Quoting from: The Philosophy of Being; Henri Renard, S.J., Professor of Philosophy, St. Louis University; 2nd Ed., 10th printing, 1956., page 7: “The phenomenal progress of physical sciences in the past few centuries, has, in great measure, distracted men from intellectual inquiry into the basic principles of those sciences. But no sincere thinker, who would view truth as a whole, can rest content with taking ultimate truths for granted; He will demand a rational guarantee of their validity. It is the science of Metaphysics that these ultimate truths are studied as far as the natural limitations of the mind will permit.”
Introduction: Comparing Natural Unity with Physics Theory: Only a naturally unified Universe can exist. Any disunity, lack of control, or lack of meaning would prevent the Universe from existing. The Universe operates in a completely orderly manner. Natural unity leaves no room for physicists to add emergent science miracles after the origin of the Universe, in their analysis. Natural unity has just one cause for all effects. This condition must be present in the equations of physics from their beginning and throughout the modeling process.
Mainstream physics teaches that there are separate fundamental forces. This isn’t because they ignore unity; their expectation is that sometime in the future they may discover a super-force from which the individual fundamental forces emerge. In other words, mainstream physics has developed physics without having first established the existence of fundamental unity. Instead, unity is something to be added on at the end of theory. This approach is untenable.
The view presented in this paper is that: Error is unavoidable if fundamental unity is not present at the beginning of physics equations. Our source for learning must be reliant upon direct empirical evidence. Direct empirical evidence will reveal the source of fundamental unity before all else occurs. Once fundamental unity is established it will always be both present and apparent in the physics equations that follow.
The source of learning for theoretical physics is not limited to making conclusions based upon direct empirical evidence. Theoretical physics accepts indirect empirical evidence for establishing orthodoxy if equations make good predictions. The lack of unity in mainstream’s physics is one major obstacle for correctly modeling the nature of the universe. Theoretical physics’ method of analysis also suffers from at least two others: One is the belief that the fundamental properties of the universe are mechanical, i.e., cause is force. This belief limits physics to a simplified low level of understanding of the nature of the Universe. Its science cannot predict nor explain the presence of intelligent life. We are offered views like: Given a sufficiently long time, and a google of variations, there can arise a foggy state of logically impenetrable complexity wherein dumbness can become intelligence.
The other self-imposed limitation is the practice of leaving some definable properties undefined. Examples are Mass; Temperature; and, Electric Charge. As a result, the analysis cannot show that the universe is fundamentally unified. This paper presents the stand that: It is a certainty that the Universe is fundamentally unified. Everything that has ever occurred or will ever occur in the Universe was provided for at the very beginning. Any missing meaning or lack of control would have ended the existence of the Universe. The Universe is completely meaningful and completely controlled. There were no gaps in meaning during its evolutionary development, and, there are none now. Mainstream physics tolerates, theoretical physics even embraces, gaps in physics meanings. The major gap is the lack of a formal physics definition for the most important physics property, i.e., mass.
Direct empirical evidence revealed the basic mathematical equation f=ma. The letter f in f=ma represents cause and was given the mechanical identity called force. The letter a represents physics’ direct empirical evidence in the form of change of object velocity with respect to a selected object’s cyclic activity, the count of which physicists, with no supporting direct empirical evidence, call time. Mainstream physics chooses to believe that the count of the selected object’s repetitive activity is a measurement of the property of time.
The letter m appears to represent each object’s proportionality constant that determines the object’s magnitude of acceleration for a chosen magnitude of force. It was given the name of mass. There was reason, at its introduction, to know that the property of mass is of far greater fundamental importance. The reason was: Mass is one of just two properties that are introduced to us solely by direct empirical evidence. The other property is force.
All other properties are defined in terms that include either mass or force, which really means mass alone. Furthermore, mass is the only property that must receive its formal physics definition directly in terms of the properties of direct empirical evidence. Force can’t be used because it represents cause. Its formal physics definition, which will automatically be f=ma after mass receives its formal physics definition. All direct empirical evidence consists entirely of effects. We learn what cause does but not what cause is.
