Theoretical Physics is not Foundational by James A Putnam

James,

Good to see you back to the contest treadmill. All in all, it is challenging.

After thinking about your pervasive problems with theoretical physics, I can see most of your points. Certainly what is fundamental is largely based on what is observed but as I point out in my essay, discovery makes "fundamental" something of a moving target and with that realization we should look at theory with continued skepticism, ready to update with discovery. Add to that the knowledge that some base units of base quantities are interdependent and indeed follow concepts that go back to Maxwell should always give us intellectual pause. This and more indicates that we too often caress orthodoxy and do turn learning backwards. Hope you have a chance to check out my essay.

James,

Nicely written. Yes, and I still agree your thesis, I think you got the title right, and agree you 5 points. I'd like to suggest adding; 'Lack of Self-Correction', i.e. our methodology doesn't include checking back on prior assumptions and interpretations when new findings come to light. Would you agree that would also be an important step?

While agreeing your description, do you think the failure to define 'mass' is also a consequence of our fundamental inability to define 'matter per se? (I touch on that and discuss ever smaller scales of motion, or 'spin').

I agree about time (certainly including 'space-time') but if lab vacuum can well replicate 'space' is that entirely true in the same way?

Your last section contributes significantly to the top marks I have it down for. It's also consistent with my view we need to re-learn how to learn if we're to advance. Great shame you didn't have time to argue that and other parts more 'rigorously' but I think you got some important points across well.

Hope you'll read mine, returning with the simplest action to update Bohr's assumptions for QM - with apparently seminal findings, which of course all will ignore as they've learnt that nature is unfathomably weird! (see also the code and plot in Declan's).

Good to see you still going strong.

Very Best

Peter

Dear James Putnam,

I read with interest your views in your essay and will also join your FaceBook group. Meanwhile, I welcome your comments on my essay at https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

James,

I feel every concept contributes to an understanding of "fundamental," so I am reviewing my own sketchy evaluations to help my understanding and see if I have rated them. I find that I did not rate yours and will remedy that today. Hope you get a chance to check out mine as well.

Jim

Dear James A Putnam

Very nice words in your OP...."To be foundational, theory must have established and maintained a direct dependence upon empirical evidence with the goal of learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. Three pervasive problems with theoretical physics are identified: 1. The failure to define mass; 2.Lack of attention to detail; 3. Accepting indirect empirical evidence as sufficient support for orthodoxy; 4. Lack of a foundational system of units; 5. Turning learning backwards.......'

I request you to please have a look at Dynamic Universe model...

It is based on experimental evidences and observations, without FIVE the problems you mentions above...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear James,

I highly appreciate your beautifully written essay.

I completely agree with you. «To be foundational, theory must have established and maintained a direct dependence upon empirical evidence with the goal of learning that which empirical evidence is revealing to us. Three pervasive problems with theoretical physics are identified:

1. The failure to define mass.

2. Lack of attention to detail.

3. Accepting indirect empirical evidence as sufficient support for orthodoxy.

4. Lack of a foundational system of units.

5. Turning learning backwards».

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

"The Failure to Define Mass". There is no such failure. Formal systems are built in basis to elementary concepts, not defined in terms of anything more fundamental and characterized only by formal properties laid down for them; and derived concepts, which are defined in terms of the elementary concepts; and of other derived concepts. Mass is an elementary concept.

"It was not understood how to formally define both mass and force from f=ma". "The equation f=ma is the introduction of mass. The equation f=dp/dt is not the beginning equation. Physicists did not understand how one could define both mass and force in f=ma". Not even close. F=ma is neither the definition of force nor the definition of mass. Mass is an elementary concept, and force is defined in other ways. The expression F=ma is an equation of motion, and it is introduced as an axiom in the formal system. Truesdell gives a nice presentation of the formal structure of the theory of mechanics (see attachment).

"Mass is pervasive in physics equations. It is absolutely necessary that it be known what it is; otherwise, that lack of knowledge is spread widely

throughout theory". Not only mass doesn't need to be defined (because it is a elementary concept), but this argument about 'absolutely necessity' is invalid because it is circular. Imagine that we decide mass isn't elementary and define it using one or more concepts. Those concepts will be now elementary in the formalism, and so they will be undefined, so we are back to the starting point. And if we consider those new concepts also require definition, we will only define them using a new set of concepts... the whole argument is absurd. A finite formal theory has to rely on a set of elementary concepts, which cannot be defined in terms of anything more fundamental, because there is nothing more elemental, obviously.

