Human Made Laws of Physics as Standards

Recent posts have analysed the basic Postulate of modern physics in the form of the Special Theory of Relativity SR, which can be formulated:

• The speed of light in all inertial systems is the same.   (P)  

(P) is put into practice in the 2019 SI Standard compelling every human observer to measure distance in the Euclidean coordinate system being used by the observer in terms of travel time of light with a preset speed of light of 299792458 meter/second with time measured by a standard caesium clock. It is assumed that the different coordinate systems being used move with constant velocity with respect to each other, i. e. that so called inertial systems are used. 

(P) can be viewed as a human made operational definition/standard: The length scale in each inertial system is determined by actually measuring travel time of light in the inertial system and then setting the spatial scale according to a preset speed of light, e.g. using a standard rangefinder.

All observers will then agree that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second as a consequence of a human made operational standard. It would be silly to ask why all observers agree, when it is simply an agreement to agree, like a form of conspiration if you like. 

The next question is how well the 2019 SI Standard will work in practice in the sense that observations in different inertial systems can be coordinated. 

The first thing to say is that it is reasonable to expect that the speed of light will be the same in all inertial systems under the assumption that the same Maxwell's equations for light propagation are valid in all inertial systems. This may appear reasonable if you envision a many-aether system with each inertial system representing an aether medium for propagation of light according to Maxwell's equations formulated in the inertial system at hand assuming the observer is not moving with respect to the system. This is the vision of Many-Minds Relativity. 

But the task of coordinating observations in different inertial systems following the 2019 SI Standard remains, and this is not completely obvious and so the subject of Many-Minds Relativity.

We thus come to the conclusion that (P) appears as a human made law of physics, which will have to be confronted with laws of real physics when seeking to coordinate observations in different inertial systems.

We may compare with Newton's 2nd Law $f=ma$ with $f$ force, $m$ mass and $a$ acceleration, which can be taken as definition of one of the variables in terms of the two other, and then will have the form of a human made law of physics and so will have to be confronted with real physics with independent specifications of the variables.   

More generally we may compare with laws of physics in the form of conservation laws, such as

• Conservation of mass.
• Conservation of momentum (Newton's 2nd Law).
• Conservation of energy.

It is natural to view these as laws of physics corresponding to observations of systems being persistent over time, which neither blow up to infinity nor vanish to zero and so contain conserved quantities. 

We recall that Newton's law of gravitational force is a consequence of conservation of a conservative force. 

But there is also room for an aspect of human made laws, in the sense that whatever appears to be missing is contributed as a new phenomenon. For example, the observed loss of kinetic energy in turbulent flow is viewed to show up as internal energy (of unspecified form) thus maintaining conservation of energy. 

Harmony vs Disharmony between Newton and Maxwell

Special Relativity: Disharmony Newton-Maxwell
Many-Minds Relativity: Harmony Newton-Maxwell  

Modern physics was formed in the late 19th century in an effort to harmonize classical Newtonian mechanics with the new electromagnetics described by Maxwell's equations, in particular there was a need to connect material as matter of positive mass with immaterial light of zero mass. Many established physicists/mathematicians took on the challenge including Lorentz and Poincare, but its was the young Einstein as patent clerk in Bern in 1905 who took the lead with his Special Theory of Relativity SR based on the Lorentz transformation.

Today SR is viewed to be a fundamental part of modern physics, but the trouble is that SR rather than harmonising Newtonian mechanics with electromagnetics, discriminates Newtonian mechanics and in its place puts in relativistic mechanics (with new strange effects as space contraction and time dilation). The resulting disharmony Newton-Maxwell has fed the crisis of modern physics. 

It is thus a great loss to sack Newton's mechanics, and it is natural to ask if this is really necessary and maybe after all it is possible to find a route to harmony Newton-Maxwell. This is the goal of Many-Minds Relativity MMR. 