We must begin the formal definitions of physics with a property that’s nature can be learned from its formal physics definition. It is also necessary to begin with mass because it is the only physics property that will receive its formal physics definition from following the lead provided by its direct empirical evidence. Mass is the single link between direct empirical evidence and all the rest of physics. There is, though, another property that is also introduced to us at the time that mass is introduced to us. We don’t learn about it from the same information that informs us about the existence and nature of mass. We learn about it because it is the means by which information about direct empirical evidence is delivered to us.
We are made aware of a third property because it is the means by which direct empirical evidence is communicated to us. It is photons. We receive all direct empirical evidence via the delivery system of photons. Photons carry information about electrically charged particles that had their velocities changed sometime in the past elsewhere. Upon arrival, photons cause velocities of particles to be changed. Photons deliver information that consists of tiny measures of time and length. This information is what direct empirical evidence consists of. The units of direct empirical evidence are solely units of length and time.
At the introduction of f=ma, before any decision is made about how to use it to further develop equations of physics, it represented all that direct empirical evidence was attempting to teach us. Its natural inherent value, at this introductory point, was that it had the potential to lead us through how to derive the coming additional equations of physics. Historically, physicists did not understand how to make full use of f=ma. It was the vehicle for maintaining dependence upon direct empirical evidence. Unfortunately, that was not recognized.
What occurred was that it was interpreted in a way that caused physics to not fully depend upon direct empirical evidence. It was decided that either force or mass needed to be chosen to be a third indefinable property of mechanics. This choice broke the direct link between direct empirical evidence and the development of physics that has since followed.
Mainstream physics presently teaches the view that mass is a defined property. Students were taught the opposite until around 1970. Today’s mainstream physics considers mass to be defined by its operational definition. Operational definition is the new name given to a rule of measurement. A rule of measurement was historically recognized as a necessary substitute for the missing definition of an indefinable property.
It had clearly been the case taught to students up until around 1970 that a defined property did not get a rule of measurement assigned to it. Its procedure for measurement was established by the measurements of the properties contained in its definition. Only undefined properties were assigned rules of measurement.
The strict historical method for defining a physics property, which is followed still today for almost all physics properties, without recognizing any longer its importance, is for a defined property to be expressed mathematically in terms of properties that have been previously introduced. The defined property’s unit is automatically defined as equal to the units of those other properties in the same arrangement as those other properties appear in the definition.
The defined property must be defined when it is introduced to us by its direct empirical evidence. Its unit is defined at that same time. A failure of theoretical physics is that there are still undefined definable properties with undefined definable units used regularly in physics equations without recognizing that their presence guarantees that theoretical physics teaches a doctrine of disunity. The property of mass is one of those still undefined definable properties along with its undefined definable unit of kilogram. Physicists now offer layperson types of definitions and circular mathematical definitions in place of a badly needed formal definition.
When mass was made the third indefinable property of mechanics, unity was immediately lost from f=ma and all physics equations that would follow. This loss was due to the loss of the link that could have connected kilograms back to the units of direct empirical evidence. Physics became theoretical at that point.
Theoretical physics is the practice of making guesses about what might be usefully substituted into physics equations in place of the missing knowledge. Some of those guesses have become staples of physics equations. Mass is the first and most important property to suffer from its lack of a formal definition. The equation f/m=a showed the way to proceed to formally define mass, but that went unrecognized.
The equation f/m=a tells us that the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. The units of acceleration consist of a combination of meters and seconds only. All units of physics properties should be defined in a way that establishes the path that connects them to the units of direct empirical evidence. This procedure requires that all units of physics must ultimately be expressible as a combination of meters and seconds only.
There are only two properties that are permanently indefinable, i.e., length and time. They are the properties of direct empirical evidence. There are no properties that pre-exist them. The undefined definable fundamental properties and their undefined definable units are: Mass and kilograms; Temperature and Kelvins; Electric charge and coulombs.
Each of these properties and their units causes the continued absence of fundamental unity from theoretical physics equations. The first step to bringing fundamental unity back to physics equations, with its presence being seen right from the beginning and every step along the way, is for physics to go back to the equation f=ma and define mass. Force is then automatically defined by f=ma.
