What is Energy?

Blog 20110223 Bill Howell and Glenn Borchardt

Hello again Dr. Borchardt-

When I read your TTAOS and TSW books I was able to quickly comprehend and accept all but one of the 10 Assumptions.  This ease of understanding wasn’t because they were consupponible (a word I’d never heard before and which still doesn’t appear in Wikipedia’s or Merriam-Webster’s online dictionaries by the way :-), but because they were not inconsistent with my own thinking and experience.  The one Assumption that caused me to contemplate was Assumption No. 4- Inseparability, which posits (from Hegel) that ‘Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion’.  I’ve finally worked thru what was puzzling me about this Assumption and it stemmed from my associating motion with energy. 

As you write in TSW (beginning on page 53), this association has been confused and confounded for quite some time because matter has been viewed (and defined by Einstein) as equivalent to energy.  I think your argument is epitomized by your statements- ‘Running is what legs do; motion is what matter does’; and, ‘Legs are not motion and running is not matter’.  After cogitating on this, I realized that while your Assumption is correct, and even complete with respect to matter, it seems implicitly incomplete because it doesn’t address what ‘energy’ is.  I do understand that the Assumption of Inseparability is not dealing with what energy is, but it seems (to me) that it either needs to, or that you need to add another assumption to the list.  Energy is something.  It’s a force or field (or some other word you prefer), but it is something- it’s what the motion of matter is conveying- it’s what makes the matter move and propagate.  Let me try to clarify what I mean.

I can’t find the reference but I seem to recall you once writing in a blog that the term ‘energy’ could be substituted with the phrase ‘matter in motion’.  Assuming this is a correct reflection of your views, then how do you explain the phenomenon revealed by Cymatics?  If you’re not familiar with it, a short but good example is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu6Ox5LrhJg&feature=related.  Yes, the sound waves are moving the particles, but I’m talking about the patterns that the particles reveal at different frequencies.  These patterns appear to be an emergent property of ‘energy’ and not simply of matter in motion.  To me, these patterns seem like 2-D analogues of electron orbitals.  Perhaps I’m still being confused by the paradigm of associating motion with energy.  If so, I hope you can show me how (as you have so many other times).  Thanks.

Bill:

Thanks again for the question.  It all comes down to what is “energy”?  You seem to agree with inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion), which is only common sense.  It implies, however, that the universe presents us with only two basic phenomena: matter and the motion of matter.  “Energy” is one of the many matter-motion terms we use in physics to describe matter in motion.  Each of these terms is the result of a calculation in which we multiply a measurement for matter times a measurement for motion.  The most common matter-motion terms are: momentum (P=mv), force (F=ma), and energy (E=mc²).  None of these is either matter or motion.  That is what is so difficult for people to comprehend.  They tend to think of energy as matter in one instance and as motion in another.  BTW: If I ever wrote that energy is matter in motion or that energy is the motion of matter, please tell me where it was so I can correct it in future editions.

The indeterministic claim that matter and energy are the same didn’t help anything (see my recent paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc²”:   http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf  ).  I have often said that a “modern physicist” is one who does not know what “time” is.  Now I can add that a “modern physicist” is one who does not know what “energy” is.  That is because these terms are part of the eternal philosophical struggle between determinism and indeterminism.  Ever since the invention of the concept of energy, it seems that indeterminism has been winning.  Nonetheless, matter exists; motions occur.  Matter has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other matter.  So, legs exist and running occurs.  I can put matter in my back pocket, put I cannot do so with motion.  Energy neither exists nor occurs.  We often say that we are “saving energy,” as if it were a thing that we could stockpile.  We can save fossil fuels, but not the energy inside them.  If energy exists inside them, could you please take some energy out and give it to me for future use?  We often say that fast dancers are more energetic than slow dancers, as if energy and motion were equivalent.  These common uses add to the confusion involving matter-motion terms.  We have used them so much as shorthand terms that we have forgotten that they are mere calculations, neither things, nor motions.

I like your video demonstration of matter in motion.  It clearly shows how grains of salt can be pushed around by vibratory motion.  The patterns created depend on the frequency of the vibrations and the interactions produced by constructive and destructive interference.  In general, notice that the low frequency, long period waves produce larger patterns than the high frequency, short period waves.  The development of each of the patterns appears, at first, to be somewhat magical.  That may be why you thought about them as “an emergent property of ‘energy’ and not simply of matter in motion.” Of course that is all they are: matter (salt) and motion (vibrations). The patterns are emergent alright, but they are properties of matter, which you can see, rather than of “energy,” which you can only calculate. I imagine that mathematicians have already figured out the equations of motion for each of the patterns, although, like all motions they are infinitely complex.  This demo was especially interesting to me at this time, because I am currently writing a book with Steve Puetz on universal cycle theory (see http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=5229&tab=2).  We will explain why so many motions occur as waves or cycles and how they contribute to infinite universe theory.

