Theoretical Physics is not Foundational by James A Putnam

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.

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 Ilgasitis,

Your question is one that I keep receiving from others also. I am writing a definitive paper on What is a Physics Definition? I expect to be posting it here today. Thank you for your question.

James

How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

(1) Defining What a Physics Property Definition is. The first property to be defined is mass. I refer to it in what follows as the first physics definition or just the first definition:

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other properties. The order of the properties matters greatly. For example, the first properties of physics are those in which empirical evidence is communicated to us. Those properties are the two properties of length and 'time'. There are no other properties that precede length and 'time'. For this reason neither of them can be expressed in terms of other properties. This is why they are indefinable. One can explain what length is to them and the same for 'time'. Those are not physics definitions. Those are most often Layperson types of definitions. Even if a physicist gives their explanation that, for example, length is what a meter stick measures; that answer is not a physics definition. It is correct, but it is not a mathematical definition that can be used in physics equations.

Here are some examples of physics definitions: F=ma is the definition of force; E=Fxd is a physics definition of energy. In the case of E=Fxd, the two properties of force and length precede the property of energy. Therefore, the property of energy is defined in terms of properties that precede it. All properties of physics mechanics can be defined in terms of just three properties:> Mass; Length; and, Time. The definition of momentum is P=Fxt, etc. Physics definitions are usually easy and automatic to write. They are like branches on a tree where the first definition takes place on the trunk.

(2) Physics Lacks a First Property Definition. In this way all physics definitions are connected back through one another until there is just one definition, the first definition. Unfortunately, since mass was declared to be the third indefinable property of mechanics, there is no first definition. This is a problem for theoretical physics. It is straightforward for physicists to follow physics definitions all the way back toward the properties of empirical evidence, but the missing first definition breaks the connection between all definitions of the properties of mechanics, and, the properties of empirical evidence.

There are losses that physics suffers because of the missing first definition. One type of loss is that we do not learn what properties are. Yes we know that f=ma, but, we don't learn what force is. We know that E=-Fxd, but, we don't know what energy is, etc. A second lass is that fundamental unity is immediately lost when we fail to make that first physics definition. The break between empirical evidence and the rest of the properties of mechanics prevents dependency from being continuous from the properties of empirical evidence on up through all definitions of mechanics.

The only way in which the connection between length and 'time', and, the defined properties of mechanics can be restored is to fill in the blank left by our failure to create the first definition. The property of mass has no equation expressing it in terms of other properties that precede it. Its unit of kilogram has no equation expressing it in terms of other units that precede it. The reason for this failure is that it was not understood how mass could be defined as a combination of the only two properties that precede, i.e., length and 'time'.

Both length and 'time' don't seem substantive. Yet the properties that follow them do seem substantive. Force, energy, momentum, power, etc., all seem substantive. How does one define a substantive property like mass from two non-substantive properties like length and 'time'? What possible combination of length and 'time' could be set equal to mass; thereby, defining mass, i.e., M=?

(3) The Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Mass. Courtesy of FQXi.lorg Essay Contest Essayist Andrew Beckworth: The Encyclopedia Britannica definition for mass is:

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.

4) Reviewing the Content of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Definition of Mass.It says that mass in physics is a measure of inertia. Any unique property is only a measure of itself. The phrase "is a measure of" usually is used to mean is proportional to. Being proportional to is not being the same as. In the case of the Law of Inertia. Mass is not the same thing. Mass is resistance to force. Inertia is the name given to the fact that a body at rest or in motion will continue in that state unless acted on by a force. It was not a measure of resistance to force.

However, meanings of words change and words change. There is resistance to force and the name applied first to it is "inertial resistance". This is not inertia, but it is acknowledged to be a property of matter. Matter resists force. So this property of inertial resistance became called mass. There is no difference between the two other than names. It has been customary to call resistance to force the property of mass. So for the third time: Mass resists force. This tells us what mass does but doesn't tell us what mass it. It doesn't tells us: What is there about the nature of mass that it causes the effect of resisting force?