As a basic instance of harmony according to MMR let us consider propagation of light from a light source S to a receiver R viewed as propagation of light in Euclidean $x$-coordinates with the receiver R fixed at the origin $x=0$. We follow the 2019 SI Standard and determine the spatial scale in the $x$-system by travel time of light according to Maxwell's equations expressed in $x$-coordinates assuming a preset speed of light of exactly 299792458 meter/second with time set by a standard caesium atomic clock. 

We may think of the source S as an oscillating material charge generating a standing immaterial electromagnetic wave which interacts with a material charge as the receiver R. This means that material at S connects to material at R through electromagnetic waves as a resonance phenomenon. 

Extension to a moving source is direct, which introduces a Doppler effect. 

We note that the speed of light is preset to a certain SI Standard value, which means that the speed of light for any connection between source and receiver is the same, by SI Standard definition. We understand that the wave physics for any connection source-receiver is the same in the sense that the same Maxwell's equations in a coordinate system fixed to the receiver is used, which gives a rationale for the standard. All source-receiver systems are alike in the sense that the spatial scale on a Euclidean coordinate system fixed to the source is determined by the same Maxwell's equations with a preset speed of light. 

We have now covered the case of many sources an one receiver at $x=0$ with Maxwell's equations expressed in a Euclidean $x$-coordinates with spatial scale determined by travel time of light with preset speed which is in full harmony with Newton's mechanics in $x$-coordinates.

We also have to consider the case of several receiver's moving with constant velocity with respect to each other and ask to what extent observations using different receivers can be made to agree, which means that full agreement is not possible and nor needed. This the subject of MMR.

Notice that the a connection between the material and immaterial world is established by the 2019 SI Standard where the geometry of the material world is determined by travel time of immaterial light. This was not the situation confronting Einstein in 1905 forcing geometry measured by material meter sticks to be subject to strange effects of space contraction according to SR.  

The 2019 SI Standard effectively pulls the carpet under SR, by imposing the same speed of light on all observers thus leaving the Lorentz transformation without any role. But this is shocking to a physicist of today trained to view the Lorentz transformation as the incarnation of modern physics as a core belief not to be given up easily. 

Summary: 

• In SR Newton does not fit with Maxwell and so Newton is modified to relativistic mechanics.
• In MMR Newton fits with Maxwell more or less and does not need modification.
• SR: disharmony Newton-Maxwell.
• MMR: harmony Newton-Maxwell.

And what about you, harmony or disharmony?

Speed of Light vs 2019 SI Standard

The 2019 SI Standard defines length scale in meter by travel time of light assuming a preset speed of light of exactly 299792458 meter/second with time measured by a standard caesium atomic clock.

The SI Standard thus views propagation of light along a spatial $x$-axis as an electromagnetic wave phenomenon governed by Maxwell's wave equations in a medium or aether identified with the $x$-axis thus with an aether which is stationary with respect to the $x$-axis. The distance between two stationary points A and B on the $x$-axis is measured by sending a light signal from A and measuring the time for the reflected signal at B to return to A and then translating to distance by the preset speed of light. 

This is how an instrument like a Rangefinder at A determines the distance to a point B assuming that A and B are stationary on an $x$-axis joining A and B. A radar works the same way.

If the distance between A and B is large, it may be difficult to identify a reflected signal, and in this case the source may be equipped with a clock and emit a light signal with time of emission encoded, which when received by A with a synchronised clock will record travel time and so distance. This allows B to move with respect the $x$-axis, while the instrument is always stationary, which effectively means that the $x$-axis is tied to the instrument receiving the light signal. 

Consider now an $x^\prime$-axis gliding on top of the $x$-axis with constant speed $w$ as an inertial system with the length scale along the $x^\prime$-axis determined in the same way, that is via a Rangefinder tied to the $x^\prime$-axis. This means that the length scales on the $x$-axis and the $x^\prime$-axis are determined in the same way and thus will be the same if 

• The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.              (P)

Let us now check if this is the case in the light of the 2019 SI Standard, by inspecting the physics of a Rangefinder tied to an $x$-axis, which is the physics described by Maxwell's equations expressed in $x$-coordinates, which describes propagation of waves in a medium/aether identified with the $x$-axis. This is the physics explored in Many-Minds Relativity MMR.