Stupidity and the Internet

The question was asked:

Is the Internet breeding stupidity or shining a light on it?

Stupidity is doing the same thing twice and hoping for a different outcome.  I prefer to think of what you have observed as the revelation of ignorance.  The word comes from "ignore," our natural state when we are born.  Education is supposed to be the remedy.  That's where the Internet comes in.  The fact that folks are poorly educated is not a bit surprising.  With the Internet, we can see how bad education, particularly in the USA, really is.  At the same time, the Internet provides great opportunities to obtain an education uncensored by authority figures. How do we know whether we are being educated or scammed? The scientific worldview assumes that "truth" is determined by the best agreement between theory and
observation/experiment.  The same goes for information on the Internet.  If it makes no logical sense (like four dimensions and an expanding universe), then it probably is nonsense.

Time Dilation and the Hafele and Keating Flight around the Earth

PSI Blog 20110209 Time Dilation and the Hafele and Keating Flight around the Earth

Another good one from Bill Howell:

Hello again Dr. Borchardt-

I re-read your Infinite Universe Theory paper and sure enough, it prompted another question to bother you with :-). This one’s about Relativity’s prediction of time dilation. I understand what you are saying in the paper that science should not be a slave to mathematics, about the ‘occupational hazard’ of mathematicians confusing their tools of analysis as representing actual reality, and the delusion of thinking of time as an actual dimension just because it can conveniently be represented by an axis on a plot. With that said, I’ve read that experiments with atomic clocks in aircraft and spacecraft have documented an actual time-lag in accordance with Einstein’s theory of Relativity when compared with a control clock that did not experience the acceleration. Assuming these results are true, that would constitute empirical evidence (versus the mathematical delusion issue mentioned above) of, well, … something. But whatever it is evidence of; it is consistent with the predictions of Relativity theory. Do you have an alternate (Univironmental Deterministic) explanation for such empirical results?

As you know, time is motion. Universal time is the motion of each microcosm with respect to all other microcosms. A clock measures the motion of a specific microcosm with respect to its macrocosm. Thus, an hourglass measures the flow of sand through a restriction under the effect of gravity. If I should take an hourglass with me into outer space, I would find that the rate of flow of sand would decrease. An “hour,” as measured by the hourglass would be much longer than it would be on Earth. I could interpret this in one of two ways: 1) via the old scientific world view, systems philosophy, or 2) via the new scientific worldview, univironmental determinism. In the first, I would adhere steadfastly to the systems point of view, seeing the hourglass as a “system” without an environment. In keeping with my other assumptions as an indeterminist, I might accept Einstein’s view that, in this case, time has somehow “dilated.” Of course, the adjustments I would use to get the correct time really would not be the relativistic equations that Einstein derived, but you get the idea. In the second, the correct analysis involves the proper inclusion of the macrocosm. The equation for the gravitational effect on hourglass flow would be a rather simple function of altitude. It certainly would not require relativity and its silly idea that motion was a thing, and therefore could dilate.

Among the most frequently cited proofs of relativity remains the Hafele and Keating (1972) experiment. This involved four supposedly precise atomic clocks on planes flying in opposite directions around the earth. There are two interpretations of the data. I will give both, and you can decide which one is correct.

Conventional: Hafele and Keating (1972) Proves Time Dilation

In the conventional interpretation, it is believed that Hafele and Keating proved that the east-bound clock slowed down by 59 nanoseconds and that the west-bound clock sped up by 273 nanoseconds relative to a clock in Washington. Even if true, this would be quite a shock. Einstein claimed that all moving clocks are supposed to run slow with respect to the observer. There should have been little difference between eastward and westward travel. After a bit of back-tracking by figuratively placing the reference clock at the non-rotating center of the earth and including gravity as a major contributor to the result, their calculations seemed to agree with relativity. Unfortunately for Einstein, this interpretation of the experiment indicated that the part about “motion with respect to the observer” had to be discarded. Hafele had to use “motion with respect to the underlying nonrotating inertial space” to get the math to agree with relativity predictions. This is a big step away from the solipsism that underpins relativity, but that is seldom noted in the many citations of Hafele and Keating as a proof of relativity. Some skeptics (e.g., Bethell, 2009, p. 133-41; Kehr, 2002) have tried to find a physical reason for the published results.

