Replacements for Inadequate Physics Definitions for Energy and Time

PSI Blog 20211129 Replacements for Inadequate Physics Definitions for Energy and Time

 

By

 

George Coyne

 

Vancouver Regional Office

Progressive Science Institute

 

By close examination of the definitions of energy and time used in physics, this blog exposes their complete inadequacies.

 

Energy

 

Wikipedia defines energy as “the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform work on the body, or to heat it.” Where Wikipedia uses the word work I insert their definition for work after the words “to perform the”. Then it becomes: “Energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform the energy transferred to or from an object via application of force along a displacement on the body, or to heat it.”

 

The orthodox definition for energy as provided by Wikipedia makes no sense when substituting the definition of “work” where it is used in the definition of energy. It is exposed as being incomprehensible gibberish. I prefer Borchardt’s definition of energy.

 

This differs from Glenn Borchardt’s definition of energy being a calculation used in describing matter and its motion or potential motion “a matter-motion term concerning the exchange of matter’s motion[1] representing a calculated result from a number for mass times the square of a velocity number.”[2]

Time

A similar problem arises when physicists attempt to define time. Here is how Wikipedia defines it: “Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occurs in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future. It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience. Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions. …Time in physics is operationally defined as ‘what a clock reads’. …The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time.”

Let us examine this definition. The concept of past, present and future is known as time. So, by replacing that phrase with the word time the first sentence is stating that time is the sequence of existence and events that occurs in an irreversible succession from time. Adding the word time at the end of the sentence makes it meaningless.

 

The second sentence has the problem of using the meaningless phrase “quantity of various measurements.” This phrase is backward because quantities are properties or characteristics being measured, such as the mass or length of something. Those measurements are expressed as units of measure. The phrase duration of events means the time during which something exists or lasts. Thus, it makes no sense to use this reference to time when trying to define time. Also, rates of change are not quantities, but rather these refer to differences when comparing measurements. I can conceive of three dimensions, but I have no concept of what time as the fourth dimension could possibly be referring to. I doubt that anyone is able to conceive of it. Just because the phrase is used by physicists does not make it a valid abstraction. The operational physics definition of time is seen to be ludicrous when we insert the definition of clocks for the word clocks in the sentence: Time in physics is operationally defined as what a device that indicates or measures time reads. The writer of the Wikipedia entry realizes some of the problems with the operational definition of time in stating that it “does not address what the fundamental nature of it is.”

 

I use Glenn Borchardt’s much simpler, rational definition of time as being the motion of objects. In Notfinity Process: Matter-In-Motion 2^nd Edition (2021) I created the word nadal to refer to the measurement of this motion of matter. It is necessary to have a different word for the measurement of time so as to not confuse it with the actual motion.

 

---

[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2016, Do Spent batteries have more mass?

[2] Puetz, S.J., and Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, p. 12 [https://go.glennborchardt.com/UCT].

Another regressive physicist complains about the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20211122 Another regressive physicist complains about the Big Bang Theory

 

[GB: In the last four decades we occasionally have seen popular media questioning the Big Bang Theory. Some of these articles rely on interviews with prominent scientists troubled by some tiny contradiction that doesn’t smell right. The latest doubts have been raised by Dr. Don Lincoln, senior scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:

 

The problem with the Big Bang theory

 

George Coyne remarks:

 

“I am encouraged by the fact that Lincoln is willing to let further evidence against inflation sway him from his belief in it. As your readers know, inflation is an absolutely essential ad hoc for the BBT to be viable. Here is the concluding paragraph of the article:

 

‘Similarly, improved measurements like those made by BICEP-3 might one day confirm inflation theory, but equally well those future measurements could one day kill it. But that is OK. Scientists will put on their thinking caps and come up with a newer and better theory, and we will be closer to the truth. Change is inevitable.’

