The Race to Replace the Kilogram

James, I had no intention of misrepresenting you. I was just expressing a few things that I think are important. Some parts of the physics we have are dealing with emergent phenomena and some are foundational, not the product of other physics. Mass, what exists, the material substance ( a definition), as I said, is foundational. It doesn't emerge from other physics happening. The images seen by an observer do depend on other physics so they are not foundational. Foundational passage of time is continual change in the total configuration of bodies of mass. Heat is the motion of particles of mass, measurable by a temperature scale. you wrote "Kilograms is not the amount of particles. It is not the amount of matter." I agree, it is a unit of measurement allowing comparison between different masses, having different numbers of fermion particles.

Dear Georgina,

"Mass, what exists, the material substance ( a definition), as I said, is foundational."

Mass is not what exists as a material substance. We know only about properties. There are no material substances appearing in any physics equations. Mass exists as a property.

"It doesn't emerge from other physics happening."

It has a history that is being communicated to us by the arrival of empirical evidence. Its history is what defines it. However, it was introduced into physics equations as if it had no history to tell us what it is. It remains officially a fundamental indefinable property that has no physics explanation.

"The images seen by an observer do depend on other physics so they are not foundational."

It is very well recognized that light has a finite velocity. Physics solutions take it into consideration. The effects called time-dilation and length-contraction are due to physical changes and not to Doppler effects. They are definitely different phenomena. In established physics, physicists are not confusing physical changes with visual effects.

"Foundational passage of time is continual change in the total configuration of bodies of mass."

Configuration of bodies whether having mass or not having mass continually change period. There is no derivation in physics that tells us anything about either time or space. There is no derivation because there is no empirical evidence for effects suffered by either time or space. Without effects, nothing can officially be said. One's opinion about either time or space is not physics. You may believe what you wish and promote it, but it is not physics knowledge.

"Heat is the motion of particles of mass, measurable by a temperature scale."

Definitely not. Heat has a well known definition. Heat is energy in transit. Temperature is measurable by a temperature scale. Temperature is measurable, but remains officially a fundamental indefinable property without a physics explanation for what it is.

"you wrote "Kilograms is not the amount of particles. It is not the amount of matter." I agree, it is a unit of measurement allowing comparison between different masses, having different numbers of fermion particles."

My statement was in response to your sentence: "Kilograms are units not properties, they allow comparison of the amount of fermion particles in a substance (How much stuff)."

Lets back that point up and speak about mass: Mass is not a the amount of particles in a substance. Mass is not "how much stuff". The unit of mass does not measure the amount of particles in a substance. The unit of mass does not tell us "How much stuff" Even if I had just used the plural form units in that last sentence, my statement would remain correct.

For readers in general: It is a common error to sometimes speak of properties that are proportional to one another as if they are the same thing. This appears to occur mainly during discussions of properties that are not explained such as mass and temperature.

James Putnam

James, I'll be brief. 1. Physics is not mathematical formulae alone. 2.Properties do not have material existence. 3. History is different from emergence. Mass is not created by everyday physical processes, though it can move and combine and separate from other bodies of mass. Conservation of energy is a fundamental Law. 4. Mass is not fundamentally undefined. The mass of an object is due to the atomic mass of its constituents and in physics it is defined by its inertia, how it responds to a force giving change of motion. 5. Now you misrepresent me as I said nothing about Doppler effect or length contraction or time dilation. I was just attempting to say that for an observer to see an object physics must happen, the images do not just exist, unlike a source mass. 6. Taking foundational time as the change in total configuration of what materially exists gives sequential unidirectional time, needed to overcome a number of issues in physics. 7. You are right about the definition of heat. I was thinking about things with more kinetic energy being hotter and mistakenly calling that heat. Replace that 'heat' with kinetic energy.

Please don't think of me as an adversary. I am just trying to share my viewpoint, not attack yours.

Dear Georgina,

"1. Physics is not mathematical formulae alone."

I assume this refers to my response: "The one statement you made that has a chance of being physics is that "Mass is foundational." It needs for you to define "foundational". If your definition cannot be expressed mathematically, then it is certain that it is not a physics definition.""