Skeptical: Hafele and Keating (1972) Proves Nothing

In the second interpretation, skeptics have considered the experiment to have been a total failure due to the erratic behavior of the clocks (e.g., Spencer and Shama, 1996; Kelly, 2000). Kelly (2000) was able to obtain the raw data (in bold characters), which looked like this:


Table 1. Original test results and the Hafele and Keating alterations (ns) (from Kelly, 2000, Table 3).

Of course, all clocks, even the relatively precise cesium beam clocks used in the experiment, fail to keep accurate time at some level. The clocks used in the experiment produced highly variable results as seen in Table 1. When compared to the ground-based clock some had gained and some had lost. Now, this is not necessarily a death knell for this type of experiment. The tendency for a clock to gain or lose time is called “drift.” If the drift occurs at a steady rate throughout the experiment we can subtract it to get an accurate time. For example, if my watch gains a second per day, I will have to subtract 7 seconds from the observed time to get the correct time next week. This is not what happened in the Hafele and Keating experiment. Drifts were highly irregular for each of the clocks (Fig. 1). The total range in drift during the course of the experiment was about 7000 ns (nanoseconds) for an experiment purporting to measure as little as 59 ns. Not only were the drifts for the four clocks highly variable, the drifts for each of the individual clocks changed throughout the experiment (changes in slope of the lines in Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Sketch of results given by Hafele and Keating (1972) (from Kelly, 2000). G = time gain; L = time loss.

Drifts determined when the clocks were on the ground in Washington were extrapolated across the time the clocks were in transit. Clock 408 was about the worst: it lost time (L) before the eastward flight and gained time (G) after the flight (Fig. 1). Clock 447 had the most consistent drift rate, but it showed no significant gain or loss during both flights (Fig. 1). On top of all this, Hafele and Keating had the temerity to average this mess (bold dashed line in the center of Fig. 1) before applying the adjustments and math (Table 1) that they ultimately anointed as being in “agreement with relativity.”


Lessons Learned


It seems that every time I evaluate one of the experiments said to confirm SRT or GRT either the data or the interpretations are poor. Hafele-Keating is no different. You might ask: “Aren’t all important experiments confirmed by others?” Actually, this is seldom the case—of my 320 publications, only one was repeated by others in any detail (see Wills and Borchardt, 1993 vs. Turner and others, 2008). Except for some refinement, the results were essentially the same. To go to the trouble of redoing an experiment, one must be a highly motivated skeptic. Being the second Einstein is not enough. The skeptics I referenced remain unpublished in ranking journals and they probably could not get funds to redo the experiment in any case. Apparently, slip-shod work in favor of relativity has a ready market among believers; those opposed present only a minor inconvenience to the conventional wisdom.

The upshot is that the “data” presented by Hafele and Keating are an embarrassment for science. If they actually had obtained data that supported Einstein’s idea that clocks are slowed simply by increases in velocity, the UD approach still would be necessary to provide a physical explanation. We would have to consider the microcosm (the cesium beam clock) and the macrocosm through which it travels. A hint for the necessity of this is found in the International System (SI) definition of a second as “the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields (italics mine).” At minimum, cesium beam clocks have to be heavily shielded from magnetic effects—the Hafele clocks were triple shielded. The general appellation “external fields” is a bow to the possibility that there may be other fields to consider. Of course, there are all manner of particles in the Earth’s atmosphere and in the etherosphere (TSW, p. 202). How these would affect the clocks physically was and is still not well known. Clocks on the ground show less variability than the mobile clocks used on the planes, so the macrocosm evidently played an important part in the erratic results. A proper analysis would require an exploration of such effects.

By the way, I also re-read your explanation for the apparent stellar-shift (viz a viz the Eddington eclipse experiment) as being due to refraction in the ‘etherosphere’ and is not evidence for a gravity well or curved space-time around the sun. Such an elegant and simple explanation. Thank you.

You are welcome Bill. You might want to read Moody (2009), which is a similar analysis of the data that Eddington claimed to be the first experimental proof of GRT, catapulting Einstein into the limelight in 1919.

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

References

Bethell, Tom, 2009, Questioning Einstein: Is relativity necessary?: Pueblo West, CO, Vales Lake Publishing, 206 p.

Hafele, J.C., and Keating, R.E., 1972a, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains: Science, v. 177, no. 4044, p. 166-168.

Hafele, J.C., and Keating, R.E., 1972b, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Observed Relativistic Time Gains: Science, v. 177, no. 4044, p. 168-170.

Kehr, R.W., 2002, The Detection of Ether (1st ed.): Overland Park, Kansas.

Moody, R.J., 2009, The eclipse data from 1919: The greatest hoax in 20th century science, 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States, p. 26.

