Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Margarita Iudin: on 9/24/14 at 0:42am UTC, wrote Hi This is Margarita / imagining the future humanity Sorry to bother...

James Putnam: on 8/8/13 at 4:28am UTC, wrote The contest has ended. I am attaching to this message a revised version of...

James Putnam: on 8/7/13 at 20:15pm UTC, wrote The major contribution put forward by my essay was the removal of the...

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 19:33pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

James Putnam: on 8/7/13 at 14:33pm UTC, wrote What my essay showed is that the connection between thermodynamic entropy...

James Putnam: on 8/6/13 at 22:51pm UTC, wrote In thermodynamics, the properties of pressure, volume, and temperature are...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/6/13 at 0:58am UTC, wrote Dear James, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

James Putnam: on 8/2/13 at 2:45am UTC, wrote In my recent message to Akinbo, I stated: "It was the use of a theoretical...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: Gibbs Paradox Solution by James A Putnam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 15:05 GMT
Essay Abstract

The Gibbs paradox results from analyzing mixing entropy as if it was a type of thermodynamic entropy. It begins with an adiabatic box divided in half by an adiabatic removable partition. There are two ideal gases, at equal temperatures and pressures, distinguishable as gas A and gas B, each separately contained in separate halves of the box. The partition is removed, the two gases mix. Mixing entropy theory predicts a significant change in temperature for the gases due to mixing. However, experimental results show that the mixing process produces no detectable change in temperature. The solution presented in this essay introduces new explanations for both thermodynamic entropy and mixing entropy. It is shown that the paradox is not real. The prediction of mixing entropy is illusory due to an incorrect assumption: The mixing entropy is not like Clausius’ thermodynamic entropy. The subject of this essay was chosen to demonstrate the negative consequences of theorists bypassing an understanding of what is Clausius’ thermodynamic entropy.

Author Bio

The author of http://newphysicstheory.com. The number one Internet search listed website for 'New Physics Theory' since 2001. At my site, I present a new fundamentally unified theory and, several essays on physics, life and intelligence.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 19:20 GMT
On page 7, paragraph one "The molecules of both gases are idealized as inelastic spheres..." Should say 'The molecules of both gases are idealized as elastic spheres...' Paragraph two "...the rate at which energy is transferred from molecule to molecules." The 'molecules' should be 'molecule'. That is all that I have spotted thus far on my first reading online.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Margarita Iudin replied on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 00:42 GMT
Hi

This is Margarita / imagining the future humanity

Sorry to bother you

are you the relative of Hilary Whitehall Putnam ?

hypothesis of multiple realizabilit, non-overlapping mental states etc.?

let me know

Wishing you well, Margarita

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 23:36 GMT
James,

Lee Smolin, in his new book 'Time Reborn', said something that reminded me of you:

"[There is] little in physics to match the conceptual clarity and elegance of Einstein's theories. ... Not even Newtonian mechanics whose textbook presentations are often logical messes, undermined by confused and circular definitions of basic concepts such as mass and force."

I've read your essay. It represents an impressive amount of work but I can't keep up with the changed units. I find entropy arguments hard enough to follow even when I'm familiar with the units, and almost impossible when the units change. I'll try again but I'm still trying to get my own essay written.

One suggestion is that you define your terms when they appear. For example, I assumed Q was heat in your first equation but I don't believe you define it for three or four pages. I also went to your website and found similar presentation of symbols without definition. If your readers don't know what Q is they won't get very far. This is especially true when you change the basic units. I do like your mass-as-inverse-acceleration with dimensionless force. I'm not so happy with your time and electric charge. I'll try to come back with questions or comments after digesting your essay.

As always, best of luck in this contest, and I'm happy to see you here.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 00:48 GMT
Edwin,

Thank you for reading my essay. My remark regarding heat being energy in transit was directed at non-physicists. I didn't believe that anyone who was familiar with the Clausius' derivation of thermodynamic entropy would need to have heat defined. Yet, when I reached the point where I was applying my own work to thermodynamic entropy, I decided late to include the definition of heat...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 04:02 GMT
James,

Smolin's 'Trouble with Physics' in 2006 was the first book to point out how string theory, while neither making any predictions, or solving any problems, had taken political hold of the top universities, thereby exerting pressure, subtle or not, on the brightest young physicists -- a resource we cannot afford to waste.