As the development of physics equations proceeds forward, undefined definable properties become defined as the equations of physics are reformulated based upon the continued presence of fundamental unity. However, fundamental unity is not yet restored to physics equations. When all undefined definable properties have been formally defined fundamental unity is restored to physics equations and physics changes back into a science of measurements. That is its natural state. A naturally unified physics leaves no room in its equations for theorists to insert their guesses What happens to mass when this is done?
Mass: What happens when mass receives its empirically revealed definition? We learn that mass is the inverse representation of the acceleration of a different fundamental property
1) {m=1ac1) �=1��}
That property is the property that delivers the information about a charged particle accelerating. The letter ac represents the acceleration of light. The variation of the speed of light, measured remotely, will be shown to be the single cause for all effects. The local measurement of the speed of light remains C. Measured locally means that the equipment used to measure the speed of light experiences the same environmental conditions as does the light. Force immediately becomes defined as a ratio of two accelerations.
2) f=ma=a/ac2) �=��=�/��
The numerator is the object’s acceleration. The denominator is the local acceleration of light due to the control over the speed of light caused by the object. Its amount of control over the local speed of light is inversely represented as the mass of the object.
Force is a pure number. How could something as physically real as force be free of units? The answer lies in following this lead to its logical conclusion. Newton’s force formula is:
f=ma�=��
It follows that: If force is dimensionless, then, the units of mass must be the inverse of acceleration. What acceleration is represented by mass? The answer is that mass consists only of acceleration. It is the acceleration of light that defines the existence of any particle.
What is being shown here is that mass both experiences acceleration and causes acceleration. In other words, acceleration comes from acceleration. The only given in the universe is the cause of a change of velocity of light. Everything else results from it. We have used the units of kilograms to represent the units of mass. However, this has always been known to be another name for how the acceleration of one mass compares to the acceleration of another mass.
Our concept of mass is a representation of the effect each particle has upon the acceleration of light. Force is defined by comparing, by means of a ratio, the particle’s own acceleration to its acceleration of light. If the units of mass change, then, the units of energy and momentum also change. The definition of kinetic energy is:
EK=12mv2p��=12���2
And the definition of remote observer gravitational potential energy is:
Ep=12mv2c��=12���2
If the mass in these equations is given the units of inverse acceleration, then it follows that the units of energy reduce down to meters. In its simplest form energy is a measure of a distance:
Eunits=1msec2 m2sec2=meters������=1����2 �2���2=������
An expression of momentum is:
P=mvp�=���
Substituting the new units of mass:
Punits=1msec2 msec=seconds������=1����2 ����=�������
The new unit of measurement for momentum is seconds. All other units can now be derived from those given above. For example, the electric field is defined as:
ξ=d2Edxpdtc𝜉=�2�������
The new units of electric field are:
ξunits=mm∙sec= seconds−1𝜉�����=��∙���= �������−1
For the magnetic field:
H=d2Pdxpdtc�=�2�������
The new units of magnetic field are:
Hunits=secm∙sec=meters−1������=����∙���=������−1
Electric current has the units of:
Iunits=coulsec=secsec������=�������=������
Planck’s constant has the units of:
Planckunits=joule∙seconds=meters∙seconds�����������=�����∙�������=������∙�������
Another interesting change, that I will soon interpret and support, is the new units of the universal gravitational constant. The common units for this constant are:
Gunits=newtons∙meters2kilogram2������=�������∙������2��������2
Since force is dimensionless, then newtons no longer exist. The units of kilograms are now the inverse of acceleration. Making these substitutions:
Gunits=(meterssecond)4������=������������4
Or perhaps it will prove instructive to use acceleration times distance, the quantity squared:
Gunits=(meterssecond2∙meters)2������=������������2∙������2
In any case, the implementation of new units for physics gives us a new opportunity to discover new physical meanings for what w
Relativity theory: Mass inversely represents the acceleration of light. This precludes the possibility of relativity theory being introduced into physics equations. It’s claim that time and space could affect objects and vice versa was never justified by direct empirical evidence. There has never been a physics equation written by anyone that included representation of either the fundamental property of time or of space. Both have always been substituted for by object related rules of measurement which are not and cannot be definitions. No defined physics property has a rule of measurement assigned to it.
Maxwell’s prediction was that the speed of light is a local phenomenon. The specific equation giving this prediction is:
3) C=1(με)123) �=1𝜇𝜀12
The prediction is: The speed of light depends only upon the local permeability and permittivity of the medium through which the light is passing. Theoretical physics does not know why?
The Pound-Rebka experiment result can be predicted by treating light as if it accelerates due to gravity. I represent the speed of light as the variable vc.
4) g=dvcdt=act4) �=�����=���
Where, act represents the acceleration of light due to gravity. The subscript t represents that acceleration is defined as a change of velocity with respect to time. The definition of mass reveals that there is conservation of acceleration between light and objects. The magnitudes of their accelerations are equal but opposite in sign:
5) dvpdt=−dvcdt5) �����=−�����
The velocity also changes with respect to distance. For equal distances:
6) vpdvpdx=−vcdvcdx6) �������=−�������
An important aspect of these equations is, until proven otherwise, they can be read both forward and backward with equal theoretical validity. This introduces the need to test for both possibilities. Reading them forward, they say that gravity causes the speed of light to change. In reverse they say: The acceleration due to gravity is caused by the change in the speed of light. In other words, if the speed of light is controlled by matter, then the effect we call gravity follows automatically without the introduction of a fundamental gravitational field. Multiplying by dx :
7) vpdvp=−vcdvc7) �����=−�����
Light slows as it approaches the Earth. The speed that it loses is gained by the falling object. There is a Principle of Conservation of Acceleration that waits for mainstream physics to see it.
Setting up the indicated integral and solving yields:
8) v2p=v2c1−v2c28) ��2=��12−��22
Next, I solve for momentum, It can be calculated from:
9) P=dEdvp9) �=�����
I set up the increment of energy:
10) dE=mvpdvp=m(−vcdvc)10) ��=������=�−�����
Since a change in vc can cause the existence of vp, then can the reverse also be true? In other words, can the motion of matter through a background value of speed of light cause a decrease in the local speed of light? The velocity squared equation a few steps above can be solved to express the reversed effect:
11) vc2=(v2c1−v2p)1211) ��2=��12−��212
Taking the differential:
12⎞⎠⎟ dvc2=−vpdvp(v2c1−v2p)1212) ���2=−�������12−��212
Substituting this into the dE energy equation:
13⎞⎠⎟⎟⎟ dE=mvc1vpdvp(v2c1−v2p)12=mvpdvp(1−v2pv2c1)1213) ��=���1�������12−��212=������1−��2��1212
14⎞⎠⎟⎟⎟ P=dEdvp=mvp(1−v2pv2c1)1214) �=�����=���1−��2��1212
15⎞⎠⎟⎟⎟ f=dPdt=ddtmvp(1−v2pv2c1)1215) �=����=������1−��2��1212
The normal use of this formula to solve for energy by the Calculus integration of the product of a constant force f and a variable distance yields the equation:
16) EK=mv2c1(1−v2pv2c1)12−mv2c116) ��=���121−��2��1212−���12
This result is analogous to Einstein’s energy equation. However, it will predict more. For example, there is a connection between this energy equation and the concepts of frequency and wavelength. I multiply the first term on the right side by an expression equaling unity:
17) EK=vc1vc1mv2c1(1−v2pv2c1)12−mv2c1=mv3c1(v2c1−v2p)12−mv2c117) ��=��1��1���121−��2��1212−���12=���13��12−��212−���12
Since:
18) vc2=(v2c1−v2p)1218) ��2=��12−��212
19) EK=mv3c1vc2−mv2c1=mv2c1(vc1−vc2vc2)19) ��=���13��2−���12=���12��1−��2��2
This form of the energy equation contains an expression within the parenthesis representing the physical origin of our concept of frequency.
Further manipulation would reveal that photon momentum is defined by the equation
20) Pc=mpΔvc220) ��=��∆��2
Instead of Einstein’s:
21) Pc=mcC21) ��=���
.
Wave nature: The existence by direct empirical evidence of frequency led to the adoption of a wave nature for both light and objects. The idea of wave-particle duality has become a cornerstone of theoretical physics. The concept of wavelength is accepted by quantum physics as a fundamental property of photons and matter. This new theory will present a different perspective on this concept. However, I will begin with the normal concept of wavelength for the purpose of using familiar theory to help introduce this analysis.
I earlier derived an equation defining the energy of a particle. I did not take the concepts of frequency or wavelength into consideration during its derivation, and yet it will inherently suggest a physical origin from which these proposed properties could be derived. In order to be able to conveniently relate this analysis to later work, I will not work directly with wavelength, but, instead, will first derive an interpretation of its counterpart, frequency. Frequency suggests wave nature.
The form of my energy equation was chosen to show its analogy to Einstein’s energy equation; however, it has another useful form. I proceed through the following mathematical manipulative steps for the purpose of presenting my energy equation in a form where the origin of our concept of frequency can be seen. I multiply the first term on the right side by unity:
42) EK=vc1vc1 mv2c1(1−v2pv2c1)12 − mv2c142) EK=vc1vc1 mvc121−vp2vc1212 − mvc12
43) EK=mv3c1(v2c1−v2p)12− mv2c143) EK=mvc13vc12−vp212− mvc12
Since:
44) vc2=(v2c1−v2p)1244) vc2=vc12−vp212
45} EK=mv3c1vc2−mv2c145} EK=mvc13vc2−mvc12
46) EK=mv2c1(vc1−vc2vc2)46) EK=mvc12vc1−vc2vc2
The form of the energy equation given above contains an expression within the parenthesis representing the physical origin of our concept of frequency.
47) ω0=mv2c1h47) �0=mvc12h
I refer to this as the rest frequency of a particle:
48) ωK=ω0(vc1−vc2vc2)=ω0(vc1vc2−1)=ω0vc1vc2−ω048) �K=�0vc1−vc2vc2=𝜔0��1��2−1=𝜔0��1��2−𝜔0
Kinetic frequency is equal to total frequency minus rest frequency. No wave nature is needed! The single cause of all effects is the variation of the speed of light. This does not conflict with the recognition that the local measurement of the speed of light is the constant C. A local measurement is one where the equipment used to make the measurement experiences the same environmental conditions as is experienced by the light who’s speed is being measured.
Conclusion:
Mainstream physics teaches a physics that embraces disunity. The evidence that this is the case consists of its continued use of undefined properties with their undefined units. Undefined properties occur because mainstream physics fails to maintain dependence upon direct empirical evidence. The equation f=ma presented us the earliest opportunity to adopt the finding that the Universe is fundamentally unified. That requires that we define mass at its introduction. We would have known immediately that Relativity Theory has no place in the study of physics. We would have derived empirically determined units that are all expressible in terms of meters and seconds. For example, the equation:
49) h=keC
results from unity but is impossible to appear in mainstream physics because theoretical physics embraces disunity.
The equation shows that Planck’s constant equals the product of Boltzmann’s constant, electric charge, and the speed of light. The equation cannot be formed using mainstream physics because of their units of disunity. The units of the equation match if the units of unity are used.
The equation, most importantly, says that: The least action principle works because energy and momentum are conserved. Their product is equal to the product of the two fundamental constants e and C.. The units are: (newtons2)(meters)(seconds) = (seconds)(meters). These units match in this view of physics because: The empirically revealed unit of force is a ratio of the units of acceleration.
Mass having finally received its formal physics definition corrects the first error of theoretical physics! This begins the process of removing theoretical speculations and guesses from physics equations! Empirical physics is not another form of theoretical physics. It is physics led by direct empirical evidence on how to learn the nature of the Universe from the direct empirical evidence that the Universe reveals to us. The effect is that theory is removed from physics equations.