Note that (P) is the same as the main postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR, which Einstein does not motivate but assumes as a Postulate from which he then concludes many strange effects like time dilation and space contraction forced by the Lorentz transformation.

The main difference between SR and MMR is that (P) in SR is a postulate with strange consequences, while (P) in MMR is simply an adopted SI Standard, which has no strange consequences and which can be motivated on physical grounds as indicated below. We now proceed to see how SR and MMR differ.   

We will then compare with propagation of sound in still air represented by an $x$-axis described by the same form of wave equation. We consider the relation between an emitter B and receiver A of sound waves, which can be viewed as a resonance phenomenon in a stationary medium where an oscillator at B interacts with the medium and so puts an oscillator at A in motion, just like two tuning forks at distance interacting by resonance in still air as medium. 

We similarly view interaction by a light source and a receiver as a resonance phenomenon carried by electromagnetic waves along an $x$-axis or aether tied to the receiver. We then face the possibility of different inertial systems or different aethers. MMR thus describes propagation of light in a many-aether system to be be compared with sound waves in a single-aether system as still air. 

To see the key difference between SR and MMR consider a light signal emitted at time $t=0$ at $x=0$ on a $x$-axis, and a light signal emitted at the same time at $x^\prime =0$ on a $x^\prime$-axis gliding on top of the $x$-axis and coinciding at $t=0$.  

In MMR the signals are different because they are carried by resonance in two different aethers, one connected to the $x$-axis and the other to the $x^\prime$-axis, and (P) is fulfilled thanks to the SI Standard. 

In SR these two light signals are identified to be the same, which lacks physics and so requires time dilation and space contraction to fulfil (P) according to the Lorentz transformation. 

MMR relies on the SI Standard expressing (P), which can be motivated as a resonance phenomenon in different inertial systems/aethers.  

SR has no reference to the SI Standard and so must seek satisfaction of (P) through unphysical Lorentz transformation. 

Conclusion: SR/Lorentz transformation is obsolete after 2019. Physics no longer has to be strange to satisfy needs of SR. The key is resonance between emitter and receiver of light carried by an aether identified with an $x$-axis at rest with the receiver as the essence of MMR in full agreement with the 2019 SI Standard. Eliminating SR/Lorentz transformation from modern physics may open to progress which has been blocked by the incompatibility between Newtonian mechanics and the Lorentz transformation. 

How to Follow the 2019 SI Standard of Measuring Distance

Recent posts have pointed to the fact that according the 2019 SI Standard, distances shall be measured in terms of travel time of light under the specification that the speed of light is exactly 299792458 meter/second. 

The perfect way to follow the SI Standard is to use the LiDAR instrument for optical distance measurement:

• The distance measurement by means of time-of-flight measurement of laser light (LiDAR, light detection and ranging) is the method we use most frequently. In the range of a few centimeters up to several hundred meters it is the method of choice when high accuracy and measuring speed have to be achieved even under difficult and changing environmental conditions. To measure distances, light is emitted and reflected by the object. The distance between the measuring device and the target object can be determined on the basis of the speed of light and the measured time-of-flight of the light from the light source (emitter) to the object and back to the detector.t

The measurement of distance in meter to an object is based on Maxwell' equations for propagation of light as electromagnetic wave in a Euclidean coordinate system with the instrument/observer stationary in the coordinate system setting the speed of light to exactly $c=299792458$ meter/second. The travel time of a light signal emitted by the instrument and reflected back from the object is measured by a standard caesium clock, which is then translated to a distance by the specified speed of light. 

The key question is to what extent different observers moving with constant velocity $v$ with respect to each other obeying to the SI Standard using e g LiDAR, will be able to agree on distances and velocities. 

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity has no information to offer, since it was formed under the old meter stick standard, while Many-Minds Relativity has. Depending on the communication between different observers, first or second order effects in $\frac{v}{c}$ arise. For human observers $\frac{v}{c}$ is very small and so agreement to high precision is guaranteed.  