(5) Empirical Evidence gives Guidance on how to Define Mass. Empirical evidence tells us everything that we will ever know about a property. It is empirical evidence that infers that a property exists by the patterns of acceleration of objects. That acceleration is an effect. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We learn what cause does, but not what cause is. Mass is the cause of resistance to force. We do not learn what mass is in the sense of what is it physically that it can

resist force? Plus, we do not yet have a physics definition of mass. That is because a physics definition is a mathematical statement where a property is expressed in terms of properties that preceded it

For example, empirical evidence consists of measure of length and 'time'. Those measurements tell us, by means of photons, that particles of matter have accelerated. We don't get information in the form of velocity. We learn that change of velocity with respect to time is inferred to exist. Learning about changes of velocities with respect to time comes from just two properties. The point of this is that measurements of just two properties inform us about the existence of acceleration. Acceleration on one side of an equation can tell us a lot about a property that is on the other side. It all depends upon the units. If there is an undefined property, then it necessarily will have undefined units.

Mass is a property that is undefined and its unit of kilogram is undefined. Kilogram is not expressible in terms of the two units of the properties that precede mass, i.e., meters and seconds. If mass were defined then its unit of kilogram would be expressible in the units that precede it. Knowing this, we can work backwards to learn how to define both kilogram and mass. Here is how it can be done. Solving f=ma for f/m=a, it is seen that in order to establish direct dependence upon empirical evidence and the units of empirical evidence, the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to those of acceleration.

There are a few combinations that can be tried; however, since this is the work that I have done, the one combination that leads to the formulation of the equations of physics is for mass to have the units of inverse acceleration. Writing this out: kilograms=seconds^2/meter. In other words, mass inversely represents a property that is accelerating. Since mass is one of just two properties, the only two, that are inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence, the property that mass is inversely representing is of the most fundamental importance.

The empirical evidence consists of charged particles accelerating and releasing photons that carry an increment of that acceleration away. The photon, if unmolested during its travel, eventually is absorbed by another charged particle; and, that particle is caused to accelerate by the amount stored in the photon. The point is that there are two kinds of information involved in communicating empirical evidence to us. One is that the photon carries an increment of acceleration. The other is that light is involved directly as the delivery system. It delivers acceleration.

(6) Conservation of Acceleration. I propose that the acceleration that is inverse represented by mass is the acceleration of light. This contradicts Relativity theory; however, in order to keep Relativity theory, it would have to be time that accelerates. Time is involved in the delivery system. However, analysis shows that when a photon is released or absorbed it does so for an incremental measure of time that is a Universal constant. The

conclusion is that time does not accelerate; therefore, light has to be the property who's acceleration is inversely represented by the property we know of as mass. My finding is that an increment of positive acceleration of a particle is offset by an equal but opposite signed increment of acceleration of light.

(7) Forming a New System of Units Based upon Meters and Seconds. While readers may doubt this or want to consider it longer, a warranted scientific decision. I will introduce the system of units that this finding has given us by virtue of having re-established direct dependence upon empirical evidence. Two things have happened. There is now a system of units that is fully based upon the units of empirical evidence. Also, fundamental unity has been fully restored to the equations of physics.

Fundamental unity follows automatically from establishing complete dependence of the definitions of all physics properties on the properties of empirical evidence. More directly, since all properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units, this follows automatically from having all units for all defined properties of all of physics be formed from combinations of the two units of empirical evidence.

The new system of units formed solely from empirical units are:

The unit of length is the meter.

The units of time is the second.

The unit of force is: Newton=(meters/second^2)/(Meters/second^2)

The reduced form of the unit of force is unity (1).

The unit of energy is: Joule=Newtons*meters.

The reduced unit of energy is: Joule=meters.

The units of momentum are: Newtons*seconds.

The reduced units of momentum are: Seconds

The act of defining mass leads to the definition of temperature and defined units for temperature.

The units of temperature are: Newtons*(meters/second).

The reduced units of temperature are: Meters/second.

It is understood from the full units of temperature that this is read as energy/second, i.e., the rate at which energy is transferred.

The rest of the units of mechanics and thermodynamics follow automatically, i.e., the result of re-establishing fundamental unity in the equations of physics.

How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

(1) Defining What a Physics Property Definition is. The first property to be defined is mass. I refer to it in what follows as the first physics definition or just the first definition:

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other properties. The order of the properties matters greatly. For example, the first properties of physics are those in which empirical evidence is communicated to us. Those properties are the two properties of length and 'time'. There are no other properties that precede length and 'time'. For this reason neither of them can be expressed in terms of other properties. This is why they are indefinable. One can explain what length is to them and the same for 'time'. Those are not physics definitions. Those are most often Layperson types of definitions. Even if a physicist gives their explanation that, for example, length is what a meter stick measures; that answer is not a physics definition. It is correct, but it is not a mathematical definition that can be used in physics equations.

