If this message was not directed at me, sorry for the interruption of whatever conversation it belongs to.

James Putnam

If you don't believe in theoretical physics, then what do you believe in? You do not seem to believe in the universe matter and action the way that they are...

I know that this argument is a little futile...

Okay...you do not believe in theoretical physics and yet you do believe in a cure for theoretical physics in which you do believe very deeply. That then is the theoretical physics that I refer to...the one that you have cured and now believe in so fervently.

But you then say that theoretical physics is a math facade...but before you said that mass was a facade. Look...once you try to define definitions you know that you are in a recursion of belief that will take you very deep into the bowels of misunderstanding and disbelief...

Yes. Aethertime is my own interpretation of the universe in terms of the decoherence of a fundamental aether. Here are details: aethertime cosmology, how quantum gravity works quantum gravity, and why the aethertime concept is consistent with both charge and gravity.

Aether is simply what makes up the universe and along with action, are the dual axioms that are the universe.

Steve Agnew,

Are you trying to combine Relativity with Quantum Mechanics? That is, you assume that both the theories are correct, and make minor corrections to combine both based on Aethertime. If so how far have you succeeded?

Or do you just cherry-pick from both? That is, you just select things at random that suits Aethertime, and explain it based on QM or Relativity.

From what I have read from the links you provided, it seems at present that your attempt is just a combination of the above two strategies.

Jose p Koshy

Yes, yes, and yes. The links I have provided are non-technical...aethertime theory is quite technical as is consistent with my expertise as a chemical physics Ph.D. (U.S., WSU), but not an academic and not published in cosmology or theoretical physics. I am a lowly chemical physicist and am just sick and tired of mainstream physics not doing their job.

Here is my technical paper, which I would like to publish in the mainstream science, but alas have only been rejected three times so far.

It is really nice having a quantum gravity since that has permitted so many things that have truly surprised me...

Hi Steve Agnew

Interesting. Sciences reluctant considering of variable mass? This isn't the only curious circumstance. Are you aware that heated metals express weight reduction? I'll find it if youre interested? This is old news, and as interesting as science gets in my opinion, but we dont hear about it much.

Steve

James

What do you think of their proposed method for redefining mass? Its like you have spent years and years telling people the importance of a thing, then one day they wake up and pretend the idea was all theirs "oh maybe we should redefine mass". But dont expect you've been acknowledged by anybody for your long held argument. This should be a level of vindication, but if they pretend you dont exist then they rob you.

If science eventually moves in a direction that vindicates an individuals long held mantra, professional or nonprofessional alike should be acknowledged by science. This should be a given

Steve

Are novices who have successfully preempted the future direction of science ignored by the scientific community? Is this a thing?

Is there an example of a novice who has been vindicated and then recognized in recent years?

Steve

Steve Agnew,

"Of course, the definition of mass is beside the point."

It is for those who cannot express an empirically supported opinion of what is mass? Some of us need to know what mass is? Some of us need to know what temperature is, as opposed to explaining that it is really something else that cannot be explained. Some of us need to know why a physicist would equate it to something that it is not. If it is that something else, then its units must be the same as that something else. Is this statement wrong?

Some of us need to know why theoretical physicists continue to put forward a circular 'meaning, without doubt, a non-definition' in place of explaining what electric charge is. What is your message? Is it that so long as we can measure something we are knowledgeable of it? If so: What is mass? Is it energy? Then, based upon your earlier answer to: What is temperature? Mass must be temperature?

James Putnam

I thought you were done explaining your definitions...of empirically supported opinions...saying mass is something that it is not is wrong. Mass units cannot be the same as that something else...

Your language seems to be so twisted up in identities that is it difficult to make any sense out of what you say. Of course, saying mass is something that it is not is wrong by definition. That is what those words mean and so you do not have to keep repeating them.

You have something that you call pure observation and space and time can be observer, but then you state that neither space nor time are subject to direct experimentation. So direct experimentation is somehow different from pure observation in your mind, but not in any one else's mind. Making these kinds of distinctions in word definitions seems to reveal hidden truths to you but just seem like redefining words in confusing ways.

Wondering why the universe is the way that it is or why force is the way that it is or why identity recursions exist are questions that result in perpetual discourse. There are questions that have no answers and there are definitions that make no sense and there is a pure observation that is not a direct experimentation.

Strangely enough, you do have a method in your madness in that you keep repeating that identities are not definitions. I use the term axiom, but you do not like that term. You choose to begin your universe with force and acceleration and there are many different equivalent axioms upon which to build a universe. Somehow you have convinced yourself that building a universe from force and acceleration reveals some kind of hidden truth. To me, it seems like just another way to build a universe.

"I thought you were done explaining your definitions...of empirically supported opinions...saying mass is something that it is not is wrong. Mass units cannot be the same as that something else...

"Your language seems to be so twisted up in identities that is it difficult to make any sense out of what you say. Of course, saying mass is something that it is not is wrong by definition. That is what those words mean and so you do not have to keep repeating them."

Its not going away. Mass, temperature,and electric charge are three definite weak points in theoretical physics. Weak points in the fundamentals that form the foundation. You don't see it. I understand that. But because of the official lack of definitions for all three, theoretical physics is out on a limb. What I present are the necessary corrections. Theoretical physics will change. I won't bother you with it anymore. You no longer believe, if you ever did, that physics properties need to be defined according to consistent strict criteria. The physicists of the past, including recent past, set the correct criteria. I will be sticking with their clear thinking.

James Putnam