His new book, released last week, is causing a similar stir amongst the faithful. I find his analysis right on, and as far as I have read, almost 100% consistent with my approach. So I think it's significant that he feels as you do about the "confused and circular" definition of mass and force (at least as presented in may textbooks).

I've been playing with your formulation a little. It is very interesting. I plug it into my key equations and think about the results. Interesting results.

You surely know by now that I believe gravity is the key field that, through self interaction, has evolved to the current state of the universe. The major theory dealing with this is general relativity, which is, in essence, a theory of mass and acceleration. By redefining mass as inverse acceleration, (a very intuitive step!) you have effectively redefined it is a theory of acceleration and its inverse. That is worth thinking about and I plan to think about it.

illegitimi non-carborundum,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 4, 2013 @ 16:43 GMT
Edwin,

I don't presume that you agree with the following statements. They represent my opinion. My work has a unique approach that I have found works very well up to the point of my educational limitation. That limitation leaves my work at an introductory level of presentation. One of its shortcomings compared to your work is that mine is just another mechanical interpretation. However,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on May. 5, 2013 @ 18:07 GMT
Concerning changing the units of physics into the forms used in my essay:

The change made is not one of introducing new types of units. For example, the units used include meters and seconds. They remain as before. The actual change made is far more radical. It involves returning the equations of physics back to their empirical roots. In other words, removing all units that are not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on May. 5, 2013 @ 21:29 GMT
The reason for using meters and seconds only, the units of empirical evidence:

Properties are defined by their empirical evidence. That empirical evidence tells us all that we will ever know about each property. Theory is the intrusion of guesses onto physics equations. The guesses cannot be more informative than is the empirical evidence. The guesses can be less informative. They are more...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on May. 6, 2013 @ 15:49 GMT
James,

My question does seemingly not refer to your essay. Because you dealt with entropy, I would like to ask you for help. I refer to Phys. Z. 10, 323 (1909) where Ritz agreed to disagree with Einstein.

Ritz argued that electrodynamic irreversibility was one of the roots of the second law of thermodynamics, while Einstein defended Maxwell-Lorentz electromagnetic time symmetry using both retarded and advanced potentials on equal footing. Ritz considered the restriction to the form of the retarded potential as one of the roots of the second law while Einstein believed that irreversibility depends exclusively upon reasons of probability.

Can you please point me to belonging work either by Einstein or by someone he refers to, maybe Boltzmann?

Secondly, I would appreciate an understandable to me explanation how "entropy is a theoretical pathway for moving from It to Bit".

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 20:35 GMT
Eckard,

Thermodynamics pertains to macroscopic systems. The properties of temperature, pressure and volume are macroscopic quantitites that pertain to the internal energy of a system. The system could be the universe. The development of entropy began with Clausius discovering a new property of the system, the system being the 'It'.

Boltzmann's definition of entropy broke away from the macroscopic perspective and introduced a new kind of entropy that described a condition of microstates. His definition introduces the 'Bit' into a definition of entropy. One of the points of my essay was to show that Boltzmann's entropy is not a thermodynamic entropy. It is an introductory form of statisitical entropy. It did not include distinguishability.

Gibb's mixing entropy is also an anaylsis of microstates but introduced distinguishability. The example given in my essay involves two gases that are distinguisable. The mathematical solution for his mixing entropy has a form that is seen repeated in the rest of the entropy definitions up to and including Shannon's information entropy. I consider each of the microstate based entropies to represent the 'Bit'.

So, my essay begins by recognizing that the development of entropy is usually presented as if it followed logically connected steps. Yet, the aim of my essay was to demonstrate that the perceived connection between Clausius' entropy and Boltzmann's entropy does not logically follow. The meaning of Clausius' entropy was not explained nor understood by physicsts. It was skipped passed without adequate explanation in favor of jumping directly to statistical entropy. Statistical entropy was understandable.