Here are some examples of physics definitions: F=ma is the definition of force; E=Fxd is a physics definition of energy. In the case of E=Fxd, the two properties of force and length precede the property of energy. Therefore, the property of energy is defined in terms of properties that precede it. All properties of physics mechanics can be defined in terms of just three properties:> Mass; Length; and, Time. The definition of momentum is P=Fxt, etc. Physics definitions are usually easy and automatic to write. They are like branches on a tree where the first definition takes place on the trunk.

(2) Physics Lacks a First Property Definition. In this way all physics definitions are connected back through one another until there is just one definition, the first definition. Unfortunately, since mass was declared to be the third indefinable property of mechanics, there is no first definition. This is a problem for theoretical physics. It is straightforward for physicists to follow physics definitions all the way back toward the properties of empirical evidence, but the missing first definition breaks the connection between all definitions of the properties of mechanics, and, the properties of empirical evidence.

There are losses that physics suffers because of the missing first definition. One type of loss is that we do not learn what properties are. Yes we know that f=ma, but, we don't learn what force is. We know that E=-Fxd, but, we don't know what energy is, etc. A second lass is that fundamental unity is immediately lost when we fail to make that first physics definition. The break between empirical evidence and the rest of the properties of mechanics prevents dependency from being continuous from the properties of empirical evidence on up through all definitions of mechanics.

The only way in which the connection between length and 'time', and, the defined properties of mechanics can be restored is to fill in the blank left by our failure to create the first definition. The property of mass has no equation expressing it in terms of other properties that precede it. Its unit of kilogram has no equation expressing it in terms of other units that precede it. The reason for this failure is that it was not understood how mass could be defined as a combination of the only two properties that precede, i.e., length and 'time'.

Both length and 'time' don't seem substantive. Yet the properties that follow them do seem substantive. Force, energy, momentum, power, etc., all seem substantive. How does one define a substantive property like mass from two non-substantive properties like length and 'time'? What possible combination of length and 'time' could be set equal to mass; thereby, defining mass, i.e., M=?

(3) The Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Mass. Courtesy of FQXi.lorg Essay Contest Essayist Andrew Beckworth: The Encyclopedia Britannica definition for mass is:

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.

4) Reviewing the Content of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Definition of Mass.It says that mass in physics is a measure of inertia. Any unique property is only a measure of itself. The phrase "is a measure of" usually is used to mean is proportional to. Being proportional to is not being the same as. In the case of the Law of Inertia. Mass is not the same thing. Mass is resistance to force. Inertia is the name given to the fact that a body at rest or in motion will continue in that state unless acted on by a force. It was not a measure of resistance to force.

However, meanings of words change and words change. There is resistance to force and the name applied first to it is "inertial resistance". This is not inertia, but it is acknowledged to be a property of matter. Matter resists force. So this property of inertial resistance became called mass. There is no difference between the two other than names. It has been customary to call resistance to force the property of mass. So for the third time: Mass resists force. This tells us what mass does but doesn't tell us what mass it. It doesn't tells us: What is there about the nature of mass that it causes the effect of resisting force?

(5) Empirical Evidence gives Guidance on how to Define Mass. Empirical evidence tells us everything that we will ever know about a property. It is empirical evidence that infers that a property exists by the patterns of acceleration of objects. That acceleration is an effect. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We learn what cause does, but not what cause is. Mass is the cause of resistance to force. We do not learn what mass is in the sense of what is it physically that it can

resist force? Plus, we do not yet have a physics definition of mass. That is because a physics definition is a mathematical statement where a property is expressed in terms of properties that preceded it

For example, empirical evidence consists of measure of length and 'time'. Those measurements tell us, by means of photons, that particles of matter have accelerated. We don't get information in the form of velocity. We learn that change of velocity with respect to time is inferred to exist. Learning about changes of velocities with respect to time comes from just two properties. The point of this is that measurements of just two properties inform us about the existence of acceleration. Acceleration on one side of an equation can tell us a lot about a property that is on the other side. It all depends upon the units. If there is an undefined property, then it necessarily will have undefined units.

Mass is a property that is undefined and its unit of kilogram is undefined. Kilogram is not expressible in terms of the two units of the properties that precede mass, i.e., meters and seconds. If mass were defined then its unit of kilogram would be expressible in the units that precede it. Knowing this, we can work backwards to learn how to define both kilogram and mass. Here is how it can be done. Solving f=ma for f/m=a, it is seen that in order to establish direct dependence upon empirical evidence and the units of empirical evidence, the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to those of acceleration.