"2.Properties do not have material existence."

This is not clear. I will assume that you are referring to mass. It is a property. There is no empirical evidence for mass having substance.

"3. History is different from emergence."

The history of mass is what tells us how to define it. It has a history communicated to us by empirical evidence. Everything there is to learn about mass is communicated to us by empirical evidence. Emergence needs explained. If it refers to a property defined in terms of pre-existing properties then it is not emergent. If it means a property introduced into physics equations without that definition, then it is an unexplained property. For anyone reading this: All properties other than 'time' and 'space', and, their physics equations substitutes 'duration' and 'length' are definable in terms of pre-existing properties. In the cases where that has not been done, those properties lack their history and their meanings. The penalty paid is that fundamental unity is lost and will not be regained until all such properties are defined in terms of pre-existing properties.

"Mass is not created by everyday physical processes, though it can move and combine and separate from other bodies of mass."

What is the physics definition of mass?

"Conservation of energy is a fundamental Law."

Energy is defined in terms of mass. Mass cannot then be defined in terms of energy. What is the non-circular physics definition of mass?

"4. Mass is not fundamentally undefined. The mass of an object is due to the atomic mass of its constituents and in physics it is defined by its inertia, how it responds to a force giving change of motion."

Please supply the mathematical expression of the definition of mass?

"5. Now you misrepresent me as I said nothing about Doppler effect or length contraction or time dilation. I was just attempting to say that for an observer to see an object physics must happen, the images do not just exist, unlike a source mass."

That was in response to your statement: "The images seen by an observer do depend on other physics so they are not foundational." Ok I apologize for misrepresenting your position. I do not know what the point of this is. I have said nothing about images. You write repetitively about images. I did not assume that you were merely saying that images are not foundational. Returning then to your previous use of the word foundational: " ... mass is foundational. It is what exists, the material substance. Kilograms are units not properties, they allow comparison of the amount of fermion particles in a substance (How much stuff)." There is empirical support for this statement. You are invited to provide it.

"6. Taking foundational time as the change in total configuration of what materially exists gives sequential unidirectional time, needed to overcome a number of issues in physics.

Expressing the opinion that it is useful to treat time as " ... the change in total configuration of what materially exists ..." has no empirical support. There does not exist any mathematics to support this opinion. Time is not foundational in physics equations. Time as a unique fundamental property has never been represented in physics equations. Object cyclic activity, usually referred to as 'duration', is all that physics equations have ever used.

7. You are right about the definition of heat. I was thinking about things with more kinetic energy being hotter and mistakenly calling that heat. Replace that 'heat' with kinetic energy.

Ok. Rewording your statement: "kinetic energy is the motion of particles of mass, measurable by a temperature scale."

This is also in error. Temperature is not kinetic energy. It is not a measure of kinetic energy. It is sometimes proportional to average kinetic energy and sometimes not proportional to average kinetic energy. Temperature cannot be relied on to measure the kinetic energy of particles. The reason is because a thermometer is not measuring the kinetic energy of particles.

You offered me corrections to what I have written. I am offering you corrections to your corrections. I also write for outside readers. That is where the chance for progress exists. And, I choose what I say in order to maybe prompt responses from professionals. They didn't define mass nor temperature. They cannot explain what they are. Mass is one of three fundamentally indefinable properties of mechanics. Temperature is a fourth fundamental indefinable property of thermodynamics. There is no escaping this physics fact. My role enters only afterwards when I claim that both mass and temperature could have been and should have been made defined properties. These are two very early foundational errors of theoretical physics. Fundamental unity was immediately lost when mass was made a fundamental indefinable property. The indefinable status of temperature made matters worse. There is no, empirically verifiable, way to regain fundamental unity other than going back to the beginning and defining mass and temperature.

James Putnam

James, thank you for the time you have put into replying. I just don't have the will power to respond to it right now. Later perhaps.