 

Glenn, is it possible that BBT proponents are beginning to accept the inevitable obliteration of this silly theory? As this article is published on a mainstream site, it may signal that this is the case. What is your view on what this article is signaling about the support for BBT from its proponents?”

 

Pierre Berrigan, a member of A Cosmology Group writes:

 

“Everybody so far seems fond of this article. Anyone in for a different tune?

 

The one good thing about this article is the headline which hints at a problem with the Big Bang in a popular media. To the general audience, mainly lay people who just read headlines, this will trigger doubt about what is believed as the final word about the creation of the universe. That in itself is indeed a very good thing.

 

The other positive element is the finding that the CMB has no B-mode polarization. That is definitively a discovery to be noted for future analysis, and can eventually be useful to models alternative to the ΛCDM.

 

However, I get bad every time I read phrases like « the expansion of the universe is a fact discovered by Edwin Hubble. ». Coming from a « senior scientist » such as Don Lincoln, who should know better, this is outright insulting to the memory of a distinguished astronomer who fought to his grave against the idea of a Doppler-induced cosmological redshift.

 

The other thing that gave me the goosebumps is the statement or the effect that the CMB « proves » inflation. As Louis and Bjørn wrote in their recent article, « If (inflation) then (CMB) » quickly became « (CMB) therefore (inflation) ». This is the one fallacious type of reasoning which is at the heart of the problem with the Big Bang, and of the scientific method itself for that matter.

 

Finally, it is clear where this is heading: cosmologists will inevitably find a patch to inflation to accommodate the absence of B-polarization in the CMB and save ΛCDM. The Big Bang theory doesn’t need yet another patch: the Big Bang theory needs to be ditched!”

 

[GB: So, one more prestigious regressive physicist seems like he is becoming a reformist. Hurray! But don’t get too excited. This is not the first recantation (remember Einstein became a belated aetherist in 1920[1]). It won’t be the last. There are many reasons for this:

 

1.   Paradigms like the Big Bang Theory are never changed from the inside. Being financially dependent on the survival of a theory disqualifies one from being able to ditching, as Pierre recommends.

2.   Billions have been spent on developing, ad hocing patching, and promoting the theory.

3.   Reputations are at stake. Nobel Prizes are not returned when a theory bites the dust.

4.   Bogus theories survive as long as the fundamental assumptions on which they are based remain in place.

5.   Relativity and creation theories, like the Big Bang, are based on religious assumptions.[2] That is why they are so popular and why opposing views get the circular file.

6.   Most reformists are reluctant to give up each and every one of those erroneous religious assumptions, and thus find it difficult to unite around Infinite Universe Theory,[3] the only viable alternative that could replace the Big Bang Theory.

 

Sorry to disappoint, George, but Lincoln’s quibble, like all the others, is not really much of a sign that things will change any time soon. Discarding the last creation theory is a very big deal. It will require a global revolution in thought, which only will occur in conjunction with a period of severe economic stress. The next three decades should be interesting.]

---

[1] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the theory of relativity, Address given on May 5th: University of Leyden [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Einstein20recantation].

 

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 

Meet Dr. Abhishek Chakravartty: First questioner to receive all PSI books

 PSI Blog 20211115 Meet Dr. Abhishek Chakravartty: First questioner to receive all PSI books

 

[GB: Propaganda favoring relativity and the Big Bang Theory is so strong that one rarely comes across anyone curious enough to spend much time trying to understand the reasons behind the many paradoxes, contradictions, and weirdness that vex those theories. It normally takes decades to get the gist of what has happened to theoretical physics and cosmology during the last century. That is why it is especially encouraging to us old timers when younger folks come to the fore. Abhishek is one such enthusiast with whom I have exchanged over 100 emails since 2015. So, it is not surprising that he was the first to present questions that won our new weekly book contest the maximum of seven times.

