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

Current Essay Contest


Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

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

Ilgaitis Prusis: on 4/7/18 at 14:09pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I suppose that first property which is communicated to us is...

James Putnam: on 3/2/18 at 22:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Luca, Thank you for your kind message. I am printing off that paper...

Luca Valeri: on 3/2/18 at 19:48pm UTC, wrote Dear James, I'm reading an interesting paper on Poincare. Maybe you are...

James Hoover: on 2/27/18 at 6:39am UTC, wrote James, You are an independent researcher and an independent thinker and...

Anonymous: on 2/27/18 at 0:26am UTC, wrote Hi James, Good to be in another contest with you presenting another...

Sue Lingo: on 2/25/18 at 20:54pm UTC, wrote Hi James... Thanks for your discussion on the circular nature of the...

Steven Andresen: on 2/25/18 at 4:21am UTC, wrote I meant "cosmoquest"

Steven Andresen: on 2/25/18 at 4:20am UTC, wrote James You recall "Reality Check" from conquest? Juan might be he Steve


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Anonymous: "North Korea's unilateral action of announcing it was shutting down its only..." in Whose Physics Is It...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Heinrich I'm not convinced that prior knowledge or experience is..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Heinrich Luediger: "Hi Georgina, I said ....one way or another. I'm sure you could have..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear FQXi.org Board of Directors, Irrefutable evidence exists that..." in Whose Physics Is It...

Georgina Woodward: "Hellen jos, you probably only wanted to place a link, however FYI lots of..." in Does Quantum Weirdness...

Eckard Blumschein: "There was perhaps not yet a third crisis of cosmology conference after..." in The Quantum...

Jonathan Dickau: "For what it is worth... I was there! The paper by Louis Marmet cited..." in The Quantum...

Ashish Kochaar: "No words for the Quantumology. As per their figures and Dates in the May..." in Deferential Geometry


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.


FQXi FORUM
April 26, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Theoretical Physics is not Foundational by James A Putnam [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 6.3; Public = 6.3


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 20:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

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.

Author Bio

An independent researcher, Author of http://newphysicstheory.com, Administrator of the FaceBook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTPhysics/ Named 'New Theoretical Physics: ATM'. Contestant for all FQXi.org Essay contests. Is 74 years old.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 23:12 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

As you've pointed out in previous essays, mass is not properly defined by F = ma. Richard Feynman also pointed out that F = ma is a circular definition. He concluded that its utility derives from "when we observe an acceleration, we should look for a force". However this does not solve the problem you're focused on.

Einstein confused (or clarified)...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 23:58 GMT
Thank you Edwin,

This essay was not finished and was submitted anyway. I tried writing it, but the subject kept changing. It wasn't until the last day that I knew what the subject and title would be. So, as the deadline loomed, I submitted it without properly proofreading it. In the past this happened once before and a math error crept in back then just as it has in this essay. Back then it...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Jim,

I'm pleased and impressed to hear of your 2000 members. After this contest closes I will have a look. There are two key separate issues: analyzing the problem and solving the problem; either or both may be right or wrong. In the past you've often combined the two, thereby giving deniers two shots at you. In this essay you primarily analyze the problem, while leaving your own theory in the background. I think this is the best way to do it. Similarly, in my current essay I analyze the problem, while leaving my own theory largely unmentioned. Hopefully we will both benefit from this tight focus.

My best,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
James,

Glad to see you bring this up in the essay contest. While we have agreed to disagree on some things, I have felt it reasonable to seek a proper genaeralized definition of inertia. And of course it is by the indefinite operational definition for inertia we have had since Galileo that *mass* is proposed. To state that a body in motion tends to remain in motion, and a body at rest tends to remain at rest; says nothing about what it must be about inertia which is the same for any *mass* regardless of its state of motion. Good Luck, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
Hi John,

You are very good with theory. I just don't have the same appreciation for theory. I do have an appreciation for your messages.

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 00:05 GMT
James,

Lol. I think that one day the name for elemental science will be Holographics, not Physics.

Light and space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 18:03 GMT
HI John, Nice to hear from you. Your point is well made.

Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Mr. Putnam

You have identified well, the main problems in physics. I also was confused by the system of units, than I used a dimensionalles relationships. Thus, in my essay, Table 2 is expressed in relation to Planck's values. Nothing new, but everything becomes easier and clearer. So the mass ceases to be a problem. BTW, if you look at Bošković's Philosophy of Nature you'll see that there is no definition of mass than the Forces are object of analysis.

With best wishes,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi Branko,

I look forward to reading your essay. Thank you for your kind message.

Bookmark and Share



Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 13:50 GMT
quote

This chain was never formed because mass was never defined. We didn't learn what

mass was at the time that it was introduced to us by empirical evidence. We can't learn it

from any other source afterwards. It has to be learned at the time that it is introduced to

us by its empirical evidence. It was not understood how to formally define both mass and

force from f=ma. That did not happen and mass was declared to be a property that is so

fundamental that it is indefinable. This decision enabled theorists to proceed to derive

other physics equations. However, into all of those equations that include mass, there

was the spread of lack of knowledge throughout the fundamentals of theoretical physics.

It was the beginning of theory. The theory was that mass was indefinable. Physics began

by being made a part of a theory; thereby instantly making physics into theoretical

physics.

end of quote

Excuse me, what about the Higgs boson ?

Care to explain that paragraph again ? I mean, really !!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:47 GMT
Hi Andrew, Thank you for your message:

What I explained is real! Mass, in theoretical physics, is an undefined property. The point that that explanation is at is the introduction of mass and how to define it so that it may be used correctly in physics equations. There is no need for the Higg's Boson. That is a solution that the Standard model needs. The verification of such a boson is a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear James,

I cannot see any problem with definition of mass, charge, space and time.

The mass is source of gravitation field. The inverse value of gravitation constant show propagation of field in space.

Similarly the electric charge is source of electric field and the inverse value of k = 1/4πε in the Coulomb’s law is the propagation of electric field.

The space is synonym for gravitation field of Universe and the absolute time is the expansion rate of Universe (see my essay “Fundamental entities in physics”).

If we add the baryon charge and the propagation of strong force field we get full sett of entities for unified description of Universe.

Another question: are these entities comfortable for practical measurement systems?

Regards

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:59 GMT
hi Ilgaitis,

"I cannot see any problem with definition of mass, charge, space and time."

None of those properties have physics definitions. The only one that even has an effort made to establish a definition is electric charge. The problem with the definition of the Coulomb is that it counts the number of charges in an ampere of current. Counting the number of charges is not a definition of what is electric charge.

I think that the points you make represent your work. Is this correct?

"Another question: are these entities comfortable for practical measurement systems?"

Yes.

Bookmark and Share


Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 11:27 GMT
Hi, James,

What in your interpretation is Physics definition?

Ilgaitis

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Ilgasitis,

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

James

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT
Hi Andrew, Thank you for your message:

What I explained is real! Mass, in theoretical physics, is an undefined property. The point that that explanation is at is the introduction of mass and how to define it so that it may be used correctly in physics equations. There is no need for the Higg's Boson. That is a solution that the Standard model needs. The verification of such a boson is a matter of solving a conservation of energy equation. The idea that one can form a particle if one supplies sufficient energy is recognized, but whether or not it delivers mass that is unneeded is for the Standard model to explain.

There are just two properties that are inferred to exist by empirical evidence directly. One is mass. A property doesn't get a better introduction than that. Whatever mass is, it is there to be learned from the same empirical evidence that introduced it to us. There is no other source for learning what it is. It is not needed for patch up work. It is needed so that the equations of physics and the terms that they contain are based upon knowing what is this property that is pushed upfront by empirical evidence.

The empirically supported definition of mass shows that mass is the essence of a particle of matter. The Higg's Boson is a particle that has not been shown to deliver mass. The standard model was developed in contradiction to the need for theoretical physics to first know what mass is. I see no need for a special particle to deliver that which is always present in every particle of matter. Especially since no one's theory can be correct without knowing right from the time that mass was introduced, what it is

Empirical evidence leads the way to establishing the foundation upon which the equations of physics must be formulated. The equations of physics flow forward from definitions. Those definitions must be made in the same strict manner that has been followed from the beginning of theory to this day. Theory doesn't do this. Theory thrives on what it does not know. Theory consists of filling in the blanks left by the unknown with imaginative guesses that make the mathematics look like it is working.