Hi James, re. mass: My secondary school science teacher took pains to correct us into referring to the lumps of metal we used as kilogram masses not kilogram weights. Masses are what they are and their kilogram weight is what is measured with a balance in Earth's gravitational field. The thing is not the measurement. The measurements of properties of things can be used in mathematical expressions but because the thing having the property is not included doesn't mean its not part of the physics happening. If someone writes a number for the velocity of an electron you would not say but you haven't written the existence of the electron into the equation, so it has no existence only a velocity. Cambridge dictionary gives a definition of foundational as :forming the base from which everything else develops, perhaps that will convey what I meant.

Okay...I'll bite...

The second is 9 192 631 770 periods of the Cs-133 hyperfine transition...in a vacuum by the way.

The meter is the distance light travels 1/299 792 458 of a second in a vacuum, which is defined by Cs-133.

The kg is equal to the IPK...or 1000/132.905 451 933(24)*6.022 140 857e23 = 4.531 146 593e24 atoms of Cs-133. therefore, mass emerges from a known number of Cs-133 atoms just like the second emerges from a known number of Cs-133 transitions with light just like the meter emerges from a known fraction of light travel. If course, the binding energy of Cs is equivalent to an extra mass as is the thermal phonon population, and the nuclear spin of 7/2 leads to a spin lattice energy that also has mass.

In fact, one of the competing proposals for defining the kg was with sphere of 35.7 mols of Si-28. But the spectre of all of the corrections needed was daunting. Instead, the watt balance won, which is the weighable mass of the energy of a superconducting current loop. Note that all of these measures of mass still end up weighing an artifact on the earth just like weighing the IPK artifact.

Of course, the main point for me is that the IPK decay is intrinsic and so the same decay will show up with the watt balance. However, it will take 10-20 years of measurements to find that out given the watt balance precision.

The Lisa Pathfinder is up in L1 orbit right now and has begun its add-on mission to find out how long it can weigh its two 2kg Pt/Au cubes with a vacuum interferometer and an oscillating electric field. Once again, this is just a fancy balance and now an inertial balance and so just like gravity force, Lisa measures mass as a force. If Lisa can really can weigh the cubes non-stop for a month, they should be able to see a matter decay constant identical to the IPK at 51 ppb/yr.

Steve Agnew,

Yes in a vacuum. Thank you. "The kg is equal to the IPK...or 1000/132.905 451 933(24)*6.022 140 857e23 = 4.531 146 593e24 atoms of Cs-133. therefore, mass emerges from a known number of Cs-133 atoms" The indirect measurement of mass can be reduced to the count of a known number of atom, if the conditions are very tightly controlled. However, let the conditions vary while keeping the number of atoms the same and mass will not be reduced to the count of the same number of atoms. You know this. It isn't the rule for measurement that is in question. It is the definition of mass that is missing. Mass is not a count of atoms or particles.

"Of course, the binding energy of Cs is equivalent to an extra mass as is the thermal phonon population, and the nuclear spin of 7/2 leads to a spin lattice energy that also has mass."

You mean that the measure of mass is proportional to the energy in each case. Mass is undefined. It cannot be said what mass is in the physics sense which requires that it be expressible in equation form. Force is defined as f=ma (or if one insists f=dp/dt, a form that is not fundamental because it include momentum.). What is the equation for defining mass?

james Putnam

Yes, if the conditions vary, the mass of the same number of Cs-133 atoms will vary. Note that the Cs-133 clock is not actually operated in a complete vacuum and so that is a standard dielectric correction applied to the vacuum frequency, which is very well known.

Let's just weigh one Cs-133 atom, which is actually possible with an atom fountain. The problem is that g varies so much that once again the conditions vary. So you are comfortable with using a Cs-133 resonance, which does depend on its mass, for the second and meter, but you do not somehow trust the Cs-133 mass for the kg? I would have thought that this would have been perfect.

Obviously what we are talking about is the practical matter of measurement precision for mass, not some heuristic argument about the nature of reality. What do we know about time? About space? I would venture that we actually know much more about natures of mass and action than we know about the natures of space and time.