"one must define both mass and force using a combination of only length and time", which doesn't make any mathematical or physical sense.

"The best choice is to accept mass as an inverse representation of some property that is undergoing acceleration." Besides all the above criticism, doing something as (m = 1/ u) where u is "some property" doesn't add any new physics to the description. It is basically replacing a concept by other. There is no net advance in our understanding of Nature by a mere change of labels.

"Force would then be defined as a ratio of two accelerations." Assuming same mass, the ratio of two accelerations is the ratio of two forces.

"The newton would be defined as a ratio of the units of acceleration". Since both accelerations share the same unit the ratio is dimensional and cannot be used to define the newton. But this was obvious because the ratio of two accelerations is not a force, but an adimensional quantity, a mere number.

"The units of mass tell us that we are being led to learning that there is a very fundamental property that has velocity and undergoes changes of velocity. What is the property? It is light. It is true that the speed of light always measures locally C". Light doesn't have velocity, it has only speed, because photons cannot be localized. C is not only valid locally, but also globally (in absence of gravitation).

"However, physics would still have the same ailment when it got to thermodynamics. Temperature has been and remains an undefined property ever since it was introduced". Another invalid claim. Several definitions of the concept of temperature are available on the literature since more than one century. The usual definition in modern thermodynamics literature is T == (partial S / partial U)-1. Temperature can be also defined without using entropy.

"2. Lack of Attention to Detail". It is kind of ironic this article accuses physicists of lack of attention to detail.

"What is the meaning of k in Coulomb's Law? [...] The k in Coulomb's law is the most important term in the equation". k is the coupling constant and it measures the strength of the interaction for given set of distance and charges; k is important, but it isn't the most important. The functional dependence on distance or the dependence on charges are as important as k.

"The only place for new knowledge to enter Coulomb's Law is in the proportionality constant". Not true, in fact new physics enters in the distance part, when we do corrections to physics for small scales. The part related to the charges is also a place for new physics; e.g. when we consider the physical effect of screening of charges in a polarizable medium, or when we consider electric currents.

"Removing 4pi from k and placing it with r^2 gives us ko the true pure constant of proportionality." Which is useless, because (i) the physics doesn't change by simply moving a constant from one place to another, (ii) because 4pi would be still needed in other expressions as that for potentials, and (iii) because two different concepts of distance would be needed at once.

"here has been no experimentation directly upon the properties of space or time". Space and time aren't objects that one can manipulate.

"The way in which this can be known is to recognize that there are no units of measurement for either one. The units of seconds are not units of a fundamental property of time. The units of meters are not units of a fundamental property of space". No. One can measure both 'space' and time, we have well-known operational definitions and apparatus to measure both even to very high accuracy and precision. Moreover, claims such as "units of seconds" are meaningless; the unit is "second" (without plural) and second is unit of time, so "units of seconds" is as saying "units of units of time", which doesn't make sense.

"Space is not an object. There are no specimens of either space or time contained in any laboratory anywhere. Both are completely inaccessible to us for the purposes of measuring, or affecting them, or being affected by them." The first part is absolutely correct. They aren't objects. The late part is so wrong as pretending that we cannot measure velocities or the concentration of a substance because velocity and concentration aren't objects. Velocity, concentration, 'space' (really position) and time are physical properties associated to objects, and those properties can be measured, as the long history of science demonstrates.

"The letter 't' represents our substitute for the indefinable property of time." Time is an elementary concept, as mass.

"For those who are not aware of this, Empirical evidence is communicated to us in terms of meters and seconds only". First, there is here a glaring confusion between the property and some specific unit associated to it (I can measure time in other units aren't the second). Moreover, a complete description of Universe cannot be build only over the concepts of position and time; we need masses, charges,...

Next section repeats the same misguided claims such as "The units of a defined mass are units of inverse acceleration."

"This result shows that temperature is the rate of transfer of energy between molecules". This is not temperature; the temperature of noninteracting molecules is well-defined.

