The Race to Replace the Kilogram

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...

Steve Agnew,

Quoting you, "The wave-particle duality is simply a restatement of the notion that particles are aether phase condensates while waves are pure aether phase."

Can I assume that this is 'your own' theory? Or is it an emergent branch of QM, with many followers?

Does it take time for condensates to change into pure phase and back? Or is it simultaneity, as 'both dead and alive at the same time' similar to wave-particle duality?

From where does the rest mass of aether come from? Does it have a mass or does it require Higgs? Or mass appears just in the measurement?

Jose P Koshy

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...

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

Steven Anresen,

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

"... in recent years?

I will think about that. Here is an easy quick, indisputable, historical adventure story, truncated by me, about Michael Faraday:

"Faraday, who always kept to empirical facts, did indeed compare the electric contiguous action in non-conductors with elastic tensions, but he took care not to apply the laws of the latter to electric phenomenon. He used the graphical picture of "lines of force" that run in the direction of the electric field from the positive charges through the insulator to the negative charges. ..." [Michael Faraday Methuen Company in 1924, Dover Publications, Inc.; pages 165-1760.]

Page 167: "This strange view of Faraday's at first found no favour among the physicists and Mathematicians of his own time. ... "

James Putnam

Steven Andresen,

Some of what I meant to include in my message was missing so I am adding to it.

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

"... in recent years?

"Faraday, who always kept to empirical facts, did indeed compare the electric contiguous action in non-conductors with elastic tensions, but he took care not to apply the laws of the latter to electric phenomenon. He used the graphical picture of "lines of force" that run in the direction of the electric field from the positive charges through the insulator to the negative charges. ..." [Michael Faraday Methuen Company in 1924, Dover Publications, Inc.; pages 165-1760.]

Page 167: "This strange view of Faraday's at first found no favour among the physicists and Mathematicians of his own time. ... "]

Adding from page 165: 5. Faraday's Lines of Force

"Faraday came from no learned academy; his mind was not burdened with traditional ideas and theories. His sensational rise from a bookbinder's apprentice to the world-famous physicist of the Royal Institution of London is well known. The world of his ideas, which arose directly and exclusively from the abundance of his experiments, was just as free from conventional schemes as his life. ... "

The problem we face today, in my opinion, is that there is a surplus of theoretical physicists who work at 'chalkboards' with no post Doctoral experimental experience. If it can be 'written' then it can be considered. The mathematics, a necessary vehicle for carrying out experiments, has been adapted to serve the minds' that drive theory, theory is the substitution for what is not known so that mathematics can move forward even with its historically long missing parts still missing. Missing, continually, but substituted for with that which has 'mathematical solution' possibilities. It seems ironic that Faraday's circumstance and accomplishments should be so graciously acknowledge by someone who would play an important role in causing the acceptance of Einstein's non-empirical theory.

Anyone looking in and wondering how such an apparently prediction-wise successful theory can be referred to as non-empirical, the answer is that its foundation is the Dilation-of-Time and the Contraction-of-Space. There is no experimental support for either of those claims. Experimentation is limited to experiments upon objects who's velocities can be caused to change.

James Putnam

Hi Steven,

"What do you think of their proposed method for redefining mass?"

This point helps to emphasize the loose attitude physicists have adopted to the meaning of the word 'defined'. No physicist has defined mass. Mass is not being redefined. It never has been defined. Substituting a new and better rule for the measurement of mass is no substitute for defining mass. Physicists have never defined mass, are not defining mass, and, do not presently know what mass is. We will know when physicists know what mass is when: The units of mass, kilograms, will be themselves made into defined units. They are not presently, nor have they ever been, defined units. The reason for pressing the dependence of the meaning of mass upon the definition of its units is that mass is a name for that which kilograms represents in all physics equations.

James Putnam