|
Earth/matriX SCIENCE TODAY Redefining the Kilogram as
of Planck’s Constant: A Critical
Commentary Charles William Johnson ©2010
Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
New definitions have been proposed for the kilogram and some of the other SI
units1, definitions which may be decided upon next year,
2011. I shall limit comments to the possible redefinition of the
kilogram.
Apparently, some scientists are concerned with the possibility that the International
Prototype Kilogram (IPK), the 120-plus year old platinum-iridium cylinder
stored at the CPIM, has suffered loss of mass during its lifespan.
Briefly, the IPK no longer weighs exactly one kilogram.
My first thought upon reading about this concern was that the scientists, who
wish to discard the IPK as a supposed definition of the kilogram, are
actually not talking about redefining the kilogram. Rather they are
proposing replacing an ideal type of an artifact, the IPK that weighs supposedly
exactly one kilogram, with some other device.
Now, after reading proposals for the redefinition of the kilogram, I am
convinced that their concern is related to the particular IPK and not to a
theoretical redefinition of the concept of a kilogram. Whether the kilogram
is illustrated by an example of a metal cylinder or some other device does
not affect the definition of the kilogram itself. _____ 1 Mills,
I., Mohr, P., Quinn, T., Taylor, B., and Williams, E., Redefinition of the
kilogram: a decision whose time has come, Metrologia,
2005, 42:71-80. And, Mills, I., Mohr, P., Quinn, T., Taylor, B., and
Williams, E., Redefinition of the kilogram, ampere, Kelvin, and mole: a
proposed approach to implementing CIPM recommendation I (CI-2005), Metrologia, 2006, 43: 227-246.
In response to the cited articles in Metrologia,
a more recent article forwards the idea of an improved definition for the
concept of a kilogram.2 The authors of this proposal seek to
redefine the kilogram based on the physical constants, instead of on the IPK.
The purpose appears to be that of ridding science of the IPK, and replace it
with an “instrinsic non-artifact definition” [2:1].
The authors, Hill, Fox and Miller, suggest that there are two possible
methods for redefinition: one based on fixing the value of Planck’s
constant, h, and another on fixing the Avogadro constant NA,
utilizing distinct methods for realizing either one. The proposal to employ
Planck’s Constant and/or Avogadro’s constant for redefining the kilogram
caught my attention immediately. As I have recently written an extensive
critique of how the Planck constant appears to be based on contradictory, if
not erroneous theoretical computations.3
According to authors Hill, Fox, and Miller, the authors cited in the Metrologia publications
present three concrete definitions for the kilogram:
“The kilogram is the mass of a body whose equivalent energy is equal to
that of a number of photos whose frequencies sum to exactly (2997924582
/ 66260693) x 10-41 hertz.
“The kilogram is the mass of a body whose de Broglie-Compton frequency is
equal to exactly (2997924582 / 66260693) x 10-34 hertz
“The kilogram, unit of mass, is such that the Planck constant is exactly
6.6260693 x 10-34 joule second.” [2:2]
In my view, before anyone can redefine the kilogram based on physical
constants, these must offer a precise theoretical interpretation. For
example, the Planck constant itself represents a numerical average of
other _____ 2
Hill, T.P.; Fox, R.F.; Miller, J, A Better Definition of the Kilogram,
Published in Physics arXiv, September 16,
2007. 3 pages. My undated version consists of ten pages, cited in brackets
in this essay. 3 Johnson, Charles
William, The Planck Constants Based on the Fundamental Physical
Constants, With Tables., Earth/matriX
Editions P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 70183-1126, U.S.A. ISBN
1-58616-464-3. http://www.earthmatrix.com/sciencetoday/planckconstant/planck_units_fundamental_constants_codata_errors.html measured values.
Furthermore, by their own admission, scientists do not know how Planck
derived computationally or theoretically the Planck constant, only that
supposedly its numerical value works.
