Theory Introduction Page
Website Homepage
Table of
Contents
ã
2003
[ From a physicist: “Every single principle that we teach in intro
college physics is based on only two principles: Conservation of momentum, and conservation
of energy/mass. That’s it! All the other ‘laws’ are based on those two
principles - be it Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, E&M, etc... We can
write those newtonian laws because of conservation of momentum. We can write
the energy equations of the Lagrangian/Hamiltonian because of conservation of
energy. Each conservation principle is based on some underlying symmetry of our
physical world. Conservation of momentum is based on the isotropic symmetry of
empty space, conservation of energy on the symmetry of time. So these are the
FUNDAMENTAL assumptions that we build all our understanding on (ignoring the
CPT conservation rules).”]
Physicists measure changes in velocity and use this knowledge to
learn how to predict future changes in velocity. These predictions are made
possible by mathematical equations that have been designed to describe patterns
in changes of velocity. The equations provide a means for extrapolating new
values that can usually predict new empirical data. Symbols of convenience are
used to help form the equations. Just four of the possible symbols represent
empirical qualities. Two of these qualities are distance and time. They are
direct empirical qualities. Two other qualities are force and resistance to
force. These two are indirect empirical qualities. Both force and resistance to
force have undiscovered physical natures. We know from empirical data that they
must exist; however, all of that empirical data consists of measurements of
distance and time. Measurements of distance and time are, in general, the
extent of direct empirical knowledge. Force and resistance to force are the
extent of indirect empirical knowledge. Everything else is theory.
Theory can never be proven, because nothing in theory has a
demonstrable physical nature that can be isolated and examined. All that can be
proven is that theory fits empirical data. However, this only establishes that
theory is a professionally added on feature. It does not indicate its
correctness. Theory is useful to us, but not because of predictions. The
predictions follow from the mathematical equations. These predictions are
always about future changes of velocity. The interpretations of the equations
contain the theory, but these interpretations are useful only in our minds.
Theory helps us to organize our thoughts. The limitation of theory is that our
thoughts do not have a provable physical nature.
In the equation f = ma only a consists of direct empirical qualities.
Acceleration consists of measurements of distance and time. Both f and m are
indirect empirical qualities that must also be expressible in terms of distance
and time if we are to work with our empirical knowledge of them. However,
theorists do not use the equation in its empirical form. They, instead, place
theoretical interpretations upon both force and resistance to force. They are
treated as if we know them in a much deeper way than just their effects. Force
is interpreted as a classical field or a quantum field or whatever else seems
thoughtfully useful. We do not know why matter resists force; however,
theorists name this resistance as ‘mass’. Mass is said to consist of a
theoretically proposed physical quality called energy.
The theoretical introduction of fundamental physical qualities
such as energy and momentum cannot be derived from the fundamentals of physics.
Within the fundamentals both qualities are described only as measurements of
the application of force. For a given event a force is applied across a
distance and during a period of time. The product of the force and the measure
of distance is given a name of convenience called energy. The product of the
force and the period of time is given the name of momentum. The words energy
and momentum are just names for the totals of these measurements of the effect
of force. They are sum totals and not physical properties. They are
quantitative measurements. Without their names they are not so real sounding.
One could still be called force times distance and the other could still be
called force times time. If this were now the case would theorists be so
enamored with them?
In any case, it was learned that energy and momentum are conserved.
The theoretical meaning of this is a matter of opinion. The empirical meaning
is that force applied over a distance for a duration of time is conserved.
Somehow force, or the cause of force, is being transferred around without being
created or destroyed. This is the meaning that can be derived from the
fundamentals. This process of derivation is not reversible as is suggested by
the physicist's remarks. The reason for this is that neither energy nor
momentum can be discovered to exist as a fundamental empirical fact. They
cannot be the starting point for understanding the mechanical operation of the
universe. The physicist cannot look at patterns in changes of velocity and then
claim to know first hand about the physical nature of anything else. For
example, the physicist does not know anything about space or time other than
the fact that they can be measured.
Measurements are not the thing itself. Measurements are
quantitative while physical reality is qualitative. Neither space nor time is
accessible to us for the purpose of handling them. However, we know they exist
and we use the change of velocity properties of particles to make measurements
within them. The measurements of distance and periods of time can point to the
existence of other qualities, but can never make known the physical nature of
those qualities. All that is ever known with empirical certainty is that there are
objects in the universe that change their own velocities and cause the
velocities of others to also change.
When the theorist uses physical qualities that are not distance,
time, force or resistance to force, then it is pure theory. Since the true
physical qualities cannot be known, then the theorist’s imaginings could easily
be wrong. It is the skeletal mathematical equations and not their
interpretations that make predictions about changes of velocity. For
example, the theorist may imagine that photons are like bundles of energy.
However, this idea cannot be derived from the fundamentals and cannot be shown
empirically.
What the empirical evidence says, and what the fundamentals point
to, is that photons are increments of force that can be applied across a
measure of distance and duration of time. For stable environmental conditions,
the force is fixed and so are the increments of distance and time. The
empirically supplied key to achieving understanding is force. Force is what
needs to be explained. Theoretical explanations such as ‘Force is the rate of
change of momentum.’ are artificial, theoretical stopping points that
prematurely end our quest for understanding. What is the empirical, universal,
physical quality that can explain the existence of force? This question is not
yet answered by theoretical physics.