Bookmark and Share


Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:45 GMT
I read what you said several times, and it still does not make sense

Read this and please respond to it

https://www.britannica.com/science/mass-physics

Mass, in physics, quantitative measure of inertia, a fundamental property of all matter. It is, in effect, the resistance that a body of matter offers to a change in its speed or position upon the application of a force. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 03:30 GMT
Andrew, This is a great question. I have to show why the encyclopedia Britannica doesn't define mass. Letting you know that I am working on my response. James

Bookmark and Share


Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 00:26 GMT
How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

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

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



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

This was a hilarious Reading, and also a bit sad, because I have tampered with many of those 'problems' and know it is true as you describe it...

“Every single principle that we teach in intro college physics is based on only two principles: Conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy/mass. That’s it! All other ‘laws’ are based on those two principles – be it Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc… We can write the energy equations of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian because of conservation of energy. Each conservation principle is based on some underlying symmetry of our physical world. Conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of empty space, conservation of energy on the symmetry of time. So these are the FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that we build all of our understanding on (ignoring the CPT conservation rules).”

So, if we assume the basic process is asymmetric and we have problems with energy conservation, at least in general relativity, the mess is clear...

I write about asymmetry in the 'Life-force' Take a look, leave comments and vote, thanks. https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

This essay is the very best one :)

Ulla Mattfolk.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 03:10 GMT
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk,

What a wonderful message to receive. Those who follow what I write are few. Years go by and the same points are made over and over again with little success. Well there is some success, I think I have gotten better at making this case. It is unfortunate that I didn't complete this essay on time. Yet, it tells me something about you that you look passed the inconvenience of typos and the embarrassment of having written some of the math wrong. There wasn't time to fix it; but there had been lots of time to have done it sooner. I apologize for its condition; however, your final remark obscures what is wrong with the emotional pleasure of receiving an A grade. Thank you for understanding this essay. I look forward to reading yours soon. With admiration, James

Bookmark and Share



Francesco D'Isa wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear James,

that's an interesting essay, thank you for sharing. You made some interesting claims, and I enjoyed specially your comment about empiricism, space and time.

All the best,

Francesco D'isa

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Francesco,

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

James

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 10:44 GMT
James:

my two cents...

I've thought about the f=ma issue you raised that I had to understand to develop my Scala Theory of Everything (STOE).

I suggest the issue is also the meaning of "=" (equals).

As you note the purpose is to develop empirical observations and predictions.

First, the units are defined by standard objects. a standard length is a rod f some composition at some location in a controlled environment, a second (not time) is a click of a clock in some environment.

Mass then is an object somewhere.

"=" 1) the numbers on one side are the same value as the other side. But care must be taken when units of measure are injected. A board 2 ft long + a board 3 ft. long cannot do the same job as a board 5 ft long.

"=" 2) suggests a transformation/mapping. So, F=ma is a transformation equation where some object in some environment is measured to move a number of standard lengths over a number of standard ticks. This movement is the mapped to a parameter called inertial force through a proportionality constant called inertial mass. The we use other observations movement to measure the movement caused by other objects (gravitational mass) and do a mapping to a gravitational force. We then assume a value of G so them inertial and gravitational mass values are the same. The value of the mapping is to do calculation of the behavior of objects in differing environments. The electromagnetic interactions are also mapped to force and the constants adjusted accordingly.

The problem: confusion reigns when we forget the mapping (an inverse mapping is required to obtain the right side motion again). This is the sloppiness you mentioned. This sloppiness is especially rampant in GR where the left side is viewed as real (We treat the "s" and "t" parameters as real space and time without the inverse transform. For example, when measuring the speed of light.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear John, Thank you for visiting and reading my essay. What you have written is very good feedback. I look forward to reading your essays soon.