The 2019 SI Standard has effectively eliminated SR from physics. This is a major step forward since SR has been blocking unification of mechanics and electromagnetics for 114 years.

PS LiDAR can also measure velocities using the Doppler effect.

 

Why Inertial Mass = Gravitational Mass

In equilibrium the spring force = gravitational force/weight.

The Equivalence Principle EP states that: 

• Inertial Mass = Gravitational Mass.  

EP means that all material bodies react the same way to gravitational force as to other forces, or specifically that they react to inertial force the same way as to gravitational force. In Newton's mechanics this follows from the fact that the size of any force ultimately is determined by comparison with gravitational force. 

For example, the force exerted by an elastic spring under extension is determined by hanging different bodies in the spring and measuring the extension, see above picture. This means that in Newtonian mechanics the gravitational force is used as reference for all types of force and so EP is valid by definition/agreement. Gravitation is the common denominator. 

In Newtonian mechanics it is thus meaningless to seek to verify EP by an experiment, and senseless to seek to do that in a very expensive experiment, like the MICROSCOPE.  It would be the same as to seek to experimentally verify that there are 100 centimeters on a 1 meter. Most people would say that this would not be meaningful, even if very high precision could be reached.  

EP is thus a consequence of Newton's mechanics, but it is different in Einstein's mechanics, where EP in instead serves as a postulate, which then in principle can be subject to experimental testing. This is what was reported in the previous post: A very high-precision experiment confirming EP! Like testing that there are 100 centimeters on 1 meter, to very high precsision? 

On top of that the experiment is supposed to verify not only EP as postulate of Einstein's mechanics (General Theory of Relativity GR), but also serve as a confirmation of the profound revolution brought to humanity by GR. This is mind-boggling. If EP is nothing but an agreement, then GR would also simply be an agreement, and so not real science.

The very high-precision of the experimental verification of EP supports a suspicion that what is tested is in fact a definition/agreement rather than a law/theory of physics. The consequences as concerns the physicality of GR are possibly far-reaching...

Compare with the low precision of the value of the gravitational constant $G$: less than 5 decimals. 

Recall that in the new SI units standard, agreements take the role of laws of physics when defining meter in terms of prescribed speed of light, and kg in terms of prescribed equivalence with energy. However, this is not anything which modern physicists want to agree on: the prescriptions/agreements are also laws of physics! The Best of Worlds! Compare with posts on SI 2019 standard.

The State of Modern Physics

Alexander Unzicker gives in his last book Make Physics Great Again: America Has Failed a very critical evaluation of the state of modern physics:

• All in all physicists have developed a system that keeps itself alive by detaching from observations, by abandoning comprehensible mechanisms and clean mathematics, by postulating arbitrary concepts and by weawing a "theoretical explanation" for every thinkable phenomenon, which amounts to nothing other than fitting fantasy products to measuring values.

These are tough words, but probably very true and as such cannot be directly refuted and so will be met by total silence by the physicists setting the agenda of contemporary physics. 

A main theme on Unzicker's Real Physics youtube channel is the question if all constants ultimately can be reduced to a few fundamental physical constants like the gravitational constant $G$, the speed of light in vacuum $c$ and Planck's constant $h$. The Standard Model of fundamental/particle  physics includes 29 constants, which adopting Unzicker's view means that it is not fundamental physics. 

The value of physical constants directly connects to the specification/definition of units used in experimental or observational physics. The definitions reflect specifications to make measurements. In the new 2019 SI standard 

• Time in seconds is measured in terms of number of oscillations of a certain Cesium atom.
• Length in meter is measured in lightseconds as the distance traveled by light in vacuum per second.
• Mass $m$ in kilo is measured in terms of h and c assuming that Einstein's Law $E=mc^2$ and Planck's Law $E=hf$ with $f$ frequency, are valid.     

What is of special interest here is that by definition the speed of light is set to be exactly = 1 lightsecond per second or $c=1$, which thus by definition makes the speed of light constant. With a common unit of time for all observers, the choice of length unit for all observers (possibly moving with different speeds) is to be such that the speed of light is exactly = 1. 

