Steve Agnew,

"There is no equation for mass...nor is there an equation for action."

There is an equation for mass...and there is an equation for action. I have put them both in print here at FQXi.org. Mass is defined and action is explained. I have previously put forward the explanation that the units of action are newtons, meters, and seconds. Those units are informing us that action is energy times momentum. Both energy and momentum are conserved. That is why the least action principle works. Action is not about energy being the conjugate of time or momentum being the conjugate of length. An understanding of action follows from my definition of mass.

"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."

Physics is not about beliefs; it is about definitions. I make sense out of reality because I define properties. Theoretical physics does not make sense out of reality. Theoretical physics reaches outside reality for mathematically workable substitutes to serve in place of definitions. It reaches outside reality to invent substitutes for that which physicists have failed to learn from empirical evidence. It is not the empirical evidence that is lacking in meaning. Empirical evidence informs us of everything we will ever know about the mechanical operation of the Universe.

"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."

I gave no circular definitions. There is no physics definition for space and I gave none. There is no physics definition for time and I gave none. There is no physics definition for length and I gave none. There is no physics definition for duration and I gave none. I gave a definition for mass and it immediately reveals fundamental truth. The 'F'in F=ma is not only defined, it is explained. The explanation for force reveals fundamental truth about the Universal Gravitation Constant. It reveals what temperature is. It removes the current circular definition for electric charge.

"Temperature is really just energy, ... "

What is the equation that shows that "temperature is really just energy"? What is the equation that shows that degrees Kelvin are really just joules?

" ... and energy is equivalent to mass... "

What is the equation that shows that energy is equivalent to mass? What is the equation that shows that joules are equivalent to kilograms?

"... and so you see we are back to arguing about mass."

We aren't arguing about mass. We are arguing about whether or not physicists must define their properties one of which is mass. You have no definition for mass. Are you arguing that you don't need to define mass?

"Mass flows from one source to another depending on many different properties ... "

A controlled specimen of isolated mass has been observed to move from one container to another container?

" ... and what we call temperature is certainly one of those properties."

What we call temperature is an undefined, unexplained property. What does a thermometer measure?

" ...So mass and action define temperature just fine, ..."

What is temperature? What is a thermometer measuring? What is the equation that defines temperature?

" ...but you must still simply believe in mass and action."

Theoretical physicists must go back to the beginning of interpreting empirical evidence and define all properties that empirical evidence infers exist. Three of those properties that theoretical physics failed to define are: Mass, temperature, and, electric charge.

"There is an equation for time: the differential of action with mass, i.e. the atomic clock."

That is an equation for duration.

"There is an equation for space: the product of c with time."

That is an equation for length.

"Mass and action, though, are axioms that you simply believe in, even when you say that you have no such beliefs."

What I say is that physics requires definitions. I ask for definitions. After all that has been said these official facts remain: Mass in undefined; Temperature is undefined. Unofficially both have been defined by me and their definitions have been presented here at FQXi.org. They have been put to use and many of the results have been presented here are FQXi.org. I let empirical deliver its message. Its message is that fundamental unity exists. The presence of fundamental unity in the equations of physics leaves no need for indirect or circular explanations.

James Putnam

Boy...you really have a lot energy about mass...

You believe the the word definition better describes axioms and then you believe in force and acceleration as axioms that then define mass and explain force. So force is what causes mass to accelerate and acceleration of mass results in force. This is circular. You use circular definitions in all of your explanations. These circular definitions are what I call belief in axioms.

Axioms are the anchors for definitions and explanations and you believe that mass is not an axiomatic belief, but defined by other axioms; force and acceleration. Further discourse is futile once we argue about axioms since it is possible to predict action with many different starting assumptions, which I call belief in axioms and you call explanations of definitions.

These appear to be semantic word games...

Steve Agnew,

We aren't arguing about axioms. We are discussing whether or not you can cite a definition for mass and a definition for temperature. I know you can say a lot about them; but, what you haven't said is what their definitions are.

Ok you stay with not knowing what mass and temperature are. Keep your circular definition for electric charge. But what you can't have is empirical evidence as an axiom. The observation of objects accelerating is not an abstraction. What you can't have is force and mass as axioms. They are revealed to us by directly by empirical evidence. They are unofficially defined by me. They are not abstractly defined. They are defined solely from empirical evidence. Theory is loaded with axioms, but I remove theory from physics equations. In other words, the property definitions come only from empirical evidence. Theorists' empirically unjustified substitutes are removed. You are free to declare victory for yourself and end the discussion as futile due to my stubborn illogical position. I will continue fixing the errors of theoretical physics.

