James,
Actually, I'm writing an essay right now on the definition of mass and I think you're right in that there's a fundamental problem in the interpretation of F=ma. In fact there's quite a bit of literature out there discussing exactly that (Max Jammer, Frank Wilczek - with whom I disagree on this point, Euler, Mach, et. al.).
I have to think some more about your last point before responding.
Ian
Ian,
I am not familiar with those persons. I am glad to hear that some physicists are reconsidering the interpretation of mass. I am sure that you recognize that getting mass right will have effects that go beyond f=ma. Einstin's e=mc2 is affected. I am not saying that relativity type effects are not real. I am saying that getting mass right unravels Einstein's theory of relativity. There will be new equations that are analogous in form to his; however, they will have important differences in form and interpretation. Once mass is 'touched' it becomes easier to look anew at other invented properties such as electric charge. Electric charge also needs corrected. Getting it right is the key to achieving a unified theory. That is my opinion because I have been through this.
James
James,
Well, the interesting thing is that if indeed there is something wrong with mass, it would not be that great a leap to think there was something wrong with electric charge as well. Of the intrinsic properties of particles (interestingly enough), they are the only two that are "classical" (in that they were originally considered and defined prior to quantum theory). I'm not necessarily saying that the solution lies in quantum theory, simply that it is curious that they share that attribute.
Ian
Ian,
In a reply to James Putnam, you mentioned Max Jammer and Frank Wilczek. I looked into the Nobel Lecture from the latter who was unknown to me. He gave a perhaps good survey about paradoxes that seem to have naturally arisen from what I consider consequences of a fundamental mistake: the belief in an a priori given timespace including future. For instance, individual quarks, SUSY and Higgs bosons were not found, the pattern of observed baryons cannot be understood using antisymmetric wave functions.
I am just a layman who can only point to what I consider overlooked mistakes, and I should beware of also just guessing. Admittedly, I do not even exclude that the model of point-like orbiting and spinning particles is naive and maybe waves in space are better models. Those who are sticking only on the particle model might learn from acoustics to live with the duality between waves and phonons too.
Couldn't the many anti-particles just be short-lived fictions? I imagine the border of the already real past towards the not yet existing future a hard mirror and wonder why Nimtz seems to be unable to understand why he "measured" transmission of signals ftl. I got the impression the whole zoo of anti-particles were predicted and then "found" on desire almost as the attributable miracle required to declare pope John-Paul a Saint. I am familiar with evanescent virtual modes in acoustics.
What about a particle moving "on average at very nearly the speed of light, but with an uncertainty in position, as required by quantum theory", I guess this style of thinking is anything but consequent. At least I do not see this a reason for introducing antiparticles.
So far, I blame the physicists for improper use of mathematics. If you are interested in what I see mistakes in mathematics I will refer to Max Jammer.
Eckard
Dear Ian,
I have become involved in a discussion in the blogs section with Tom. I will be posting a response there. I prefer to post it here first, because it is related to the discussion that took place here first. I have appreciated very much your courtesy, patience,and thoughtful responses. It is possible it may change slightly before reposting it. However, here it is for your consideration.
Tom wrote:
"Really James, this has gone beyond ridiculous. Special and general relativity are kinetic theories; therefore, empirical. ..."
No theory is empirical. Theory is the accumulation of guesses that the theorists choose, because of their own philosphical biases, to replace that which they do not know about why the universe functions as it does. Empirical science belongs to the real world, and, it studies patterns in effects. It is only effects that the universe makes known to us.
"...And you're taking issue with _Newtonian_ physics, too? Wow. ..."
The theoretical guess pushed onto f=ma was the decision to declare mass to be an indefinable property deserving its own indefinable units of measurement. No one could have known that that was true. It contradicts unity in the universe. Even worse, it made disunity a permanent part of our analysis of the operation of the universe. That is where theoretical physics first began to stray away from empirical science. That single act caused force to be improperly defined resulting in both energy and momentum being improperly defined and adversely affected all higher level theory that has made use of any of these properties.
Theoretical physics is a facade that prevents us from seeing the universe as it really is. I began removing that facade starting with f=ma. Behind the facade, I have found that the erroneous guesses of theoretical physics have been compounded and are distorting mass, electric charge, space, time, temperature, thermodynamic entropy, the origins of the fundamental constants of nature, the fine structure constant, permittivity, permeability, and have made disunity so firmly a part of our analyses that numerous unobservable properties must now be invented out of nothing in order to try to patch theory back together again. They are the new strain of guesses. That which we carelessly tore apart must now be joined back together with super, or hyper, but in any case, magic glue.