Einstein's postulate that the speed of light is constant stated as a physical fact, which could be wrong, is thus turned into a definition which cannot be wrong. It is just an SI standard to be adopted by all observers: $c=1$.

We meet the same phenomenon with the kilo defined assuming $E=mc^2$ and $E=hf$. This means that $E=mc^2$ is made into a definition just like $c=1$, by adjusting the definition of kilo so that $E=mc^2$.

We meet here a confusing mixing of physical fact and definition, typical of Einstein's physics, which makes it possible for Einstein and all followers to be 100% sure that the speed of light is constant and that energy is equivalent to mass according to $E=mc^2$. 

But mixing a proposed physical law, which may false, with a definition, which cannot be false, can give you the false impression that the physical law is a true physical law. 

This aspects are very difficult to discuss with physicists who have been trained that Einstein's postulates that the speed of light is constant and energy is equivalent to mass, really are true postulates about physics, which in addition to being physically true are ideal as standard. This is like mixing analytical and synthetic truths in logical positivism which is an endless source of confusion making modern physics into a true mystery.

More on this theme in Many-Minds Relativity. There is a limit to the confusion.

By definition all humans are equal, but we know that this is not really so. 

Not Natural New 2019 SI Definition of Unit of Mass

The Kibble balance is an impressive instrument used to specify a new of unit of mass.

The 2019 SI definition of units gives a new specification of the unit of mass as kilo $kg$ based on Einstein's formula $E = Mc^2$ where $E$ is energy in joule $J$, $M$ is mass in $kg$ and $c$ is the speed of light in meter $m$ per second $s$, with  

•  1 kilo = 89875517873681764 J     (*)

and by SI definition $c=299792458\, \frac{m}{s}$. 

Here second $s$ is defined as the duration of exactly 9192631770 periods of certain radiation from a Cesium atom, and meter $m$ in terms of the distance traveled by light per second assumed to be exactly 299792458 meters. The new choice of units connect to old units but the exact values are assigned by definition. 

Further,  $J$ is defined in terms of jouleseconds $J\cdot s$ by specifying Planck's constant $h$ to be exactly equal to $1.054571817\times 10^{−34}\, J\cdot s$, which by a special electromechanical instrument named Kibble balance gives the value (*). 

We see that the unit of mass is defined in terms of second, meter and Plancks constant $h$ assuming Einstein's formula $E=mc^2$ together with Planck's light/photon energy formula $E=h\nu$ to make a connection through the Kibble balance between (gravitational) mass and electric/light energy. 

Many other possibilities of replacing the International Prototype of the Kilogram (IPK) in Paris, named Le Grand K (The Big K), were discussed before settling on using Planck's and Einstein's formulas arguing that they are the most fundamental relations of all of physics. 

In other words the new SI  definition of unit of mass is a hommage/tribute to Planck and Einstein representing modern physics with Le Grand K simply old physics.

But is it natural? The result is that the energy of a mass of 1 kg is equal to the energy of a collection of photons with frequencies summing to $1.356392489652\times 10^{50}$, which is not very illuminating. 

In other words, insisting on Einstein's $E=mc^2$ has very little to do with actual physics. We know that energy can take different forms as kinetic, potential, chemical energy and nuclear energy with possibly a connection to $E=mc^2$ in nuclear energy. But not else, and so the present SI unit of mass lacks good reason as long as controlled nuclear fusion is far into the future, if ever.  

Further, Planck's key formula $E=h\nu$ for photon energy with $\nu$ a natural number, expresses that energy can only take discrete values as multiples of a smallest quanta of size $h$. Planck did not like this idea, which he used only as a last resort in a hopeless situation as explained in Computational BlackBody Radiation offering a new theory in the form of continuum wave mechanics without smallest quanta. Compare with What, exactly, is a photon?  

A more natural definition of a unit of mass would be in terms of a certain number or atoms (the Avogadro project) of e.g. gold as a new gold standard of physics. But that would be classical physics, which has to be replaced by modern physics, even when it does not make sense, to motivate continued funding...and it seems to work...