What is missing is the decoherence of quantum phase noise and right now, the IPK seems to show it along with a number of other measurements like millisecond pulsars and earth spin decay.

Steve Agnew,

"Obviously what we are talking about is the practical matter of measurement precision for mass, not some heuristic argument about the nature of reality."

The rule for measuring can be this or can be that. A physics definition is something that is a 'this' and cannot later become a 'that'. Empirical evidence tells us about the operation of the universe. It tells us nothing about substances. It consists only of effects. Properties are inferred to exist due to our recognition that there are different patterns in the accelerations of objects. Those differences sometime remain so stubbornly that we conclude that there must be different fundamental causes or them. The choices to recognize the existence of properties made by physicists may or may not be real. There are though four properties that are certain. They are space, time, mass, and force.

"What do we know about time? About space? "

We know only that space gives us room to move around in; and, that time passes. There is nothing else known about them officially. There is evidence for a clock of the Universe that keeps precise time that is correct everywhere, in all conditions, throughout the Universe. Theoretical physics has misrepresented that evidence and doesn't know that time is measured in universally constant increments.

"I would venture that we actually know much more about natures of mass and action than we know about the natures of space and time."

We only know about effects that we think are attributable to the property of mass. We certainly know a lot about action. That is what empirical evidence consists of: Patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to time. We know nothing about the nature of mass if by nature it is meant that we can explain mass. Yes we know about effects that are attributed to the existence of mass. However, mass remains unexplained because it remains undefined. Theoretical physics is built up into a very useful science, but throughout it the unexplained property of mass spreads our lack of understanding about the nature of the Universe.

James Putnam

So you say there are four certain properties: space, time, mass, and force. Cs-133 defines time, defines space, and defines mass. For force, you are on your own since force is kg m / s^2 and once you define space, time, and mass, force then follows.

So you can explain time by Cs-133 and space by Cs-133, but you cannot explain mass by Cs-133 even though you can weigh Cs-133...because mass to you is undefined...but to everyone one else on the planet, the IPK defines mass just like weighing Cs-133 might also define the kg.

Your logic eludes me...space you say gives us room to move...which is space. You define space with space, which is an identity. Time passes, you say, and what does passing mean? Time. Once again, you define time as time, another identity. Correspondingly, mass is the stuff that things are made of...and things are made of mass...once again, an identity.

These properties are all axioms and are therefore things in which we must simply believe. We make sense out of the universe by believing in mass, space, and time. You make sense out of the universe by anchoring your consciousness with beliefs and so you do believe in mass, but insist that it is not defined. I do not get it.

Steve Agnew,

"So you say there are four certain properties: space, time, mass, and force."

Yes that is what patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to time teaches us.

"Cs-133 defines time, defines space, and defines mass. For force, you are on your own since force is kg m / s^2 and once you define space, time, and mass, force then follows."

Cs-133 does not define time, space or mass. There is no definition for time because time has no pre-existing properties by which to can be defined. Space is not defined because there are no pre-existing properties by which it can be defined. Time and space are naturally indefinable properties. Their physics substitutes of length and duration are also indefinable because there are no pre-existing properties from which they can be defined. They are the properties of empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is the starting point. Physics knows nothing empirical evidence makes it known.

So you can explain time by Cs-133 and space by Cs-133, but you cannot explain mass by Cs-133 even though you can weigh Cs-133...because mass to you is undefined...but to everyone one else on the planet, the IPK defines mass just like weighing Cs-133 might also define the kg.

"Your logic eludes me...space you say gives us room to move...which is space. You define space with space, which is an identity."

I did not define space. Space is naturally indefinable. Physics learns nothing about space from effects other than objects have room to move around in. This limitation does not enter into physic equations because space has never been represented in physics equations.

"Time passes, you say, and what does passing mean? Time. Once again, you define time as time, another identity."

I did not define time. Time is naturally indefinable. Empirical evidence tells us only that effects occur that take time to occur. Time has never been represented in physics equations as a property. Effects are evaluated against object activity instead of against the inaccessible property of time.