With regard to Ritz and Einstein, my only resource for that is the Internet. I do have a paper I printed off sometime ago. It is titled: Ritz, Einstein, and the Emission Hypothesis by Alberto A Martinez.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on May. 11, 2013 @ 17:28 GMT
James,

Thank you for the link. It seems to confirm that Einstein did not deeply delve in the matter.

Are you aware of http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e9030132.pdf ?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:11 GMT
Eckard,

"Are you aware of On the So-Called Gibbs Paradox, and on the Real Paradox?"

The Author Arieh Ben-Naim briefly mentions, as a side issue, the real papradox but does not address it except to say that examples of real world discontinuity are observed.

The 'real' paradox has to do with the mathematical derivations of entropy and getting them right. is isolated in the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Jacek Safuta wrote on May. 7, 2013 @ 11:28 GMT
Hi James,

Could you please give me links describing experiments in which there is no detectable change in temperature due to the mixing of the gases? That is interesting and I could not find anything in references. Thank you.

By the way I think that Gibbs simply had misused the entropy equation. In your essay you have mentioned the issue of indistinguishability of the particles in the volume. It is quite enough to know that there is no paradox at all (at least in Boltzmann statistics).

Your Proposed Changes to Physics Theory are very revolutionary. However the (2) would be interesting for me as I have tried to apply in my essay Einstein’s equivalence between gravitation and spacetime geometry to the rest of known “force fields”. And even with a little more courage the same concept apply to particles.

Good luck!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 7, 2013 @ 20:53 GMT
Hi Jacek,

I don't have any quick links to offer. It is something that is usually referred to simply as being 'well known'. That which I have said about it involves only ideal gases. I just gave some of my opinion about Boiltzmann's entropy and Gibb's mixing entropy in the message above addressed to Eckard.

I do say that foce is unit free. A consequence of taking that position is that one force can be the product of two other forces. If you look back at my essay titled 'The Variability of the Speed of Light' in the last essay contest, you will find that I used this new view of force to calculate the universal gravitational constant. It involved using one force as the product of two forces.

This essay contest is my fifth one. Each of my essays involved deriving results using my new approach to the units of physics. I hope you find something helpful to you. I haven't yet read the other essays. I look forward to reading yours. Good luck with it.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on May. 8, 2013 @ 14:46 GMT
Here we go again.

Yet another essay about how the supposedly measurable differences between perfect abstract entropy and perfect abstract thermodynamic entropy and perfect abstract Boltzmann’s Entropy can be perfectly abstractly explained by the same old familiar seemingly identical perfectly depicted reality deprived squiggles.

As I went to great pains to explain in my essay, BITTERS, the absolute of real time is once. According to James, absolute abstract time requires abstract “fundamental increments and a fine (abstract) structure constant." Planck’s (abstract) constant is somehow involved, although the (abstract) proportionally constant ‘k’ from Coulomb’s Law seems to have actually been utilized. An (abstract) replaceable electric charge is also needed if you hope to be able to calculate the abstract extent of perfect absolute abstract time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 8, 2013 @ 21:49 GMT
So that readers are not mislead by Joe Fisher. My essay is not about abstractions. Even the use of ideal gases refers to a very close approximation of what actually happens to gas as its pressure approaches zero. The properties can be and have been observed experimentally as anyone with at least an introductory level of physics would know. The constants used are not abstractions. They each result from experimental results as anyone with at least an introductory level of understanding physics would know. Even though Joe is able to copy words back at the author while spouting his egotistical disdain, it is clear from his response that he did not understand the steps in the essay. For example Planck's constant was not 'somehow' involved, it was clearly put to use for real physical reason as anyone with even an introductory level of physics would have easily recognized.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 14:07 GMT
Well instead of using approximations of what actually happens to unknown quantities of arbitrarily humanly contrived mixtures of “ideal gases” besides unification as it now becomes a singular gas as its pressure approaches abstract zero, I suggest you get real.