 

What I liked especially was the nature of his questions, which nearly always were of the type that might come to the minds of people perplexed by the usual hype. His reading was thorough, often citing chapter and verse in our books to ask pertinent questions about stuff not quite clear. I am sure Abhi will have more questions in the future even though he now has all the PSI books.

 

Dr. Chakravartty was born in Calcutta, India on 29 March 1991. He has a Ph.D. in Human Resource Management.

Here is his story:]

 

“In the year 2011, I started doing research on whether time travel was possible or not. So, I visited the website https://www.relativitychallenge.com/, owned by Steven B. Bryant. I started contacting him by email to ask him questions about Einstein's theory of relativity. He also answered the questions. In the year 2015, I understood that time travel is impossible because Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong. In the year 2016, Bryant's book entitled “Disruptive” was released. After reading the book, I understood the mathematical mistakes made by Einstein in establishing relativity theory.

 

I then contacted Dr. Glenn Borchardt on his email gborchardt@gmail.com to continue my physics research. I asked him many questions about physics. Some of them were answered in PSI Blogs. This is how I got interested in PSI. I am still continuing my physics research with Dr. Borchardt. One of my hobbies is writing short stories for children. In the year 2016, I wrote a book named 'Happy Reads'. The book contains seven unique short stories for children.”

Infinity and falsification of the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20211108 Infinity and falsification of the Big Bang Theory

 

Here is another great question from Abhishek Chakravartty:

 

“In PSI Blog 20211025, you wrote that the discovery of elderly galaxies at the limits of observation falsifies the hypothesized 13.8-billion-year age of the universe. So, we can hypothesize another age of the universe older than 13.8 billion years. So, in order to falsify that hypothesized age of the universe, we will need to find something even older than that age. But the universe is infinite and so it is impossible for human beings to have access to all regions of the universe. So even if there is something older than that hypothesized age of the universe, human beings will not be able to discover it if it exists in a region of the universe which is not accessible to human beings. Is that the reason you say that infinity prevents us from falsifying fundamental assumptions, whether they be scientific or religious and also agree with David Galston's statement that if there is no chance to prove something false, then there is no way to say that it’s true?”

 

[GB: Abhi: Thanks so much for your wonderful explanation of the relationship between infinity and falsification. In 1934 Popper wrote a whole book on the impossibility of producing a complete, finite proof of any scientific claim. But it was not until the 1959 English edition that he used the word “infinity” (“New Appendix vi).[1]  Even then, he used it on only 8 pages of his 513-page tome, giving it only as an agnostical alternative to finity. A later publication indicates Popper was an indeterminist[2]. Nonetheless, Popper’s little touch on infinity produced a big row among regressive philosophers of science.

 

Your statement that “if there is no chance to prove something false, then there is no way to say that it’s true” sums up their conundrum. The “logical positivists” attacked by Popper were the most concerned. They held fast to “classical determinism,” which, like classical mechanics, assumed finity. According to them, each effect should have a finite number of causes. That was consupponible with Einstein’s creationistic assumption of perfectly empty space. With the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions), however, no experiment can be performed in the absence of the aether denied by Einstein. Thus, with aether permeating everything the results are always different each time an experiment is performed. Strict absolutists might be inclined to see falsification in each tiny variation. Bench scientists, however, tend to ignore such mis-applied “scientific” philosophy. Instead, they quantify the variation, most often presenting a + or – for every measurement. Measurements that are not reproducible, whether they are attempts at confirmation or falsification are discarded.