"Correspondingly, mass is the stuff that things are made of...and things are made of mass...once again, an identity."

There is no correspondence between time and space lacking definitions and mass lacking a definition. Time and space lack physics definitions because physics has no empirical evidence to evaluate that pertains to either of them. Physicists work with empirical evidence that consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects with respect to time. Now, I have follow custom when describing acceleration in textbook fashion and have used to word time when its meaning is clearly duration. The 't' in physics equations has never represented time. It has always and only represented duration. The unit of second used by physicists to help measure action has always been a unit of duration based upon other object activity. there is no unit for time. Time has never been represented in physics equations as a property.

"These properties are all axioms and are therefore things in which we must simply believe. We make sense out of the universe by believing in mass, space, and time"

Definitely not true. Mass is revealed to us by empirical evidence consisting of patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to time. Mass is not a belief. It is inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is not a belief. It is the source of knowledge for physics.

"You make sense out of the universe by anchoring your consciousness with beliefs and so you do believe in mass, but insist that it is not defined. I do not get it."

It is not defined. Mass is not defined. Please provide the equation that defines mass. Mass has been recognized as a fundamental indefinable property by physicists ever since it was introduced into physics equations. Do you remember learning that all properties of mechanics are definable using just three fundamental indefinable properties? Is this familiar?

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

I read my last message after posting. It is apparent to me that my response to your message needs to be clear. I have removed the typos and reworded portions. here is the new version. I will reread it also in the morning. I hope to at the least make my position clear for those readers in general.

"So you say there are four certain properties: space, time, mass, and force."

Yes that is what patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to time teach us.

"Cs-133 defines time, defines space, and defines mass. For force, you are on your own since force is kg m / s^2 and once you define space, time, and mass, force then follows."

Cs-133 does not define time, space, or mass. There is no definition for time because time has no pre-existing properties by which it can be defined. Space is not defined because there are no pre-existing properties by which it can be defined. Time and space are naturally indefinable properties. Their physics substitutes of length and duration are also indefinable because there are no pre-existing properties by which they can be defined. They are the properties of empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is the starting point. Physics knows nothing that other than what empirical evidence makes known.

"So you can explain time by Cs-133 and space by Cs-133, but you cannot explain mass by Cs-133 even though you can weigh Cs-133...because mass to you is undefined...but to everyone one else on the planet, the IPK defines mass just like weighing Cs-133 might also define the kg."

"Your logic eludes me...space you say gives us room to move...which is space. You define space with space, which is an identity."

I did not define space. Space is naturally indefinable. Physics learns nothing about space from effects other than objects have room to move around in. This limitation does not enter into physic equations because space has never been represented in physics equations.

"Time passes, you say, and what does passing mean? Time. Once again, you define time as time, another identity."

I did not define time. Time is naturally indefinable. Empirical evidence tells us only that effects occur that take time to occur. Time has never been represented in physics equations as a property. Effects are evaluated against object activity instead of against the inaccessible property of time.

"Correspondingly, mass is the stuff that things are made of...and things are made of mass...once again, an identity."

There is no correspondence between time and space lacking definitions and mass lacking a definition. Time and space lack physics definitions because physics has no empirical evidence to evaluate that pertains to either of them. Physicists work with empirical evidence that consists of patterns of changes of velocities of objects with respect to time. Now, I have followed custom when describing acceleration in textbook fashion and have used to word 'time' when its meaning is clearly duration. The 't' in physics equations has never represented time. It has always and only represented duration. The unit of second used by physicists to help measure action has always been a unit of duration based upon other object activity. There is no unit for time. Time has never been represented in physics equations as a property.

"These properties are all axioms and are therefore things in which we must simply believe. We make sense out of the universe by believing in mass, space, and time"

Definitely not true. Mass is revealed to us by empirical evidence consisting of patterns in changes of velocities of objects with respect to time. Mass is not a belief. It is inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is not a belief. It is the source of knowledge for physics.

"You make sense out of the universe by anchoring your consciousness with beliefs and so you do believe in mass, but insist that it is not defined. I do not get it."