The guesses are easy to identify. Everytime a theorist declares a property to be a cause, it is a guess. Theory is the practice of inventing causes. No one knows what cause is. Furthermore, our equations cannot display cause on either side. If cause is found on either side, then that is a clear theoretical error. It may be a real, even though improperly defined, property, but it is not a 'cause'. There is a symbol that we use in our equations to represent all causes. That symbol is the equals sign.
All of your theoretical 'causes' could be squeezed behind the equals sign and empirical knowledge would not suffer. The equations would be better for it. They would be returned to their original, natural state. They would once again be empirical equations. Then, they could tell us the truth about that which we can know scientifically and that which we cannot. However, so long as they remain represented as physics equations, they can only serve to help us solve mechanical type problems.
I have previously objected to the use of the word 'tells'. It is certainly true that each object in the universe knows what to do. Cause is knowing what to do and reacting accordingly to an effect. An original cause is 'knowing everything to be done'. It is fair enough, in a general sense, to say that one object tells another what to do. My objection was directed at the use of the word 'tells' within the context of theoretical physics. Knowing, or intelligence, is the most important property of the universe, but it is not a property of theoretical physics. The philosophy upon which theoretical physics has been constructed cannot call upon any semblance of intelligent act in order to explain anything. The underpinning of the philosophy of theoretical physics is that the universe is mechanical, inanimate, purposeless and dumb. It can never know 'Why?'.
James
James,
I think, at the core, you are absolutely right that there is a serious discord between theoretical physics and empirical physics. I'm not entirely sure I agree it goes all the way back to Newton, but I definitely agree that it is prevalent in modern physics (my latest Facebook update was lamenting exactly this point). Don't let the naysayers deter you. Whether or not I agree with everything you say, I will say 'Vive l'empiricism!'
Ian
Dear Ian,
Thank you for your message. I am thinking about bringing up specifics with regard to the problems I see in theoretical physics.
"...there is a serious discord between theoretical physics and empirical physics. I'm not entirely sure I agree it goes all the way back to Newton, ..."
Maybe I am right and maybe I am wrong. However, what I see in f=ma is a refutation of relativity theory. Changing mass changes almost everything. Getting it right, I think, will correct almost everything. I am certain it is not yet correctly defined. I say only those things which I am prepared to explain. I may be wrong; however, I have reasons for saying the things that I say. Maybe I will get to share them.
It is not easy to participate in a physics forum setting and challenge theoretical physics as strongly as I do. It certainly would be advantageous to actually be a theoretical physicist. Still, I would like to see this through. I cannot believe the patience of FQXi. Probably no one was more surprised than me to have Brendan approve my input, at least for a while. I think what I have to say may be a valuable leasson, maybe for me or maybe for others. I have a lengthy website available for anyone to view. I do not have problem, I think, with being corrected. However, correctness appears to exist oftentimes in our viewpoints. Who knows? I would like to know. Anything you have to say would be welcome.
James
James,
I am thinking very long and very deeply about the points you raise. I just got into an argument with someone on a different forum over this. Ironically the guy also happens to be an FQXi member. He was not particularly patient but that is another story. Indeed, the FQXi folks active here are patient since the core of FQXi is to ask questions. I just listened to an interview with Gregory Chaitin (yet another FQXi member) and I'm more convinced than ever that we have absolutely no idea what we're talking about and that anyone who says we do is lying. Chaitin actually thinks we may never get a unified theory since we may have only scratched the surface of the physical world. Anyway, as an empiricist and former engineer, I still say we can't dispose of everything in its entirety since engineers rely on things like Newton's laws every day. But when it comes to physics and figuring out how the universe works, we're simply projecting our view onto what we see. Sometimes that allows us to manipulate things (build cars, buildings, computers, etc.), but when it does we're simply getting lucky. I'll have to Google your name and look up your website.
Ian
Dear Ian,
Thank you for your message. I am reposting part of a message I wrote today to Jason, because, I think it is relevant to your topic. That is, unless I am wrong in the example I give below:
....I think its too early to judge who has the truth. I think relativity theory is clearly wrong. I think many other ideas carried along by theoretical physics are also wrong. Why should anyone care what I think? My conclusions will certainly not win any respect by themselves. There is only one place for me to participate and that is at the fundamental level. That is where the changes, as I see them, must begin to be made. I think it is the only place where I have any chance of scoring points. So, I mentioned elsewhere, in another message, the idea that defining mass in f=ma as being a unique fundamental property requiring its own unique indefinable units of measurement was a guess, and, I add now that it was a wrong guess.
Why should anyone care? The equation f=ma is long established newtonian physics. It is very successful up to the point where Einstein's theory corrects it. The success of the two of them together make the original theoretical interpretation of f=ma appear to be truth. That is a very big hill for any challenger to climb.