No experiments are required for the full understanding of reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on May. 9, 2013 @ 14:14 GMT
Joe Fisher,

I suggest that you return to your numbers and snowflakes.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Patrick Tonin wrote on May. 18, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi James,

You are correct when you say that we should use only length and time but we can go even further and use just length !

Have a look at my theory (3D Universe Theory), I derive most empirical constants with just the Planck Length and a simple expression 8Pi-1. I know that most people will dismiss these formulae as pure numerology but there is a chance you might have a different opinion.

Cheers,

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 18, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Patrick Tonin,

Hi. Thank you for reading my essay. That point about using length (meters) and time (seconds) only applies to themacroscopic world for convenience. Other units that are more fundamental, i.e. Planck length and Planck time, could be used instead. I don't use those because meters and seconds work conveniently enough for me down to atomic dimensions. There is another reason for...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Patrick Tonin replied on May. 19, 2013 @ 18:10 GMT
Hi James,

As suggested, I have posted a reply to your comments in my forum Definetely It from Bit !

See you there !

Patrick

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 25, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
Dear James

I have skimmed your paper, quickly realizing that to understand it and make intelligent comments requires many readings and lots of time learning not only what is standanrd thermodynamic theory, but also your version of it if that is what you are proposing.

So for now just a few questions - who is Gibbs? Is the paradox related to Maxwell's demon ? And also about your Appendix B can you explain in a bit more detail about Boltzman's number and the concept of mass in your theory - is it based on some physical image or model that you have? Relating mass to acceleration is an extension to Einstein's basic concept about gravity in GR, but how does it 'work'?

Thanks and best wishes

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jun. 5, 2013 @ 12:03 GMT
James,

Interesting reading, and good thinking. It's on a subject I'm certainly no expert on, so it was enlightening, and I liked your approach. I found some correlation with my own in terms of Gibbs assumption that "The gases were either distinguishable or they weren't." This then ignores and excludes the 'middle' between 0 and 1, which I also identify as a mistake when dealing with nature. I also like your use of fundamental units, which I identify as relevant to wavelength, not the derived abstract 'frequency' that then confounds logic leading to paradox.

I then also like your 'quantized' time increment (3). your other postulates appeared very radical (rich coming from me I suspect!!) and I couldn't rationalise them at first read. I hope I'll get a chance to read again with them in mind, but if you can help here (I know length is always an issue) please do.

I wish you luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 02:50 GMT
Dear James

Sympathy for me first, but I do not understand you are "accounting" for what is that ?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 22:03 GMT
To all who have contributed messages to this forum:

Thank you for your messages. I have been sick for over three weeks. Very little stamina. I did participate in some discussions with Tom and Lev but those were easy. The hardest part was typing accurately. Now I want to put my time into addressing the concerns of others about my essay. Here is a first part to be followed by others:...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 19:49 GMT
There should be no need for theoretical inventions in the fundamentals of physics. Those inventions fill voids left due to lack of fundamental knowledge. In other words, when a property is not understood, the theorist fills in the gap in knowledge with their guess about what they think might be the missing knowledge. The difference between knowledge and theoretical substitutions for it is made...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 20:41 GMT
From the three properties of mass, distance and time, all other properties of mechanics can be defined. All other units of mechanics besides kilograms, meters and seconds are definable in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds. There remains a property of thermodynamics that is not definable in terms of mass, distance and time; nor are its units definable in terms of kilograms, meters and seconds....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 18, 2013 @ 23:32 GMT
If the foundation is flawed, as in the case of using thermodynamic entropy as if it were disorder, then the value of predictions will be adversely affected. In the case of the Gibb's paradox, the paradox appears to exist because thermodynamic entropy was not understood in its true nature. The faulty prediction was that there shoud be a significant predictable change in temperature due to the mixing of two disimilar ideal gases.

The gases were both at the same temperature before mixing. There was no change in temperature due to the mixing process. Knowing what is thermodynamic entropy, as made known in this essay, contradicts the prediction of change in temperature. The corrected prediction is that there will be no change in any thermodynamic property, including temperature, due to mixing two dissimilar ideal gases.