 

New Perspective on New Unit of Mass in terms of Planck's Constant

In the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units the kilogram as unit of mass is defined in terms of Planck's constant

• $h$ set by definition to exactly $6.62607015×10^{−34}$ Joule-second ($J\cdot s$), 

where

• $Joule = Newton\times m = M\times\frac{m}{s^2}\times m=M\frac{m^2}{s^2}=Mc^2$

with $m$ meter, $s$ second, $M$ mass in kilogram and $c$ the speed of light.

This defines kilogram in terms of Planck's constant $h$, second $s$ and speed of light $c$ with meter $m$ defined in terms of $c$. The relation $E=Mc^2$, viewed as a profound discovery attributed to Einstein's relativity theory, then appears simply as a definition (of mass).

The connection to quantum mechanics comes by attributing a certain energy $h\nu$ to light of frequency $\nu$ through the law of the photoelectric effect

• $h\nu = eV_0 + \phi = eV_0 + h\nu_0$, 

where $eV_0$ in electronVolts is the energy of a released electron with charge $e$ and $V_0$ a stopping potential in Volt, and $h\nu_0$ is the work to release an electron with $\nu_0$ a threshold frequency. This relation determines $h\approx 4.1357\times 10^{-15}$ in $eV\cdot s$, which fits with the new definition of $h$ in terms of $J\cdot s$ with the conversion $eV= 1.602176634×10^{−19} J$.

The photoelectric effect connects the macroscopic phenomena of light of different frequencies and stopping potential to the microscopic phenomenon of electron charge. In this connection there is nothing that says light of frequency $\nu$ is to be viewed as a stream of discrete photon particles of energy $h\nu$ and that Planck's constant $h$ has the physical meaning of a discrete smallest quantum of action.  Instead Planck's constant has the role of connecting light energy to electron potential energy ultimately to mechanical energy.

For a new continuum physics approach to blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect with discrete quantum replaced by a threshold condition (as in the photoelectric effect), see Computational BlackBody Radiation.

The new definition of kilogram gives perspective on the very small size of Planck's constant $\sim 6.6\times 10^{-34}\, J\cdot s$ misleading to an idea of an absurdly small Planck length $\sim 1.6\times 10^{-35}\, m$ believed to have a physical meaning, in string theory in particular.  On the other hand, the length scale of atoms (and X-ray light of frequency about $3\times 10^{18}$) is about $10^{-10}\, m$ and that of a proton $10^{-15}\, m$, with the Planck scale 20 orders of magnitude smaller, way beyond any thinkable experimental exploration and thus meaning. Planck time  $\sim 5.3\times 10^{-44}\, s$ is even more absurd. No wonder that modern physics playing with Planck length and time is in a state of deep crisis, with the scientific madness come to full expression in the  Chronology of the Universe starting with the Planck Epoch before $10^{-43}\, s$ after Big Bang.

In Schrödingers equation $h$ multiplies the time derivative of the wave function, which means that
the atomic energy (potential + "kinetic" energy) of an eigenfunction of frequency $\nu$ is equal to $h\nu$, which comes to expression in the photoelectric effect.  Schrödinger's equation is a continuum model without any smallest quantum of action, only discrete eigenvalues representing different energies.

A reformulation of quantum mechanics in the form of a Schrödinger equation as a continuum model in real 3d space plus time without statistics, can be inspected at Real Quantum Mechanics.

To get an idea of the absurdly small Planck length scale $1.6\times 10^{-34}\, m$, one may compare with the estimated size of the observable Universe which is about $10^{27}\, m$ or $10^{33}\, \mu m$ with $\mu m$ mikrometer.



In short, Planck's constant $h$ converts light energy to mechanical energy through electron potential energy, and as such does not ask for a meaning as a "smallest quantum of action" in a mist of "quantisation" into absurdly small "quanta".

The new kilogram standard is specified to high precision using a Kibble balance, where gravitational force is balanced by an electromagnetic force (between two coils), which depends on Planck's constant. Mass is then derived by measuring the local gravitational constant.