James,
Lol. I think that one day the name for elemental science will be Holographics, not Physics.
Light and space.
Theoretical Physics is not Foundational by James A Putnam
Dear Jim,
I'm pleased and impressed to hear of your 2000 members. After this contest closes I will have a look. There are two key separate issues: analyzing the problem and solving the problem; either or both may be right or wrong. In the past you've often combined the two, thereby giving deniers two shots at you. In this essay you primarily analyze the problem, while leaving your own theory in the background. I think this is the best way to do it. Similarly, in my current essay I analyze the problem, while leaving my own theory largely unmentioned. Hopefully we will both benefit from this tight focus.
My best,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Dear Mr. Putnam
You have identified well, the main problems in physics. I also was confused by the system of units, than I used a dimensionalles relationships. Thus, in my essay, Table 2 is expressed in relation to Planck's values. Nothing new, but everything becomes easier and clearer. So the mass ceases to be a problem. BTW, if you look at Bošković's Philosophy of Nature you'll see that there is no definition of mass than the Forces are object of analysis.
With best wishes,
Branko
quote
This chain was never formed because mass was never defined. We didn't learn what
mass was at the time that it was introduced to us by empirical evidence. We can't learn it
from any other source afterwards. It has to be learned at the time that it is introduced to
us by its empirical evidence. It was not understood how to formally define both mass and
force from f=ma. That did not happen and mass was declared to be a property that is so
fundamental that it is indefinable. This decision enabled theorists to proceed to derive
other physics equations. However, into all of those equations that include mass, there
was the spread of lack of knowledge throughout the fundamentals of theoretical physics.
It was the beginning of theory. The theory was that mass was indefinable. Physics began
by being made a part of a theory; thereby instantly making physics into theoretical
physics.
end of quote
Excuse me, what about the Higgs boson ?
Care to explain that paragraph again ? I mean, really !!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
James,
Glad to see you bring this up in the essay contest. While we have agreed to disagree on some things, I have felt it reasonable to seek a proper genaeralized definition of inertia. And of course it is by the indefinite operational definition for inertia we have had since Galileo that *mass* is proposed. To state that a body in motion tends to remain in motion, and a body at rest tends to remain at rest; says nothing about what it must be about inertia which is the same for any *mass* regardless of its state of motion. Good Luck, jrc
Dear James,
I cannot see any problem with definition of mass, charge, space and time.
The mass is source of gravitation field. The inverse value of gravitation constant show propagation of field in space.
Similarly the electric charge is source of electric field and the inverse value of k = 1/4πε in the Coulomb's law is the propagation of electric field.
The space is synonym for gravitation field of Universe and the absolute time is the expansion rate of Universe (see my essay "Fundamental entities in physics").
If we add the baryon charge and the propagation of strong force field we get full sett of entities for unified description of Universe.
Another question: are these entities comfortable for practical measurement systems?
Regards
Ilgaitis
Hi Andrew, Thank you for your message:
What I explained is real! Mass, in theoretical physics, is an undefined property. The point that that explanation is at is the introduction of mass and how to define it so that it may be used correctly in physics equations. There is no need for the Higg's Boson. That is a solution that the Standard model needs. The verification of such a boson is a matter of solving a conservation of energy equation. The idea that one can form a particle if one supplies sufficient energy is recognized, but whether or not it delivers mass that is unneeded is for the Standard model to explain.
There are just two properties that are inferred to exist by empirical evidence directly. One is mass. A property doesn't get a better introduction than that. Whatever mass is, it is there to be learned from the same empirical evidence that introduced it to us. There is no other source for learning what it is. It is not needed for patch up work. It is needed so that the equations of physics and the terms that they contain are based upon knowing what is this property that is pushed upfront by empirical evidence.
The empirically supported definition of mass shows that mass is the essence of a particle of matter. The Higg's Boson is a particle that has not been shown to deliver mass. The standard model was developed in contradiction to the need for theoretical physics to first know what mass is. I see no need for a special particle to deliver that which is always present in every particle of matter. Especially since no one's theory can be correct without knowing right from the time that mass was introduced, what it is
Empirical evidence leads the way to establishing the foundation upon which the equations of physics must be formulated. The equations of physics flow forward from definitions. Those definitions must be made in the same strict manner that has been followed from the beginning of theory to this day. Theory doesn't do this. Theory thrives on what it does not know. Theory consists of filling in the blanks left by the unknown with imaginative guesses that make the mathematics look like it is working.
Hi Andrew, Thank you for your message:
What I explained is real! Mass, in theoretical physics, is an undefined property. The point that that explanation is at is the introduction of mass and how to define it so that it may be used correctly in physics equations. There is no need for the Higg's Boson. That is a solution that the Standard model needs. The verification of such a boson is a matter of solving a conservation of energy equation. The idea that one can form a particle if one supplies sufficient energy is recognized, but whether or not it delivers mass that is unneeded is for the Standard model to explain.
There are just two properties that are inferred to exist by empirical evidence directly. One is mass. A property doesn't get a better introduction than that. Whatever mass is, it is there to be learned from the same empirical evidence that introduced it to us. There is no other source for learning what it is. It is not needed for patch up work. It is needed so that the equations of physics and the terms that they contain are based upon knowing what is this property that is pushed upfront by empirical evidence.