I do not 'believe' in mass. I learned about mass from empirical evidence. There is no belief needed. Mass is the property responsible for the variations in patterns of changes of velocities of objects for a constant force.

Mass in a fundamental indefinable property. It has been mishandled by theoretical physics from the time it was recognized to exist. Mass is not defined anywhere in physics. Please provide the equation that defines mass. Mass has been recognized as a fundamental indefinable property by physicists ever since it was introduced into physics equations. Do you remember learning that all properties of mechanics are definable using just three fundamental indefinable properties? Is this familiar?

James Putnam

Getting back to this important physics fact: Both mass and temperature have been accepted by physicists as fundamental indefinable properties since they were declared to be fundamental indefinable properties at the time when each was introduced. This fact has been removed from physics textbooks. However, the fact remains a fact, and, is inescapable. The continued lack of definitions is intolerable for scientific learning.

It is the work of experimental physicists that has empirically revealed 'nature-of-the-operation-of-the-Universe' potential to refute the intrusion into physics equations of theoretical guesses that lack empirical support. Should the reader choose to not respond to that statement, then please respond with a message that gives the equation that defines mass, and, also the equation that defines temperature. I suggest that neither can be provided by any physicist! Response are invited.

James Putnam

Hyperphysics. What is temperature

James, I could write something 'equation like' for mass, that I think is useful, but I know it isn't what you are asking for and would consider it philosophy rather than physics. Relying on empirical evidence and failing to recognize that two different categories have been muddled has got physics in a pickle.

So you do not believe in mass...instead, you believe that you learned to believe in mass from empirical evidence. It appears that we simple have a semantic recursion here and you believe words like belief have different meaning that what I believe.

Belief in certain axioms like mass is what begins consciousness. Saying that reality is based on empirical evidence is a circular identity since empirical evidence is reality. Unless you tell me what words you like to use to describe the axioms of your consciousness, we will just go around and around in semantic circles.

"So you do not believe in mass...instead, you believe that you learned to believe in mass from empirical evidence. It appears that we simple have a semantic recursion here and you believe words like belief have different meaning that what I believe."

This isn't going away Steve. Belief, unbelief, whatever distraction is employed this physics fact remains: Mass is not defined. Mass is not explained. The indefinable status of mass is the first error of theoretical physics. What is the equation that defines mass?

This physics fact also remains: Temperature is undefined. Temperature is not explained. The indefinable status of temperature is the second error of theoretical physics What is the equation that defines temperature? Georgina has posted a link that is intended to clarify what temperature is. Before I respond to her, please share your opinion. Do you say that temperature is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy? What do you say temperature is?

James Putnam

James, Steve,

The previously linked page explains that heat is the energy transfer, the kinetic energy is the motion of the particles that allow energy transfer (and so there to be heat), and temperature is a measure of the degree of equilibrium /dis-equilibrium. That makes sense to me as when a thermometer is placed in a liquid, for example, if the measurement shown does not change there is equilibrium between the contents of the thermometer and the liquid it is immersed in and so no heat transfer. Whereas if there wasn't equilibrium there would be heat transference one way or the other and a change in the measurement. So though temperature isn't itself kinetic energy it can be used as an indicator of the relative amount of kinetic energy within a tested sample.

There is no equation for mass...nor is there an equation for action. Both mass and action simply exist as axioms that we learn to believe in by the age of two or so. Someone who does not believe in mass and action cannot make any sense out of reality and those people only survive with the help of others.

Belief is a fundamental proposition for physics and to deny that is very problematic. What are your axioms? All the definitions you give are circular identities and reveal no fundamental truths.

Temperature is really just energy, and energy is equivalent to mass...and so you see we are back to arguing about mass. Mass flows from one source to another depending on many different properties and what we call temperature is certainly one of those properties. So mass and action define temperature just fine, but you must still simply believe in mass and action.

There is an equation for time: the differential of action with mass, i.e. the atomic clock. There is an equation for space: the product of c with time. Mass and action, though, are axioms that you simply believe in, even when you say that you have no such beliefs.