The unknown nature of thermodynamic entropy was made known in this essay because I corrected the interpretation of temperature first. Temperature is no longer an indefinable property requiring indefinable units. I define temperature in terms of energy and time. the units of temperature become those of energy per time. The initial act of making mass and force both definable properties with definable units is what leads to defining energy in units of meters. That conclusion will not be understood by reading this message. It is explained in this essay.

With the clarification of what is thermodynamic entropy, Boltzmann's entropy, and mixing entropy, the pathway between the macroscopic 'it' world and the microscopic 'bit' world is made firm. The mathematics and the properties, with their units, included in those equations are corrected in definitions and in form.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 20:43 GMT
Dear James,

I thought you might be interested in chengxi guo's essay, specifically in his discussion of force:

"Force is not an entitative concept. It is designed as an intermediary virtual parameter in processing physical problems. The force is said to be intermediary, because when we use the concept of force, it always appears in the interaction manner. The virtual property of force is that it does not have objective substantiality, can not exist alone in breaking away from entities.

In Newton's law of motion, the two concepts of force and mass are defined in one equation. The mass here is usually considered as inertial mass, confusion also arising from the relationship between inertial and gravitational mass. Aside from the confusion, from a logical point of view, force and mass in the second law played a role of mutual definition logically out of place, this can not be satisfied."

You can read his paper for his specific treatment. I mentioned your approach in a comment on his page.

Hope you are recovering well.

Best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 24, 2013 @ 23:03 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I feel fine. My strength is back. Thank you for mentioning my work at another's forum. I don't think that I will be following through on it. I have written and discussed enough here to have an accurate assessment of the value others here placed on my work. I don't say this because of the asinine effort by Tom to discredit my work. The combination of that display along with looking...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:17 GMT
James,

I'm sorry to hear about the deadline. I know how hard it is and how much time it takes to whip our ideas into presentable shape.

There are many aspects at play in the FQXi scoring, and quality of thinking is far from the top. I believe that those who believe in magic are not happy to read arguments that expose this, and score accordingly. Also, by posting the scores, FQXi almost guarantees last minute jockeying to knock the lowest scores out of the winners category so that others may move in to replace them. And there are even grudges that have built over the last few years. So I would not put too much emphasis on the scores. I know that I could have written a different essay that would score more highly than my current one. But I am writing, like Phil Gibbs and others, to get my ideas recorded in as permanent a medium as I can. I believe that's what you are doing also. It *is* worthwhile.

I did want to alert you to the fact that Lee Smolin (as noted in earlier comment) and now chengxi guo share your unhappiness with the way force and mass are defined. And I am still examining effects in various equations of replacing mass with inverse acceleration. I've been too busy lately to do much, but I have yet to encounter problems when I perform this replacement. At some point in the future I'll try to provide you details of what I'm doing.

When it reaches the point of depressing you, it's time to back off and get perspective. You are retired and live in a beautiful part of the country. Enjoy your life; it's the best revenge!

Your friend,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jun. 25, 2013 @ 00:27 GMT
James,

I normally use the 'submission date' ordering, to try to keep track of what's new. But I just ordered the essays by community ranking, and was amazed. You note that several poor essays are ahead of you. I agree. There are also at least three exceptional essays far below you!

The scoring is so screwed up in this contest I don't think you should even pay attention to it. I don't.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 02:17 GMT
Hi James

My be useful link

http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.5737

Regards

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Thank you Yuri.

James

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 14:57 GMT
" ... the asinine effort by Tom to discredit my work."

James, your attitude makes me wary of saying anything at all to you. If you don't subject your work to criticism, and instead advise your critics to read everything you've ever written and ignore the contradictions, the work ends up being of use to no one but yourself. Which is fine, if that is all you want.