You (Jason) said: "In an earlier entry, I asked: what causes gravity? I still think the question deserves an answer."
I missed seeing this. I have looked back and could not find a previous message where you asked about the cause of gravity. But, now to my point for bringing this up now. The answer, as I see it, to the cause of gravity lies in reinterpreting mass in f=ma. Mass should not have indefinable units of measurement. It should have units of some combination of distance and time. When this change is made, then a possible answer for what causes gravity appears immediately. Again, why should anyone care about this viewpoint? If we mess around with mass then almost everything will change. Why change that which has worked so wonderfully well in practice?
I will offer a possible reason. The universal gravitational constant is equal in magnitude to a physical event. Consider two ideal, simple protons at a distance of separation equal to the radius of the hydrogen atom. I am using protons instead of neutrons because I want to avoid getting into a discussion about the nature of neutrons. Completely disregard electric effects. I am speaking only about gravitational effects.
An observer on one of the protons believes himself to be stationary. He sees the other proton approaching his proton due to the force of gravity. I will refer to this as the local acceleration of gravity. Now the point: The magnitude of the fundamental gravitational constant is equal in magnitude to the square of the local acceleration due to gravity of one proton toward the observer's proton multiplied by the square of the distance between them at the instant that that distance is equal to the radius of the hydrogen atom.
I have to refer only to the magnitudes because, the units do not match. Now I refer anyone interested back to my point regarding f=ma. If the units of mass are corrected back at the beginning of theory, then the units in the above conclusion match and I do not have to refer only to their magnitudes.
James
Stop the Weirdness!
It all started with Planck's 'energy quanta' and Einstein's 'photons'. The first explained 'blackbody radiation' while the second explained the 'photoelectric effect'. From these beginnings we have a view of the world evolve that has become increasingly mathematically abstract and counter-intuitive. But what if we could turn back the clock some 100 years and consider a more intuitive and 'continuous' explanation of these experimental results? What if we can prove that "Planck's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity" (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy? Or that we can explain "The Photoelectric Effect without Photons"? Or give "A Plausible Explanation to the Double-slit Experiment in Quantum Physics"? Or provide an intuitive interpretation to "The Meaning of psi: An Interpretation of the Schrodinger's Equation"? Or can "Let there be h! A Plausable Argument for the Existence of Planck's Constant"? Or mathematically demonstrate that we cannot know a physical quantity through the "The Interaction of Measurement"? Or that established results in Quantum Physics imply a "Time-dependent Local Representation of Energy"? Or can define a "Primary 'physis' and the Mathematical Derivation of Primary Law" in Physics? Or be able to define "The Temperature of Radiation" in a non-Thermodynamic way, yet be equivalent to it?
These results are all logically grounded on a purely mathematical derivation: "A 'Planck-like' Characterization of Exponential Functions". Start by first reading "Planck's Formula is a Mathematical Identity" and follow the links to more topics and further discussions presented in a series of short papers that together present a different view of the universe, one that is confluent with Classical Physics and with our experience of our world.
Dear Constantinos Ragazas,
While I need time for digesting your arguments, I already would like asking you to comment on my possibly related ones to be found at fqxi topics 369 and 527 and my IEEE paper 'Adaptation of Spectral Analysis to Reality' and a manuscript 'A Still Valid Argument by Ritz'.
I just wonder why you wrote 'energy quanta' instead of 'quanta of action' and you did not reveal your scientific background and affiliation. At least, you should indicate what part of currently accepted theory you are considering ill-founded or possibly flawed, why, and with which testable consequences. We should be careful before declaring the many many experts wrong.
Eckard Blumschein
Dear Eckard Blumschein.
Since you asked, I am a retired math teacher having taught at The Lawrenceville School in NJ for some thirty years. But this is not about me. It's about a result that I stumbled upon by accident some ten years ago and more recently developed into a series of short notes. Foremost of these is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (or variation of it) showing that it is an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy.
I cannot comment on your many referenced works since I don't have the background to do so. But I have no doubt you will be able to follow my simple mathematical derivations and arguments. Since ultimately we are all seeking the same thing, an understanding of our world that 'makes sense', I trust that you will consider these independent of me. I humbly submit these results for your consideration and welcome a sustained dialog on them.
Best regards,
Constantinos
Hi Constantinos,
"Foremost of these is the mathematical derivation of Planck's Law (or variation of it) showing that it is an exact mathematical identity (a tautology) that describes the interaction of energy."