 

You, Galston, and Collingwood are correct that fundamental assumptions cannot be falsified or proven. That is because they are all-inclusive in the same way we can never completely prove “there are material causes for all effects.” Because infinity obtains, we only can test specific claims (secondary assumptions or hypotheses) derived from fundamental assumptions. Successful predictions only provide support for the “truth” of a theory while a single failure implies it is false. Falsifying specific claims so far has not been enough for cosmogonists[3] to discard the Big Bang Theory. Here is an example from Assis and Neves (1995) concerning the “temperature of the universe”[4]:

 

“As we have seen in this paper, Gamow and collaborators obtained from T » 5 K to T = 50 K in monotonic order (5 K, ³ 5 K, 7 K and 50 K)... These are quite poor predictions compared with Guillaume, Eddington, Regener and Nernst, McKellar and Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, who arrived at, respectively: 5K < T < 6 K, T = 3.1 K, T = 2.8 K, T = 2.3 K, 1.9 K <T < 6.0 K! All of these authors obtained these values from measurement and or theoretical calculations, but none of them utilized the Big Bang. This means that the discovery of Penzias and Wilson cannot be considered decisive evidence in favour of the Big Bang. Quite the contrary, as the models of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium predicted its value before Gamow and with better accuracy.”[5]

 

As usual, ad hocs and recalculations solved that little problem.[6] I expect the same when the new James Webb Space Telescope eventually leads to the discovery of still more “elderly galaxies” at the limit of its observation, as predicted by Infinite Universe Theory.[7] The currently accepted “13.8-billion-year age of the universe” will have been falsified by an advance in technology just like the 3-billion-year age proclaimed by Gamow in 1949.[8] Will that lead to the collapse of the Big Bang Theory? Don’t hold your breath. The BBT is the last creation theory. Its connection to religion is clear.[9]]

---

[1] Popper, Karl, 2010, The logic of scientific discovery: London, Routledge, 513 p.

 

[2] Popper, Karl, 2016, OPEN UNIVERSE: an argument for indeterminism from the postscript to the logic of scientific ... discovery: [Place of publication not identified], ROUTLEDGE

 

[3] Those who assume the universe had a beginning.

 

[4] Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (Penzias, A. A., and Wilson, R. W., 1965, A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s: The Astrophysical Journal, v. 142, p. 419. [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..419P].

 

[5] Assis, A.K.T., and Neves, M.C.D., 1995, History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson: Apeiron, v. 2, no. 3, p. 79-84. [Courtesy Louis Marmet]

 

[6] According to Wikipedia, the currently accepted temperature is 2.72548±0.00057^oK

 

[7] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

 

Borchardt, Glenn, 2019, Théorie de l'univers infini (French Edition translated by Pierre Berrigan]: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 420 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/IUT-French].

 

[8] Gamow, George, 1949, Universe 3 billion years old: Vassar Chronicle, v. VI, p. 3, 4, 7. [http://newspaperarchives.vassar.edu/cgi-bin/vassar?a=d&d=vcchro19490514-01.2.16].

 

[9] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

 

 

 

Review of van Strien's paper on Bohm’s Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Notion of Classicality

 PSI Blog 20211101 Review of Van Strien's paper on Bohm’s Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Notion of Classicality

 

by George S. Coyne

Vancouver Regional Office of PSI

 

Marij van Strien's paper, Bohm’s Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Notion of Classicality[1], reveals that when David Bohm’s 1952 paper on an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics was criticized for being a reactionary return to classical physics, Bohm argued that his approach went beyond the classical elements inherent in orthodox QMT. His later work involved speculation and what Strien refers to as mysticism. Strien seeks to explain the difference between the work as Bohm presented it, and the way it was received.

 

Strien contends that there is great continuity between Bohn’s work on QMT from the early 1950s and his later speculative work. Strien does not see his early work as fitting into a mechanistic mold involving realism and determinism. She argues that Bohm’s realism was selective. She points out that his later writings contended that science cannot describe an independently existing reality. Strien argues that although Bohm thought that scientific theories are accurate on some things, he was not a realist because he did not accept that theories can offer approximately true descriptions of reality. She states that Bohm was never firmly committed to determinism. Additionally, Strien focusses on how Bohm’s QMT does not avoid all quantum weirdness, and is non-classical.