James Putnam

To interested readers should they exist, concerning my statement about action in a previous message, I said:

"I have previously put forward the explanation that the units of action are newtons, meters, and seconds. Those units are informing us that action is energy times momentum. Both energy and momentum are conserved. That is why the least action principle works. Action is not about energy being the conjugate of time or momentum being the conjugate of length. An understanding of action follows from my definition of mass."

For anyone who is not familiar with my previous explanation referred to in this message, the units of newtons, meters, and seconds would hardly seem to justify saying that action is energy times momentum. The information that was not repeated above is that when mass is defined as directed by empirical evidence, force becomes a ratio of accelerations. Its units cancel out. This allows for one force to equal the square of another force. An example of putting this definition fo force to work is my essay attached below Calculating the Universal Gravitational Constant. This is a different subject, but, it happens to be the clearest example for introducing and using the new definition for force.Attachment #1: Calculating_the_Universal_Gravitational_Constant_1.pdf

You evidently do not like the word axiom. An axiom is self evident truth that requires no further validation or definition. Axioms are beliefs.

You evidently believe that you have no beliefs, only definitions and explanations. These are word games to me. By your rules, I can't have the axioms mass and action even though aethertime follows with equations and logic. I must somehow use your axioms or nothing. You say that properties of sources come only from empirical evidence of sources...and what is empirical evidence of sources? Of course empirical evidence of sources comes from the properties of sources.

I do not mean to be mean. Many times discourse ends up with the circular logic of identities and the more complex the circular logic, the more obscure is its circularity. There is nothing inherently wrong with the circularity of identities and we simply must accept or believe in certain axioms or properties or definitions or explanations or whatever you like to call them in order to make sense out of reality. Otherwise the circularity will drive us mad.

What you do need to do is be able to better predict the actions of source masses than the current model in order to convince people your model is better than their model. So far, you have not been very convincing...

Steve Agnew,

"You evidently do not like the word axiom. An axiom is self evident truth that requires no further validation or definition. Axioms are beliefs."

Physics: Please explain what a definition is?

James Putnam

You use the word definition and then you use the word explanation. I use the word axiom...What does the word axiom mean? Honestly, these are word games, not physics...

Steve Agnew,

"You use the word definition and then you use the word explanation. I use the word axiom...What does the word axiom mean? Honestly, these are word games, not physics..."

I used the word "physics". Then I used the word "explain". Then I used the word "definition". You explained your use of the word "axiom". It has not been clear how you use the word "definition". Physics has definitions. I asked for definitions and you change the subject to axioms. Ok, I learned your viewpoint with regard to axioms.

That was a straightforward question about physics definitions. I know what axiom means. It means that something might be self-evident and not require further proof. It also means that someone with influence thinks that something is self-evident and with honest intention mistakenly fabricates an abstract idea that has no empirical evidence or means by which it may be falsified.

The fact remains that physics has definitions. It is dependent upon definitions. For example, all the properties of mechanics are defined in terms of just three fundamental indefinable properties, mass, length, and 'time'. Physics defines all properties that it can. There are requirements needed to be met for forming a physics definition? Layman do not define things in the way that physicists define things. Physics is dependent upon rigorous definitions. Even units are rigorously defined. Their rules of measurement are not their definitions. We may measure something without knowing its nature.

It is important to know how to form a physics definition. Physicists did not know how to define both mass and force for all this time. It was not self-evident what mass was. It was not self-evident what temperature was. Physicists of the past could have dismissed the importance of definitions as you appear to do. They could have softened their stand and adopted axioms. They didn't do that.

Definitions must come as close to dependence upon empirical evidence as is possible. The ideal is for definitions to be directly dependent upon empirical evidence for their meanings. If physicists of the past could have defined all properties, including mass and temperature, directly from empirical evidence, they would have done so.

Perhaps you think that physics definitions are an antiquated practice? Perhaps you think that defining mass interferes with learning that it is energy. Whereas the idea of equality of mass and energy can efficiently be established by axiom. You begin your theory with the introduction of E=MC2 as if it is a given. One of two things will be the case. One is that E=MC2 is solid physics, correctly representing reality, upon which you can confidently build up your theory. The other is that physics reliance upon rigorous definitions puts E=MC2 at risk and your theory at risk.

The 'M' stands for mass. Mass is undefined. Mass is unexplained. The equation says that energy, which is defined in terms of mass, equals the product of mass, which is an undefined property, and the speed of light, the most important property of all, squared. The equation is in severe need of a critical physics property definition.