In any case, if...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jun. 26, 2013 @ 15:09 GMT
Tom,

I acknowledge receipt of the last word. Thank you.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:53 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:11 GMT
James,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 16, 2013 @ 13:12 GMT
Dear James. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 21:56 GMT
Hello James,

I have to give you a mixed review, heavy on the critique. First off; it was mean spirited of you to require folks to read another paper first, and then to change the heading within that paper so it no longer matches the reference in your essay abstract. I have to agree with the comments above that you did not clearly define your usage of Q with the first equation. You do spell out what you are doing (terms wise) on the top of page 2, but by then you have lost some readers because of head scratching.

I think you would have had a much easier time proving your premise, if you did not try so hard to connect it with your existing body of work. Your basic idea in the abstract is sound, as the usage of Entropy is often confused, and Thermodynamics gives it a specific meaning. Clausius clearly defined movement of heat, but already with Boltzmann we see the confusion creep in that entropy is disorder, or a product thereof. Search for papers by Harvey Leff which sort this out nicely. My friend Bernard Bligh, who is a hard-core experimental realist, would agree with you strongly on several points, but take you to task and argue with you about others - like the connection to your new Physics theory.

I have to credit you for trying, but this is one essay that would definitely benefit from following the structure of intro, body, conclusions, where you tell folks what you are to establish, then you make your point, then you explain what you just said. Your failure to do that reduces comprehension greatly of a point worth making. But you also fail to really address the core essay topic until the very end. That's the piece of explanation you need in the intro, to make a paper like this work. I have attached one paper by Leff that may be of interest.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: entropylanginterp.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 03:12 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your detailed review. I also find the essay to be poorly constructed. Edwin was correct about it.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT
Hi James,

WOW! - was the first thing that came to mind when I read your words, "This 'absolute opposites' treatment of mixed versus unmixed..." for indeed the findings of a recently concluded 12 year experiment mirrors your statement. You are definitely onto something. Although your mathematical approach is different than my approach, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit.

I wish you the best of luck in the competition.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 20:46 GMT
Manuel S Morales,

Thank you for your very nice message. I believe that I have presented material of great importance over and over again here. It has not been well received at all. It is very different to receive a message showing appreciation for the work presented. My other essay entries, there are now five, one each for each contest strongly support what I have said in this last essay. This essay, in turn, was meant to supply the origins of my work bringing unity in support of all of the results presented in all five essays. It was to be the key to completing an understanding of what I have been presenting. The essay clearly did not accomplish that goal until receiving your message. Thank you very much for reading and rating my essay. I look forward to reading and rating your essay.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share


Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 15:59 GMT
Thank you James for the kind words. I hope you will find my essay worthy of a reciprocal rating in kind.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 18:28 GMT
James,

In response to your question you made on my essay page, I would like to explore this with you via email. Please let me know what email address you wish to use for our future correspondence. You can email me at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jul. 27, 2013 @ 00:21 GMT
The word 'Indefinable' is important to understand when reading my essay. It is a word that used to be relied upon in introductory physics texts. Its meaning was perfectly clear. It means: An indefinable property is a property that cannot b e defined in terms of pre-existing properties. Properties are represented in equations by means of their units. An indefinable property will have indefinable units.

An indefinable unit is: A unit that cannot be defined in terms of pre-existing units. There are four such units in physics. They are: meters, seconds, kilograms, and degrees. All other units are definable in terms of two or more of these units. The units of meters and seconds, are naturally indefinable because they are the units of empirical evidence. The units of kilograms and degrees are theoretical units because they are made indefinable due to ignorance.

My essay makes the point that there should be no theoretical indefinable units. This means that neither kilograms nor degrees should have been made indefinable. My work corrects this problem. For readers who may be interested in reading further about indefinable physics properties please read this essay from my website. It is only four pages long.

In today's texts the words 'primary' and 'secondary' properties replacing the words 'indefinable' and 'definable' properties. This change lacks the clarity of the original wordings. Something of great importance happened at the very beginning of theoretical physics and the original wording makes clear that that beginning is flawed. My work fixes the flaw.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 30, 2013 @ 16:02 GMT
Dear James,

I like that you have approached using entropy. I have too in my essay. Also what you've said about length and time and definable indefinable is good. I agree that your essay is more real than abstract. I too have been frustrated by certain people suggesting pure abstract nature, this missing the point completely, so I'm pleased you cleared it up above. Your essay was interesting, relevant and well written.