I thought your first message was quite general. I think this one is more specific. In my opinion, you have enterred a forum that is especially thoughtful and patient. However, there is more action to be found in the blogs section. I think that posting in both locations will help you receive more varied results. You will find, because of the convenient listing of recent messages, that the blogs section attracts more attention and also the risk of strongly opposite, even possibly offensively posed, views.
Most of which gets posted in the blogs section does not pertain to the subject of any particular blog. FQXi is very patient with new postings. Choose one that is not currently very active and hopefully fits at least minimally with your ideas. Your post will stay visual longer. I do not know what Ian might say about your ideas; but, judging from what you have said thus far, I think that you may have something worthwhile to add to these discussions. I suggest that you post simultaneously in both locations. As, I mentioned above, you have a chance of receiving a better variety of responses. You need to be prepared to explain, in relatively short form, that which you want to communicate.
James
Greetings James,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. They come as a cool evening breeze in a scorching desert. Personally I can handle all manner of attacks, but it disheartens me when the ideas themselves fall in the fray. I am looking for an intellectually honest and open discussion motivated by a common passion for Truth and Reason. I am encouraged by your mission statement that I may have found such with your community of members.
Best,
Constantinos
Dear Constantinos,
You might be surprised: I do not just consider your argument correct that points at a detector are randomly distributed point-like responses to stimulating waves. I see it even the first convincing explanation to obviously wrong measurements by Gompf et al. published in PRL and mentioned in 527.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Eckard
Constantinos,
Good. I think that FQXi may benefit from your input. I will not speak for you. I know that you know that you have to make your case. Supporters may follow.
If you happen to be online near this time, here is an example from the blogs section, it was directed at me by Tom (T H Ray), of the kind of response you may have to contend with:
"...Your claim is instructive, however. When Einstein became known, the Nazis denounced his work as "Jewish mathematics." It is only when we allow science to be interpreted in tribal terms, that one can even entertain ridiculously false statements as these. And when taken to its furthest extreme, when truth resides only in the mind of an individual (your view) there is only anti-science. Your opinion is harmless as it is here; one can take it or leave it. Suppose, however, you were a king with limitless power--you issue a decree that henceforth relativity is false because you have seen the truth, and anyone who breathes a word to the contrary shall be beheaded. Don't laugh, it has happened in analogous ways; correction: is happening. ..."
I handle my own challengers, some of which are qualified, skilled, theoretical physicists who have earned their Doctorate and are to be respected for their academic accomplishment. I think you may be able to accomplish something at FQXi.
You said: "Personally I can handle all manner of attacks, but it disheartens me when the ideas themselves fall in the fray."
The ideas will not fall in the fray if you stay with it.
James
And even if there are issues with the ideas (which I can't say since I haven't read them yet), people should never be personally attacked. Everyone deserves respect by virtue of the fact that we're all human.
Hello Eckard,
Thank you for your comments. It is gratifying to know that my explanation helps answer some questions for you. Forgive me if I do not address the specific references you mention. I am just not familiar with these.
Perhaps you can give me your thoughts on my equally short note "Planck's Law is an Exact Mathematical Identity". This does not use 'quanta' and is based on simple continuous processes.
Best,
Constantinos
James,
. . . as bad as the comment directed to you is, believe me when I say I've had worst! Really vicious! But I wont dwell on that. By nature I am a very positive and optimistic person. My love of ideas would not let me be anything else. Nothing can dissuade me from reasoning other than reasoning itself. Hard to abandon what you know to be True. So feel assured that I will persist, since really this is not about me!
Dear Constantinos,
I was trained as an electrical engineer almost fifty years ago, and I meanwhile I found out that the relationship between momentum and position corresponds to the relationship between frequency and timespan if we use h as a constant factor. Both pairs are conjugate ones, related to each other via an integral transform. As a mathematician you learned to apply the complex Fourier transform in this case. I found out that avoidance of any arbitrary reference requires restriction to only positive time-spans and therefore the real cosine transform is tailor-made to reality.
Admittedly, I did not yet deal thoroughly with the papers of concern with respect to Planck although I have some of them at hand in the book 100 years of Planck's Quantum by Duck and Sudarshan, World Scientific 2000. Could you please explain to me why you you are using Einstein's expression "energy quantum"
E = h f instead of the quantum (or coefficient) of action h?
Look at my results of running cosine transforms in MATLAB. You will find an example at http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/527 and further results at
http://home.arcor.de/eckard.blumschein/M284.html
It looks to me as if a photon corresponds to the first ripple but it is not the smallest product analog to the hyperbola f times t = constant.
I fear you are a too well educated mathematician as to understand that my point of view is very uncommon while nonetheless reasonable.
Best regards,
Eckard