There are a few combinations that can be tried; however, since this is the work that I have done, the one combination that leads to the formulation of the equations of physics is for mass to have the units of inverse acceleration. Writing this out: kilograms=seconds^2/meter. In other words, mass inversely represents a property that is accelerating. Since mass is one of just two properties, the only two, that are inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence, the property that mass is inversely representing is of the most fundamental importance.

The empirical evidence consists of charged particles accelerating and releasing photons that carry an increment of that acceleration away. The photon, if unmolested during its travel, eventually is absorbed by another charged particle; and, that particle is caused to accelerate by the amount stored in the photon. The point is that there are two kinds of information involved in communicating empirical evidence to us. One is that the photon carries an increment of acceleration. The other is that light is involved directly as the delivery system. It delivers acceleration.

(6) Conservation of Acceleration. I propose that the acceleration that is inverse represented by mass is the acceleration of light. This contradicts Relativity theory; however, in order to keep Relativity theory, it would have to be time that accelerates. Time is involved in the delivery system. However, analysis shows that when a photon is released or absorbed it does so for an incremental measure of time that is a Universal constant. The

conclusion is that time does not accelerate; therefore, light has to be the property who's acceleration is inversely represented by the property we know of as mass. My finding is that an increment of positive acceleration of a particle is offset by an equal but opposite signed increment of acceleration of light.

(7) Forming a New System of Units Based upon Meters and Seconds. While readers may doubt this or want to consider it longer, a warranted scientific decision. I will introduce the system of units that this finding has given us by virtue of having re-established direct dependence upon empirical evidence. Two things have happened. There is now a system of units that is fully based upon the units of empirical evidence. Also, fundamental unity has been fully restored to the equations of physics.

Fundamental unity follows automatically from establishing complete dependence of the definitions of all physics properties on the properties of empirical evidence. More directly, since all properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units, this follows automatically from having all units for all defined properties of all of physics be formed from combinations of the two units of empirical evidence.

The new system of units formed solely from empirical units are:

The unit of length is the meter.

The units of time is the second.

The unit of force is: Newton=(meters/second^2)/(Meters/second^2)

The reduced form of the unit of force is unity (1).

The unit of energy is: Joule=Newtons*meters.

The reduced unit of energy is: Joule=meters.

The units of momentum are: Newtons*seconds.

The reduced units of momentum are: Seconds

The act of defining mass leads to the definition of temperature and defined units for temperature.

The units of temperature are: Newtons*(meters/second).

The reduced units of temperature are: Meters/second.

It is understood from the full units of temperature that this is read as energy/second, i.e., the rate at which energy is transferred.

The rest of the units of mechanics and thermodynamics follow automatically, i.e., the result of re-establishing fundamental unity in the equations of physics.

Dear Francesco,

Thank you for visiting and reading my essay. I appreciate your comments. I look forward to reading your essay.

James

Dear John, Thank you for visiting and reading my essay. What you have written is very good feedback. I look forward to reading your essays soon.

James

How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

(1) Defining What a Physics Property Definition is. The first property to be defined is mass. I refer to it in what follows as the first physics definition or just the first definition:

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other properties. The order of the properties matters greatly. For example, the first properties of physics are those in which empirical evidence is communicated to us. Those properties are the two properties of length and 'time'. There are no other properties that precede length and 'time'. For this reason neither of them can be expressed in terms of other properties. This is why they are indefinable. One can explain what length is to them and the same for 'time'. Those are not physics definitions. Those are most often Layperson types of definitions. Even if a physicist gives their explanation that, for example, length is what a meter stick measures; that answer is not a physics definition. It is correct, but it is not a mathematical definition that can be used in physics equations.

Here are some examples of physics definitions: F=ma is the definition of force; E=Fxd is a physics definition of energy. In the case of E=Fxd, the two properties of force and length precede the property of energy. Therefore, the property of energy is defined in terms of properties that precede it. All properties of physics mechanics can be defined in terms of just three properties:> Mass; Length; and, Time. The definition of momentum is P=Fxt, etc. Physics definitions are usually easy and automatic to write. They are like branches on a tree where the first definition takes place on the trunk.