Best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 13:00 GMT
Dear James,

Well done for your efforts to shed light and examine the different definitions of entropy, a much misunderstood entity. A rating of 6 I think sits well with me.

I think your proposed definition of temperature may help resolve some problems as I have often wondered what the entropy increase would be if temperature was about 0K in the equation, ∆S = ∆E/T. As you noted, "The thermodynamic entropy at a temperature of approximately zero degrees Kelvin is very large". How large can this get? Is there any technological application to be derived from such disproportionately large entropy? Perhaps, your definition of temperature would show the inapplicability of this equation for temperatures tending towards 0K?

My essay entry focuses on a different aspect. You may view and rate also.

Following additional insights gained from interacting with FQXi community members, I wrote a follow up judgement in the case of Atomistic Enterprises Inc. vs. Plato & Ors delivered on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Aug. 1, 2013 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your interesting questions:

"I think your proposed definition of temperature may help resolve some problems as I have often wondered what the entropy increase would be if temperature was about 0K in the equation, ∆S = ∆E/T. As you noted, "The thermodynamic entropy at a temperature of approximately zero degrees Kelvin is very large". How large...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 02:45 GMT
In my recent message to Akinbo, I stated:

"It was the use of a theoretical indefinable unit of degrees for temperature that has blocked understanding what temperature is."

In this message I add that: The most important finding is that the choice of the theoretical indefinable units of kilograms for mass is responsible for blocking an understanding of what mass is. Mass is the inverse representation of the acceleration of light. Particles of matter are individual centers of accelerations of light. The 'light' that is being accelerated is photons.

The early theoretical error of the choice to make mass an arbitrarily indefinable property with an arbitrarily indefinable unit is corrected by making mass a defined property. It is now defined using only the properties of the empirical evidence from which its existence was inferred. Higher level theory is greatly dependent upon the current indefinable nature of mass. Correcting the definition of mass changes physics theory greatly. That is what my essays have been about demonstrating.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 00:58 GMT
Dear James,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 6, 2013 @ 22:51 GMT
In thermodynamics, the properties of pressure, volume, and temperature are described thus: These properties are large scale macroscopic coordinates because, their quantities refer to the gross characteristics of the system and provide a macroscopic description that tells us about the internal state of the system. They serve to determine the internal energy of the system. In my essay, without saying it out loud, one of those properties is shown to be a microscopic property and a microscopic measurement. Its microscopic nature, the kinetic theory of gases not withstanding, is the reason for the appearance of the 3/2 term in the equation E=(3/2)kT.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
What my essay showed is that the connection between thermodynamic entropy and statistical entropy does not exist. Boltzmann's entropy did not continue the development of thermodynamic entropy. It instead invented a new entropy that broke completely away from the meaning of Clausius' discovery. The theoretical pathway for the development of the concept of 'bit' contains that break. The essay shows that the rigorous pathway is assumed to exist but does not exist.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
Dear James,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 20:15 GMT
The major contribution put forward by my essay was the removal of the theoretically invented indefinable mass from the equation f=ma and thereby from all of physics. The changes in understanding that this act brings to physics are great. What results is the removal of empirically unsupported inventions from physics equations, and, the return of physics properties back to their empirical roots. Gone are the flights of fancy about levels of physical existence extending beyond that which is accessible to us, yet are reliably revealed to be there by the superior universal source of knowledge that is commonly referred to as mathematics. The theorists continue to control the court proceedings while filling their own testimonies with hearsay. Hearsay is information without substantiation. My preference is to remain free from the chalk-board jungle of theoretical physics. Another contest has come and soon will be gone. Thank you to FQXi.org for the opportunity to present my views. I appreciate the visits that were made to my forum. Thank you to the visitors for giving of your time and sharing your opinions.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 8, 2013 @ 04:28 GMT
The contest has ended. I am attaching to this message a revised version of my essay. The purpose is just to put it on record here.

James Putnam

attachments: The_Empirical_Origins_for_Force_and_Acceleration.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.