 

Strien gives a nuanced answer to the question of whether Bohm was a realist. She states that Bohm agreed that scientific theories must go beyond measurement outcomes and observables, scientific theories are right on some things, and that although scientific progress brings forth the development of new theories, they contain aspects of the older theories. However, he did not accept that reality can be described by scientific theories or that any description of reality is independent of us. He rejected the idea that science is advancing towards a final theory, or that only one theory can ever be valid for a given domain.

 

Strien emphasizes that Bohm’s QMT has strongly nonclassical aspects that facilitates an exact analysis of the measurement process, provides a simple explanation of the double slit experiment, but is not a mechanistic, classical theory and retains some of the weirdness of quantum mechanics. Although particles’ positions are always well-defined, Bohm does not include a well-defined momentum for particles. She states that Bohm’s primary objection to the standard version of quantum mechanics was its hard limit to understanding. In contrast, in Bohm’s ontological approach, quantum processes can be analyzed and understood without limits, even without which scientific theories offer true descriptions of reality, and also does not have to correspond with whether scientific theories describe an independent reality or a real description of it. Thus, Bohm’s QMT does not require a strongly realist program, in terms of providing a fundamental ontology which corresponds to nature.

 

Strien comments that Bohm argues that we have to give up on the belief that “our thinking processes and what we are thinking about are fundamentally distinct”: “It is a mistake to think that the world has a totally defined existence separate from our own and that there is merely an external ‘interaction’ between us and the world”. Using his concept of enfoldment, Bohm contends the world enfolds in our consciousness and we enfold in it. In his view if we understand that we and the world are one, we will be more careful with the environment, which will elicit a better response from the world to us.

 

Strien explains that Bohm supported causality, which he considered a broader concept than determinism because it allows for qualitative and quantitative change. He rejected determinism because he saw it as representing a mechanistic view in which everything is made of “fixed in nature” fundamental elements that can only exhibit quantitative change based on their interactions in accord with fixed laws, leaving no opportunity for anything truly new to arise. Bohm contended that novel things arise at unlimited scales with affects going both from lower and higher levels and vice-versa.

My comment on van Strien's paper

I agree with everything that van Strien has stated in her paper, especially her clarification of how Bohm believed he could rationalize an acceptance of causality to the exclusion of determinism, something that makes no logical sense. His rejection of determinism, because it is mechanistic, is not a scientifically based reason; it represents a preference.

 

In the 408-page book Notfinity Process: Matter-In-Motion 2^nd edition (published by Chappell Natural Philosophy Society June 15, 2021), I provide a 12-page examination of Bohm’s approach to quantum theory. The book includes non-quantum theory explanations for quantum phenomena that occurs in the two-slit experiment and entanglement. A review of the book is available at:

 

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2021/07/george-coynes-notfinity-process-is.html

 

Notfinity Process: Matter-In-Motion 2^nd edition is now discounted at Amazon.com at $29.95 US. At Amazon in Canada, it is $36.95.

 

[GB: My comment on Bohm

 

Note that I used Bohm’s implied assumption of infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) in devising the complementary assumptions of causality (All effects have an infinite number of material causes) and uncertainty (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).[2] That resolved the QMT location-momentum problem while becoming the basis for “The Scientific Worldview” and “Infinite Universe Theory”.

 

I was severely disappointed with Bohm’s mysticism in later life. It was so bad that I had to go to Berkeley’s Graduate Theological Union library to check out his ridiculous “Implicate Order” stuff.[3]]

---

[1] van Strien, M., Bohm’s Theory of Quantum Mechanics and the Notion of Classicality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. Volume 71, August 2020, Pages 72-86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1355219819301716

[2] Bohm, David, 1957, Causality and chance in modern physics: New York, Harper and Brothers, 170 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/Bohm]. [Excellent book!}

 [3] Bohm, David, 1978, The implicate order: A new order for physics: Process Studies, v. 8, p. 73-102; Bohm, David, 1980, Wholeness and the implicate order: London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 224 p. [Terrible books!]