Anyway, my purpose in asking for you to explain "definition" was to understand your point of view. What I receive in response is you pointing out that I have failed thus far in my own efforts. You dismiss my side of the discussion as playing word games. We shall see. I will continue defining physics properties in the manner of historical physics, using just two fundamental indefinables: Length and 'time'. That is the natural minimum. This is the first time that physics definitions satisfy their own requirement.

James Putnam

I am sorry for being so obtuse. When you ask what the definition of definition is, you do not seem to realize the cirularity of definition. Definition is a convenient word that is quite easy to look up as "...a statement expressing the essential nature of something."

Does that help?

What is the essential nature of something? Oh...a definition.

Physics and consciousness both start with belief in axioms that are self-evident. This avoids the circularity of trying to define definition, which is hopeless. These kinds of indentities are a part of our reality and it is quite important to have a way of dealing with the beliefs that anchor consciousness. It is not very helpful for predicting action to get swallowed up in the recursion of circular logic. It seems to me that that you are locked up in a recursion of circular reasoning when you ask for the definition of definition...

Steve Agnew,

Returning to this quote of yours: "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."

I say space gives us room to move in. You claim I am defining space with space. No that is not the case. We receive information via photons that tells us something changed its velocity. Everything after that is our interpretation. The end of our interpretation is a picture submitted to our conscious mind. That picture implies that there is space around us. The word space begins as room to move around in. Theoretical physics runs away with the word space changing it into a property that is accessible to our manipulations. When I say that space gives us room to move around in, I am refuting the theorists' empirically unsubstantiated claim. Space is a word. I am saying that that word refers to room to move around in. I am not defining space as a physics property. All physics properties pertain to those things that are represented in physics equations. Space in any form has never been represented in physics equations.

The property of time has also never been represented in physics equations. I don't define time with time. I make clear that the theorist is employing a 'slight-of-hand' type of substitution into physics equations. Theorists work with duration and not with a property of time. When I say that time passes, I am not defining a property of time. Time is undefined. It is still just a word. When I repeat that word and say that time passes, I am reporting what photons tell us.

Perhaps theorists believe that when photons report that a particle changed its velocity, that photons are reporting what theorists are reporting to us. No way is that true. Photons operate across that indefinable room to move in during that indefinable passing of time.

James Putnam

Steve Agnew,

"When you ask what the definition of definition is, ..."

I didn't ask for the definition of a definition! I asked for you to explain You get to explain what is a physics definition? Not only you don't acknowledge the necessity to adhere to the historical requirement to be met by a physics definition, but theoretical physicists in general appear to prefer to not be held to the past standard for a physics definition. Theoretical physics learned that the general permission to proceed forward without defining all previously existing properties allows for loose, guesses, that they can then proceed to seek sufficient professional theorist support for being unofficially, but riskily opposed, voted into physics equations. It has since with official blessing progressed into areas for which empirical evidence cannot confirm correctness.

" ...you do not seem to realize the circularity of definition."

The physics definition does not include circularity so far as I am aware except in the case of electric charge.

" ...definitions of physics."

Just provide them with non-circular definitions. And, do not offer loose explanations in place of physics definitions.

"Definition is a convenient word that is quite easy to look up as "...a statement expressing the essential nature of something."

I know how to look up the definition of a definition. Lets use your dictionary 'definition' of a definition:

What is the essential nature of mass?

And: What is the essential nature of temperature?

And: What is the essential nature of electric charge?

While I am asking clear questions:

What is the essential nature of force?

What is the essential nature of energy?

What is the essential nature of momentum?

What did Clausius discover when he wrote his equation for thermodynamic entropy?

What is the physical meaning of Boltzmann's constant?

"Does that help?"

Of course not. But clear direct answers to the above questions would help. I can ask more if that would help.

"What is the essential nature of something? Oh...a definition.'

Then you can answer those questions.

"Physics and consciousness both start with belief in axioms that are self-evident."

Physics begins with information about changes of acceleration of objects with respect to time. What axioms proceed our discovery of the existence of force and mass? The changes of acceleration of objects with respect to time can't be used to serve your purpose. They are evidence that is not self-evident.

"This avoids the circularity of trying to define definition, which is hopeless."

For physics it is not hopeless. Here is the explanation of a physics definition: A physics property is defined in terms of pre-existing properties. A unit of a physics property is defined in terms of pre-existing units.

"These kinds of identities are a part of our reality and it is quite important to have a way of dealing with the beliefs that anchor consciousness."