(2) Physics Lacks a First Property Definition. In this way all physics definitions are connected back through one another until there is just one definition, the first definition. Unfortunately, since mass was declared to be the third indefinable property of mechanics, there is no first definition. This is a problem for theoretical physics. It is straightforward for physicists to follow physics definitions all the way back toward the properties of empirical evidence, but the missing first definition breaks the connection between all definitions of the properties of mechanics, and, the properties of empirical evidence.

There are losses that physics suffers because of the missing first definition. One type of loss is that we do not learn what properties are. Yes we know that f=ma, but, we don't learn what force is. We know that E=-Fxd, but, we don't know what energy is, etc. A second lass is that fundamental unity is immediately lost when we fail to make that first physics definition. The break between empirical evidence and the rest of the properties of mechanics prevents dependency from being continuous from the properties of empirical evidence on up through all definitions of mechanics.

The only way in which the connection between length and 'time', and, the defined properties of mechanics can be restored is to fill in the blank left by our failure to create the first definition. The property of mass has no equation expressing it in terms of other properties that precede it. Its unit of kilogram has no equation expressing it in terms of other units that precede it. The reason for this failure is that it was not understood how mass could be defined as a combination of the only two properties that precede, i.e., length and 'time'.

Both length and 'time' don't seem substantive. Yet the properties that follow them do seem substantive. Force, energy, momentum, power, etc., all seem substantive. How does one define a substantive property like mass from two non-substantive properties like length and 'time'? What possible combination of length and 'time' could be set equal to mass; thereby, defining mass, i.e., M=?

(3) The Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Mass. Courtesy of FQXi.lorg Essay Contest Essayist Andrew Beckworth: The Encyclopedia Britannica definition for mass is:

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.

4) Reviewing the Content of the Encyclopedia Britannica's Definition of Mass.It says that mass in physics is a measure of inertia. Any unique property is only a measure of itself. The phrase "is a measure of" usually is used to mean is proportional to. Being proportional to is not being the same as. In the case of the Law of Inertia. Mass is not the same thing. Mass is resistance to force. Inertia is the name given to the fact that a body at rest or in motion will continue in that state unless acted on by a force. It was not a measure of resistance to force.

However, meanings of words change and words change. There is resistance to force and the name applied first to it is "inertial resistance". This is not inertia, but it is acknowledged to be a property of matter. Matter resists force. So this property of inertial resistance became called mass. There is no difference between the two other than names. It has been customary to call resistance to force the property of mass. So for the third time: Mass resists force. This tells us what mass does but doesn't tell us what mass it. It doesn't tells us: What is there about the nature of mass that it causes the effect of resisting force?

(5) Empirical Evidence gives Guidance on how to Define Mass. Empirical evidence tells us everything that we will ever know about a property. It is empirical evidence that infers that a property exists by the patterns of acceleration of objects. That acceleration is an effect. Empirical evidence consists of effects. We learn what cause does, but not what cause is. Mass is the cause of resistance to force. We do not learn what mass is in the sense of what is it physically that it can

resist force? Plus, we do not yet have a physics definition of mass. That is because a physics definition is a mathematical statement where a property is expressed in terms of properties that preceded it

For example, empirical evidence consists of measure of length and 'time'. Those measurements tell us, by means of photons, that particles of matter have accelerated. We don't get information in the form of velocity. We learn that change of velocity with respect to time is inferred to exist. Learning about changes of velocities with respect to time comes from just two properties. The point of this is that measurements of just two properties inform us about the existence of acceleration. Acceleration on one side of an equation can tell us a lot about a property that is on the other side. It all depends upon the units. If there is an undefined property, then it necessarily will have undefined units.

Mass is a property that is undefined and its unit of kilogram is undefined. Kilogram is not expressible in terms of the two units of the properties that precede mass, i.e., meters and seconds. If mass were defined then its unit of kilogram would be expressible in the units that precede it. Knowing this, we can work backwards to learn how to define both kilogram and mass. Here is how it can be done. Solving f=ma for f/m=a, it is seen that in order to establish direct dependence upon empirical evidence and the units of empirical evidence, the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to those of acceleration.

There are a few combinations that can be tried; however, since this is the work that I have done, the one combination that leads to the formulation of the equations of physics is for mass to have the units of inverse acceleration. Writing this out: kilograms=seconds^2/meter. In other words, mass inversely represents a property that is accelerating. Since mass is one of just two properties, the only two, that are inferred to exist directly by empirical evidence, the property that mass is inversely representing is of the most fundamental importance.