James

Bookmark and Share



Ajay Pokhrel wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 05:54 GMT
Hello James,

Your essay is well written but I am confused by some of your thoughts. Can you provide more viewpoints?

You define mass as not being properly defined and also that we are using the wrong definition of mass for daily life. What I believe is if the mass we studied is defined wrong then it must have shown mistakes in the application of Newton's law, say rocket engineering or anything else. By your statement, it would mean that mathematics is wrong, what do you think on this?

But the part like lack of attention to detail make much more sense and I enjoyed your overall essay.

Kind Regards

Ajay Pokharel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 15:30 GMT
DEar Ajay, I am receiving questions like yours from others. In response I have added a separate message titled How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it..

Mass is an undefined property of physics. It has been that way since it was introduced. A defined property is one who's identity is learned directly from empirical evidence. The manner in...

view entire post


attachments: Finished_-_Theoretical_physics_is_not_foundational.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 15:04 GMT
How to Define a Physics Property and, An Introduction to My Results after Applying it.

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

A physics definition is an equation in which a property is expressed as being equal to a combination of other...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 15:39 GMT
An improved version of my essay should help to answer questions I am receiving about what I mean by an undefined mass versus a defined mass. I must be judged by my submitted essay.

attachments: 1_Finished_-_Theoretical_physics_is_not_foundational.pdf

Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 13:40 GMT
Hi James,

I like your essay and your work elsewhere, that I follow, because you are careful in defining physical quantities. My professor in physics introduced masses and forces similar as you described in your essay. He used as I recall the force law 2 times with the same force on two different masses. Creating to different accelerations. Then the ratio of the masses is inverse proportional the ration of the accelerations. The masses are only defined up to a unit.

Similarly Poincaré proposed to define masses by the use of momentum conservation in simple elastic collision experiment. Also there only the ratio of masses can be experimentally measured. However Poincaré points out, that in the formulation of Newton’s force law there is a conventional element, where the law is only well defined, if the total closed system under consideration is moving freely, ie. is force free.

As you point out in your section 5 conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of empty space. In my essay the symmetry of the environment is a condition for the possibility to define the mass on a closed subsystem.

In a way the possibility to define any physical quantity, I propose, depends on the state of the whole universe.

Best regards,

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Luca,

I will certainly come by and read your essay. Thank you for reading mine and leaving your comments.

James

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 21:02 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:09 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 19:38 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 18:20 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 12:36 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 10:59 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 23:00 GMT
"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...

view entire post


attachments: FORMAL_MECH.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author James A Putnam wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 05:37 GMT
Hi Juan,

Your are as mistaken as you can be. Mass is not an elementary concept whatever that silly description is supposed to mean. Mass is one of two properties inferred to exist directly from empirical evidence. It is not as elementary as length and what physicists mistakenly refer to as 'time'.

You are lost: f=ma definitely is the definition of force. You don't show any understanding even this early what a physics definition is.

You don't have any understanding of the importance of failing to define mass. When I defined mass, I linked all of physics that follows directly to empirical evidence. There is nothing more fundamental than that which empirical evidence communicates to us. The inventions that substitute for knowledge and that you admire so much are artificial.

"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."

The really important thing for you to learn is what physics looks like when fundamental unity has been returned to physics equations. You are too used to seeing fundamental disunity. You are lost without fundamental disunity in front of you.

That physicist's quote was not fake. Do not bother coming back.

Bookmark and Share


Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:20 GMT
James

You recall "Reality Check" from conquest? Juan might be he

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:21 GMT
I meant "cosmoquest"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 17:45 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sue Lingo wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:54 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 00:26 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 06:39 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Luca Valeri wrote on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 19:48 GMT
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-Poincar
e-Methode%20(published).pdf

Best

Luca

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author James A Putnam replied on Mar. 2, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Luca,

Thank you for your kind message. I am printing off that paper and will be reading it. I will let you know what I think afterwards. It was a kind thought.

James

Bookmark and Share



Ilgaitis Prusis wrote on Apr. 7, 2018 @ 14:09 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


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.