Spencer, D.E., and Shama, Uma, 1996, A new interpretation of the Hafele-Keating experiment (http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp).

Turner, R., Koehler, R.D., Briggs, R.W., and Wesnousky, S.G., 2008, Paleoseismic and Slip-Rate Observations along the Honey Lake Fault Zone, Northeastern California, USA: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 98, no. 4, p. 1730-1736.

Wills, C.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 1993, Holocene slip rate and earthquake recurrence on the Honey Lake fault zone, northeastern California: Geology, v. 21, p. 853-856.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: True or False?

From Bill Howell:

I’m interested in how your worldview can potentially be used to empirically test the natural world.  As an example, it seems to me that your theory predicts that (someday) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle could be proved false.  If one interprets that Principle to be about the inability to measure something because any method of measurement will disturb the object being studied, then theoretically, it would be possible to find a way to make a measurement that doesn’t disturb the object.  Using the example of waves, one can’t discern the shape of an object with an instrument that uses a larger wavelength than the thing being studied.  If particles don’t exist beyond a certain size (let’s say the Plank limit) then there is no way to discriminate the state of a subatomic particle that can be influenced by an interaction on that scale of magnitude.  But if particles can exist which are infinitely small, then (theoretically) there are particles that are a magnitude or two less than the Plank limit which could be used to probe the structure of things at and above the Plank limit.

[Bill, I hate to disappoint you, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle cannot be proven false.  At best, one can choose one of the two possible interpretations that can be gained from it: 1.) Uncertainty means that nature contains an element of absolute chance (Copenhagen view); 2.) Uncertainty reflects observer ignorance (Bohmian view).  With UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything), we have chosen the second along with its implied challenge to the finite causality of classical mechanism.  This does not mean, however, that one can perform any measurement without disturbing the microcosm being measured.  All microcosms contain an infinity of submicrocosms and are bathed in an infinity of supermicrocosms, so, of course, the Planck limit is only defined by those used to perform the measurement.  You are right that the use of still smaller microcosms (ether particles?) would allow measurements at even smaller scales.

Incidentally, the “wave nature” of particles being measured at the scale to which the principle is applied is due to the motions induced within the macrocosm of any such particle.  Interpretations differ because positivists, in particular, deny that the associated macrocosm contains anything at all.  For them, the surrounding space is perfectly empty, and so they see related waves as properties of the microcosm itself.  In our view, however, any particle traveling through the macrocosm must produce waves in the same way that a ship makes waves as it travels across the ocean.  There is no “wave-particle” duality in univironmental determinism (UD).]

The fact that we currently have no instruments capable of probing at this scale is beside the point.  One can’t say it’s impossible to create such an instrument someday in the future (because we are still too ignorant about the Cosmos to say that it’s impossible).  Creating such an instrument may require using subatomic particles that are very close to absolute zero.  Conversely, if one interprets the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to mean that it is not about the inability to physically measure something (which is an alternate explanation I’ve read), then that too is opposed to UD (as I understand it) and so such an instrument, if it could be created, would also falsify the Principle.

[You are right that “the inability to physically measure something” and “the inability to know everything about anything” really are equivalent.  Nonetheless, a better instrument would only falsify the Planck limit, but not the principle.  According to our assumption of INFINITY, the principle will apply each time a new “quasi-Planck limit” is reached.]

On a separate matter, you once told me that you weren’t a ‘steady-state’er.  I had knee-jerked assumed that this was your conceptual model of the Universe.  So I’m curious, is your position based on what might be called ‘first principles’ and/or the logic of your 10 Assumptions, or do you have a conceptual model that you could describe to me.

[Remember that the Steady State Theory (SST) proposed first by Bondi and Gold (1948) involved the assumption of creation, which is the opposite of our deterministic assumption of CONSERVATION (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed).  They did this to stay in tune with the prevailing view that the universe was expanding.  The creation of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per billion years was calculated to be enough to keep the universe expanding forever.  Bondi and Gold did not mention what the universe supposedly was expanding into.  Neither did they use the 4-D concept of space-time that Einstein had introduced.  As you know, UD assumes through INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) that empty space cannot exist.  It also assumes through INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) that there are only three dimensions, and that the objectification of time in SRT and GRT is Einstein’s greatest philosophical error (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2010/10/einsteins-most-important-philosophical.html).

A short paper on my conceptual model of Infinite Universe Theory (IUT) is at: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/IUT.pdf .  I am expanding this into a short, easy to understand book for the layperson.

Reference:

Bondi, H., and Gold, T., 1948, The steady-state theory of the expanding universe: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 108, no. 3, p. 252-270.