The empirical evidence consists of charged particles accelerating and releasing photons that carry an increment of that acceleration away. The photon, if unmolested during its travel, eventually is absorbed by another charged particle; and, that particle is caused to accelerate by the amount stored in the photon. The point is that there are two kinds of information involved in communicating empirical evidence to us. One is that the photon carries an increment of acceleration. The other is that light is involved directly as the delivery system. It delivers acceleration.

(6) Conservation of Acceleration. I propose that the acceleration that is inverse represented by mass is the acceleration of light. This contradicts Relativity theory; however, in order to keep Relativity theory, it would have to be time that accelerates. Time is involved in the delivery system. However, analysis shows that when a photon is released or absorbed it does so for an incremental measure of time that is a Universal constant. The

conclusion is that time does not accelerate; therefore, light has to be the property who's acceleration is inversely represented by the property we know of as mass. My finding is that an increment of positive acceleration of a particle is offset by an equal but opposite signed increment of acceleration of light.

(7) Forming a New System of Units Based upon Meters and Seconds. While readers may doubt this or want to consider it longer, a warranted scientific decision. I will introduce the system of units that this finding has given us by virtue of having re-established direct dependence upon empirical evidence. Two things have happened. There is now a system of units that is fully based upon the units of empirical evidence. Also, fundamental unity has been fully restored to the equations of physics.

Fundamental unity follows automatically from establishing complete dependence of the definitions of all physics properties on the properties of empirical evidence. More directly, since all properties are represented in physics equations solely by their units, this follows automatically from having all units for all defined properties of all of physics be formed from combinations of the two units of empirical evidence.

The new system of units formed solely from empirical units are:

The unit of length is the meter.

The units of time is the second.

The unit of force is: Newton=(meters/second^2)/(Meters/second^2)

The reduced form of the unit of force is unity (1).

The unit of energy is: Joule=Newtons*meters.

The reduced unit of energy is: Joule=meters.

The units of momentum are: Newtons*seconds.

The reduced units of momentum are: Seconds

The act of defining mass leads to the definition of temperature and defined units for temperature.

The units of temperature are: Newtons*(meters/second).

The reduced units of temperature are: Meters/second.

It is understood from the full units of temperature that this is read as energy/second, i.e., the rate at which energy is transferred.

The rest of the units of mechanics and thermodynamics follow automatically, i.e., the result of re-establishing fundamental unity in the equations of physics.

view post as summary

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 18:53 GMT

DEar Ajay, I am receiving questions like yours from others. In response I have added a separate message titled How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it..

Mass is an undefined property of physics. It has been that way since it was introduced. A defined property is one who's identity is learned directly from empirical evidence. The manner in which this is done is to form an equation where the property that is being defined is expressed in terms of the two properties of empirical evidence plus an properties that have been previously defined in this same manner. An example of a physics definition is E=Fd where energy is defined in terms of the product of force and distance. Distance is length which is one of the two properties of empirical evidence. It is naturally indefinable. It cannot be given a physics definition. Force is previously defined by f=ma. So the definition of energy is correct both before defining mass and after defining mass. However, looking at the definition of force. While it has its correct form, The three properties that make up ma are all undefined. Two of them, i.e., length and 'time' are naturally indefinable. Mass was declared to be the third indefinable property of mechanics. It should have been and could have been defined. This new message I posted explains what should have been done. There is no problem of calculations being different. The difference is that an undefined mass is an unexplained property. We know what it does, but, we do not know what it is. Once mass is defined at the very beginning of when it is first introduced to us by empirical evidence, that same empirical evidence can show us what mass is. I know this is still not clear since it is popular to say that mass is resistance to force or is energy, etc. Mass does resist force but that doesn't tell us what mass is. Mass is proportional to energy but it cannot be defined in terms of energy because energy is defined in terms that include mass. A circular definition like that is not a definition. Please look at that message I have added to see why mass wasn't defined and how to define it. The differences it makes in understanding mass and all properties that are defined in terms that include mass is great.

Thank you for your message. Since my essay was written on the last day of entries, it was not proofread and is in poor form. While I should be judged by my submitted essay, I am attaching a cleaned up form of the essay just for the purpose of clarifying what I consider to be the first error of theoretical physics and how to fix it.Attachment #1: Finished_-_Theoretical_physics_is_not_foundational.pdf