First you must explain how we learn anything from the wildly mixed photons arriving from innumerable sources delivering very small increments of acceleration of who knows who's particles? That subconscious act is the anchor of consciousness. I have noticed that that challenge is skipped over. The consciousness that you refer to appears to anchor on popular beliefs. an example of a popular physics belief is that energy is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy. Yet physicists know that the Kelvin temperature scale is not a function of average molecular kinetic energy. Physicists know that each degree on the temperature scale is measured by the work performed during an adiabatic, quasi-static expansion of a Carnot cycle.

"It is not very helpful for predicting action to get swallowed up in the recursion of circular logic. It seems to me that that you are locked up in a recursion of circular reasoning when you ask for the definition of definition..."

No that is not what is occurring. I didn't ask for a definition of a definition. I asked for an explanation of what a physics definition is? If you have lost the historical understanding for what a physics definition is, then you are probably a modern day theorist? The difference is that holographic ideas and topological ideas and multi-universe ideas have gained theoretical popularity; while, empirical evidence is interpreted as "definitions of definitions".

Look! There are some physics definitions and there are some missing physics definitions. Even theoretical physics will never be right until physics properties are physics defined properties with none missing. There is, of course, the properties of empirical evidence from which we learn all there will ever be learned about the mechanical operation of the universe. They will always remain undefined because there are no physics properties pre-existing them.

James Putnam

You are correct...you did not ask what the definition of definition was...rather you asked for an explanation of a definition. Of course, this is the same as asking to define definition and results in a very deep rabbit hole of recursive logic.

Maybe someday you will make it out of that rabbit hole that you are in. You do not like the words belief or axiom and these words make perfect sense to me. You like the words explanation and definition and intrinsic properties and essential natures.

I just like the word axiom and I make no claim that there is only one belief or axiom or essential nature for reality. There are in fact a large number of equivalent representations for reality. As long as your method predicts the future of sources and observers to an acceptable precision, go for it.

My main point is that prediction of action is the overarching purpose of consciousness and of science. The better science predicts action, the better future will be for that predictor. If you can predict action with your theory, then it is a good theory. If you are buried in rabbit holes of recursive identities, then you will simply end up in recursions of identities and not predict action very well at all.

Somehow you need to reconcile your beliefs in order to anchor your reality or you will go mad...

" ...rather you asked for an explanation of a definition. Still incorrect. I asked for an explanation of a physics definition. You didn't give the answer so I gave it.

You are right of course...what is the definition of a physics explanation...oh, wait...I mean what is the explanation for a physics definition. I really believe that you believe some axioms buried deep inside of these recursive identities that you really believe reveal some kind of truth.

The problem with questions like what is the explanation for the science of the universe is that there are no unique answers to such questions. Why is mass the way that it is? Why is action the way that it is? Why are we the way that we are?

There are many questions that you can ask that have no unique answers...so what? What you need to do is predict the action of sources with observations. However you do that is what allows you to survive. I do not have to go down into your rabbit hole to know how deep you are in one...

" ...oh, wait...I mean what is the explanation for a physics definition. I really believe that you believe some axioms buried deep inside of these recursive identities that you really believe reveal some kind of truth."

This and of course the 'rabbit hole' device; very cute! I do recognize that you are certain of your position after much thought that proceeded meeting me. However, it is not clear from your responses, with regard to explaining what a physics definition is, that you understand that we are not debating your beliefs against my beliefs. Do you know that the explanation I gave is the historical explanation? Do you know that physics definitions have to be in terms of pre-existing properties and why this must be the case?

James Putnam

I really am not all that certain about my position...I am more certain about your position. Asking to explain a physics definition is tantamount to defining a physics explanation. In other words, you are asking a circular question.

You are not alone. Much of philosophy dwells on asking and answering circular question and I have have to admit, circular questions do have their allure.

Why are we here? Why are we here right now? Why is it us who are here right now and not someone else?

These questions all have their allure, but they are all circular and therefore have no unique answers. You can spend your entire life and some have answering circular questions. Now you have an historical explanation for a science definition. The bottom line is can predict the action of a source better than some other theory. Can you? If you can, you are a success...if you cannot, you must try a different tack...

This is my bottom line...

Steve Agnew,

I was just preparing to post a reply to your comment in the thread started by me. It was then I happened to see this one. So I thought I will reply this first. Quoting you, "Once again, without an agreement about the role of quantum phase in limiting precision, there is no sense in further discourse."

That is just an assertion; your discourse is "accept QM, there is no other way". But the game is open to all, until everything is explained. I think Classical Newtonian concepts with some modifications will be enough for explaining everything. So I argue that there is no (special) quantum noise, other than the classical noise extended to the quantum level; all quantum noises are as explainable as the classical noises. Even at the ordinary level, practically we do not know all the factors that are involved, even though theoretically it seems possible. At the quantum level, we cannot even say that there is a correct theory.