"However, the use of these units allows for the discovery that the Universal Gravitational Constant is actually the square of the gravitational force between two neutrons, as measured by an observer located on one of the neutrons, separated at a distance of the radius of the hydrogen atom locally measured as 4.8x10^-11 meters". I don't know what is this radius, Bohr radius is 5.3 10-11; but the numerical value is of little importance here; the really important here is that gravitational constant is not the square of the force. Such claim is completely meaningless because force (Newtonian) is the product of G, the masses, and inverse of square distance.

Similar remarks about meaningless claims made in the Essay, such as "This makes for a very big change. Fundamental unity allows for just one cause for all

effects. That one cause is the property that mass is inversely representing. It is the variation of the speed of light. All effects currently credited to one of the four fundamental forces are actually due to the variation of the speed of light".

The quote from the "anonymous physicist" is incorrect. It is not possible to derive Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... from the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy/mass alone. I have searched the source for such quote. Google only reports two results, and both are docs from James A Putnam. In one of docs the phrase is typed without quotation marks; so I conclude that the quote wasn't said by any physicist, but it is a quote from Putnam himself.

Additional comment: The pair of http links in the references section aren't "Usenet files".Attachment #1: FORMAL_MECH.png

Dear James A Putnam, I'll put 10 for whatever you are looking for mass determination. In my essay about it just said. For a long time believed that the Foundation for fundamental theories is matter, an attribute which was mass. Once there was a formula of mass - energy equivalence, and mass lost the status of a value characterizing the amount of matter, about it rarely began to remember and physics has lost the Foundation. Any theory of everything is created in such circumstances would not be fundamental. The principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, according to which physical space is matter and matter is space that moves, gives us the Foundation for fundamental theories.

Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which can to be the theory of everything OO.

I wish you success! Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris

I meant "cosmoquest"

Hi James...

Thanks for your discussion on the circular nature of the equationist's logic, and I emphatically agree that "indirect empirical evidence" should not be "relied upon as if it were conformational".

However, I herein reference quotes from Richard Kingsley Nixey essay, and argue that "qualified" reductionism, as Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by

providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification

... i.e. as you assert" The Universe is fundamentally unified." ... can offer a "coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists", and

Digital SIM is my computational analysis tool of choice for animating pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse rate, within

a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry... i.e. unified field empirical virtuality mechanix.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php]

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Thanks James for sharing your insights, and your comments on my essay would with those insights in mind.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi James,

Good to be in another contest with you presenting another excellent essay. I missed just one of the essay contests...they are so addictive.

I liked: "If physics had been developed by using only what is learned directly from empirical evidence, it would not have become theoretical physics, it would have become empirical physics."

One comment you made interests me a lot: "There has been no experimentation directly upon the properties of space or time. The existence of relativity type of effects on objects is real, but the Relativity Theory claimed causes are not empirically supported."

My essay contribution focuses on space-time by conceiving (out of thin air) a new type of graviton (outside the standard model). This is not empirical, but I believe it may lead to possible empirical experiments. Take a look and let me know what you think.

Thanks for your very readable essay that touches on the very fundamental embarrassments of physics.

Best of luck in the contest,

Don Limuti

James,

You are an independent researcher and an independent thinker and mindful of human nature.

I think we all are addicted to these contests. Perhaps the sharing of ideas and the presence of a forum is the rub.

Thanks,

Jim

Dear James,

I'm reading an interesting paper on Poincare. Maybe you are interested in Poincares' work. Here specifically Paragraph 3 might interest you, as it has similarity with your Approach to physics:

http://users.uoa.gr/~psillos/PapersI/Psillos-Poincare-Methode%20(published).pdf

Best

Luca

Dear James,

I suppose that first property which is communicated to us is mass of our body and gravity. In the mother's womb we were in a weightless state. After birth, we first felt that gravity pushed us to bed, that our hands and legs are heavy. We felt the distance later when we wanted to reach something. A sense of time arose latest. Perhaps all your difficulties with the mass definition can be solved by choosing the mass and gravitation constant as the primary properties. The length, time and all another properties can be defined by mass.

Good luck in the contest.

Regards

Ilgaitis