The empirically supported definition of mass shows that mass is the essence of a particle of matter. The Higg's Boson is a particle that has not been shown to deliver mass. The standard model was developed in contradiction to the need for theoretical physics to first know what mass is. I see no need for a special particle to deliver that which is always present in every particle of matter. Especially since no one's theory can be correct without knowing right from the time that mass was introduced, what it is
Empirical evidence leads the way to establishing the foundation upon which the equations of physics must be formulated. The equations of physics flow forward from definitions. Those definitions must be made in the same strict manner that has been followed from the beginning of theory to this day. Theory doesn't do this. Theory thrives on what it does not know. Theory consists of filling in the blanks left by the unknown with imaginative guesses that make the mathematics look like it is working.
hi Ilgaitis,
"I cannot see any problem with definition of mass, charge, space and time."
None of those properties have physics definitions. The only one that even has an effort made to establish a definition is electric charge. The problem with the definition of the Coulomb is that it counts the number of charges in an ampere of current. Counting the number of charges is not a definition of what is electric charge.
I think that the points you make represent your work. Is this correct?
"Another question: are these entities comfortable for practical measurement systems?"
Yes.
HI John, Nice to hear from you. Your point is well made.
Hi John,
You are very good with theory. I just don't have the same appreciation for theory. I do have an appreciation for your messages.
Hi Branko,
I look forward to reading your essay. Thank you for your kind message.
Many thanks,
This was a hilarious Reading, and also a bit sad, because I have tampered with many of those 'problems' and know it is true as you describe it...
"Every single principle that we teach in intro college physics is based on only two principles: Conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy/mass. That's it! All other 'laws' are based on those two principles - be it Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... We can write the energy equations of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian because of conservation of energy. Each conservation principle is based on some underlying symmetry of our physical world. Conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of empty space, conservation of energy on the symmetry of time. So these are the FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that we build all of our understanding on (ignoring the CPT conservation rules)."
So, if we assume the basic process is asymmetric and we have problems with energy conservation, at least in general relativity, the mess is clear...
I write about asymmetry in the 'Life-force' Take a look, leave comments and vote, thanks. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093
This essay is the very best one :)
Ulla Mattfolk.
I read what you said several times, and it still does not make sense
Read this and please respond to it
https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics
Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. The greater the mass of a body, the smaller the change produced by an applied force. By international agreement the standard unit of mass, with which the masses of all other objects are compared, is a platinum-iridium cylinder of one kilogram. This unit is commonly called the International Prototype Kilogram and is kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sﾃｨvres, France. In countries that continue to favour the English system of measurement over the International System of Units (SI), the unit of mass is the slug, a mass whose weight at sea level is 32.17 pounds.
Weight, though related to mass, nonetheless differs from the latter. Weight essentially constitutes the force exerted on matter by the gravitational attraction of the Earth, and so it varies from place to place. In contrast, mass remains constant regardless of its location under ordinary circumstances. A satellite launched into space, for example, weighs increasingly less the further it travels away from the Earth. Its mass, however, stays the same.
According to the principle of conservation of mass, the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves. If a body split into pieces, the mass divides with the pieces, so that the sum of the masses of the individual pieces is equal to the original mass. Or, if particles are joined together, the mass of the composite is equal to the sum of the masses of the constituent particles. However, this principle is not always correct.
With the advent of the special theory of relativity by Einstein in 1905, the notion of mass underwent a radical revision. Mass lost its absoluteness. The mass of an object was seen to be equivalent to energy, to be interconvertible with energy, and to increase significantly at exceedingly high speeds near that of light (about 3 ﾃ-- 108 metres per second, or 186,000 miles per second). The total energy of an object was understood to comprise its rest mass as well as its increase of mass caused by high speed. The rest mass of an atomic nucleus was discovered to be measurably smaller than the sum of the rest masses of its constituent neutrons and protons. Mass was no longer considered constant, or unchangeable. In both chemical and nuclear reactions, some conversion between mass and energy occurs, so that the products generally have smaller or greater mass than the reactants. The difference in mass is so slight for ordinary chemical reactions that mass conservation may be invoked as a practical principle for predicting the mass of products. Mass conservation is invalid, however, for the behaviour of masses actively involved in nuclear reactors, in particle accelerators, and in the thermonuclear reactions in the Sun and stars. The new conservation principle is the conservation of mass-energy. See also energy, conservation of; energy; Einstein's mass-energy relation.
end of quote
How is this NOT satisfactory?
Dear James A Putnam,
FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk,
What a wonderful message to receive. Those who follow what I write are few. Years go by and the same points are made over and over again with little success. Well there is some success, I think I have gotten better at making this case. It is unfortunate that I didn't complete this essay on time. Yet, it tells me something about you that you look passed the inconvenience of typos and the embarrassment of having written some of the math wrong. There wasn't time to fix it; but there had been lots of time to have done it sooner. I apologize for its condition; however, your final remark obscures what is wrong with the emotional pleasure of receiving an A grade. Thank you for understanding this essay. I look forward to reading yours soon. With admiration, James
Andrew, This is a great question. I have to show why the encyclopedia Britannica doesn't define mass. Letting you know that I am working on my response. James
Dear James,
that's an interesting essay, thank you for sharing. You made some interesting claims, and I enjoyed specially your comment about empiricism, space and time.
All the best,
Francesco D'isa
Hi, James,
What in your interpretation is Physics definition?
Ilgaitis
Dear Fellow Essayists
This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist