from the whom-it-may-concern dept.
Doug Mounce
Physical properties can be either defined, or measured, but not both. As theories develop, and as experiments improve, particular properties can, and do, move from one category to the other. For example, the speed of light was at one time a measured quantity, but it is now a defined quantity. Conversely, the distance between two particular marks on a specific bar of platinum was once the definition of a metre, but now this distance must be measured because the definition has gone elsewhere.
It is sometimes considered to be a mere technicality which properties are defined and which are measured, but this is not really true. A defined quantity is constant, and a variable quantity must be measured, but it is not sufficiently appreciated that the converse is also true: a measured quantity must be variable, and a constant value must be defined. Experimental physics is full of "anomalies" caused by trying to measure constants, and theoretical physics is full of "arbitrary" values caused by trying to define variables. It does not make sense to measure constants, and it does not make sense to define variables.
How to resolve this problem? It is more of a philosophical problem that[sic] a physical one, but it does have an impact on physical theories, which then have to be judged on philosophical grounds, as to which theory provides a better explanation of what is observed. If the speed of light is a defined constant, then we have to explain cosmic redshifts as an effect of an expanding universe, and then we extrapolate backwards in time and conclude that the universe must have started in a Big Bang 13.4 billion years ago, and then we look at galaxies and see they are rotating too fast and conclude that there must be lots of dark matter that we can't see, and then we notice the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating and conclude that there's lots of dark energy as well, and we get a more and more complicated cosmology that explains less and less.
But few people seem to realise that the expanding universe, the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc etc are not physical realities, they are mathematical consequences of the assumption that the speed of light is constant. And since the physical reality of these things is called more and more into question by astronomical observations, should we not also call into question the underlying assumption that the speed of light is constant? Would it not be better to revert to the old method of measuring the (variable) speed of light, based on the assumption of a steady-state universe which is not expanding? Physically and mathematically, it makes no difference which assumption we make, the equations are equivalent locally, and they make the same predictions. Until we extrapolate too far, and one version or the other runs into a singularity. This happens when a variable that is incorrectly defined to be constant goes to zero. At that point the assumptions imply 0=1, and we know something is wrong.
The assumption that the speed of light is constant leads to the singularities of general relativity, including black holes and the Big Bang. That is the point at which we know something is wrong. That is the point at which we start dividing by zero. Physicists unfortunately think that they can divide by zero and get away with it. Mathematicians know that they can't.
Let me give you another example, that is the mass of the electron. At one time, this was a measured quantity, or to be more precise, that mass ratio of electron to proton was a measured quantity. It was measured using the classical theory of electromagnetism, by shooting electrons through magnetic fields. Later, in about 1973, the theory was replaced by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and in particular by quantum electrodynamics (QED). Now QED effectively changed the electron/proton mass ratio from a measured quantity to a defined quantity, in just the same way that Special Relativity changed the speed of light from a measured quantity to a defined quantity.
Again, this makes very little practical difference to calculations and predictions in the real world. Until we extrapolate too far. If the electron/proton mass ratio is actually a measured variable, and not a defined constant, then it can go to zero. Again, we have shown that 0=1. Again, we have a problem. And, remarkably, it is the same problem as before. If the electron/proton mass ratio changes, then the frequencies of the electromagnetic waves emitted by transitions between excited and ground states of atoms will change as well. Physicists tell me that these frequencies do not change, and that therefore I am talking utter rubbish. But the frequencies are observed to change: this is called redshift (or blueshift), so who is talking rubbish? The question is again, how do you explain this redshift. Do you prefer (a) an expanding universe, or (b) a variable speed of light or (c) a variable e/p mass ratio?
Or do you prefer (d) dark matter, (e) MOND or (f) the hand of God?
jaraymaker
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lonergan_L" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lonergan_l+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lonergan_l/CALaFOMtj0LEJ3KiiGQ%3DaxsP%2BYu-gdq%3DeSu_vJ6YZav2ekQ2%3D%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.