The concept of wave-particle duality is an attempt to understand the the factors involved at the quantum level. The wave-equations remain a beautiful mathematical tool. Surely QM has given some results. That does not mean it is 'the correct theory', and whatever is said is the ultimate truth regarding particles.

I propose that light is rotating particle-pairs in motion; and so it shows properties of particles and waves. Based on that, wave-particle duality is incorrect; the whole of QM then gets reduced to mathematical techniques that can extract some correct results.

Jose P Koshy

    "The bottom line is can predict the action of a source better than some other theory. Can you? If you can, you are a success...if you cannot, you must try a different tack...

    This is my bottom line..."

    Of course I can. You have in the past given the impression that you have read and understand my work. I don't think so. Perhaps you mean can I provide a calculation that has one or more significant digits than those of today's theoretical physicists? I don't do that. What I do is the reverse of what you appear to think is required by your own bottom line. I predict the action of THE source better than any other theory.

    James Putnam

    I have read and do understand your work. You have reformulated mainstream science with a set of algebraic equations that simply restate the principles of mainstream science. You have redefined certain words to mean something different than others are you are convinced that this means you have revealed some hidden truth.

    What you have done is simply used different words in slightly different contexts to obfuscate that what you have is simply reformulated mainstream science. And then you have done nothing with quantum phase and entanglement because that is evidently too hard.

    I really like the effort that you have done and do not like showing you the rabbit hole that you are in...but someone must. When you ask to explain a science definition you know that you are already in deep, deep trouble. Defining definitions is such a slippery slope...how about defining the definition of definitions? Let's see, how about defining the definition of the definition of definitions?

    All I can do is point out these conundrums and hope that you will see them. Otherwise you will be down in that rabbit hole a very, very long time...

    "I have read and do understand your work. You have reformulated mainstream science with a set of algebraic equations that simply restate the principles of mainstream science."

    What is my equation for photon energy?

    I use differential equations. I left out the details of calculus solutions. They were obvious and unnecessary. I removed the empirically unsupported intrusions of theoretical physicists from physics equations. I undid the first three errors of theoretical physics. I defined mass for the first time since it was introduced. The same for temperature. Those two alone repaired much of mechanics and thermodynamics. I don't believe you have read my work. What was it that Clausius discovered when he wrote his equations for thermodynamic entropy? Simple question for an expert to answer. When I use words they are precise in meaning following in the tradition of the physicists of the past. Are you having a disagreement with my use of the words empirical properties and inferred properties? What properties are involved when photons communicate empirical evidence?

    "What you have done is simply used different words in slightly different contexts to obfuscate that what you have is simply reformulated mainstream science. And then you have done nothing with quantum phase and entanglement because that is evidently too hard."

    I fixed the fundamentals of physics. Remember that you work with an undefined property of mass. And, that you work with an undefined property of temperature. Remember that the method of defining physics properties has always been to express a property in terms of pre-existing properties. Quantum phase and entanglement. I will hold back on quantum phase so you can have that victory. No I have not completely finished fixing physics. I ask you though, what property is responsible for maintaining instantaneous communication? Entanglement needs instantaneous communication between two particles with a common origin. So long as there is instantaneous communication, common attributes will survive even while they diminish in comparison to newly acquired attributes. No I haven't written about entanglement, but, I have written clearly and publicly about the existence of instantaneous communication. What did I say is communicated instantaneously always and everywhere throughout the Universe?

    Your messages are filled with generalities and lack the detail to show that you are familiar with my work.

    "When you ask to explain a science definition you know that you are already in deep, deep trouble. Defining definitions is such a slippery slope...how about defining the definition of definitions? Let's see, how about defining the definition of the definition of definitions?"

    The answer to the question: Please explain a physics definition? is precise. There is no slippery slope to it. The slippery slope belongs to those who ignore it. Imagine that theoretical physics has been developed far passed the fundamental stage and all the while not knowing what either mass or temperature are.

    "All I can do is point out these conundrums and hope that you will see them. Otherwise you will be down in that rabbit hole a very, very long time..."

    What you call conundrums must refer to these loose generalities that fill your messages. You have not been specific. I have provided many targets for direct shots. No matter how high you speak down to me from, you have not responded with meaningful answers. It can't get any simpler that asking: What is temperature? What is temperature?. You gave a very weak response in the past. Give a direct answer right from professional level physics.

    James Putnam