The proposals to redefine the kilogram based on physical constants, whichever
these may be, are theoretical unsound. The kilogram, obviously,
represents one thousand grams. The gram is the actual base unit
for measurement for mass/weight in this case. The kilogram is an obvious
multiple of the base unit the gram. Yet, in these proposals the kilogram
itself has come to represent the main unit of measurement in spite of it
being a multiple thereof.
Essentially this occurs because the proposals are made in relation to the
artifact IPK and not in relation to the theoretical redefinition of the gram.
To be consistent theoretically, in order to redefine the kilogram it is
necessary to revise the original definition of a gram [not a kilogram]. For
in fact this is the definition that is ultimately being replaced or redefined
supposedly in their proposals.
“A gram is metric unit of measure for mass. It is the weight of one
milliliter of water at a temperature of 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit.” This
wording is the common definition of a gram.
A kilogram represents one thousand of those grams,
or “metric units of measure for mass”. The different proposals
are concerned with the IPK, the physical artifact weighing one kilogram.
There is no mention of the definition of the gram. Redefining the kilogram,
in my mind, would mean redefining the gram, the base unit of measurement
implied in the kilogram. There is no such discussion in the cited works.
From the title of their article, “A Better Definition of the Kilogram”,
I suspected something was theoretically amiss here. The authors Hill, Fox and
Miller seek to find another example of a kilogram weight. They do not treat
the definition of a gram, which represents in my mind the theoretical
starting point of any effort to treat its multiple, the kilogram.
The cited authors mention “explicit-unit definitions” and “explicit-constant
definitions”. Then they state that their “own proposed redefinition of
the kilogram is a simple, concrete version of the method of fixing the
Avogadro constant NA, .... A kilogram is
the mass of 2250 x 281489633 atoms of carbon-12 at rest in their
ground state.” [2:2-3] The authors propose that the Avogadro constant be
expressed as a numerical value of a “perfect cube”, with volume, since
it cannot materially denote a 2-dimensional figure without volume.
And, when they do mention in an isolated fashion the gram, somehow they
expect to specify the “exact number of atoms in a gram” [2:3]. They also
“propose simultaneously fixing the exact value of Planck’s constant”.
[2:3] Counting the number of atoms in a gram would be an excellent starting
point to a theoretical discussion about redefining the gram. But, this does
not occur, only a suggestive comment is made as though it were actually
possible to obtain such a count.
But, not only do the authors consider it possible to count the atoms in a
gram, but somehow they contend that the numerical value of the Planck
constant can be fixed exactly for the kilogram. “The kilogram is such that
the Planck constant is exactly 6.6260693 x 10-34 joule second.”
[2:3]
At this point one obtains the idea that this entire discussion resembles that
of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.
“Once a new definition of the kilogram such as ...[theirs
or ours] is adopted, no man-made object (including the IPK) will ever have
mass exactly one kilogram, except by pure chance and then for only a few
nanoseconds. However, there still will be a need for practical realizations
of the kilogram similar to the various copies of the IPK.” [2:3] This
statement sounds like we are back to square one.
Further, they affirm that the proposed redefinition should be as cited in
other articles, “comprehensible to students in all disciplines” [2:8] In my
view, any student may comprehend the current definition of a gram: A gram
is metric unit of measure for mass. It is the weight of one milliliter of
water at a temperature of 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit. I find it difficult to
expect students to measure the kilogram based on an unending numerical value
as in the Planck constant, which in scientific literature has avoided its own
precise definition as to its changing numerical value over the years.
Similar so-called redefinitions of units of measurement have occurred before.
Consider what happened with the redefinition of the basic unit of measurement
for time, the second.
Remember the old definition: “The solar day was divided into 24 hours,
each of which contained 60 minutes of 60 seconds each, so the second was 1⁄86 400
of the mean solar day.”
In 1967, with the atomic clock, the measurement of time was essentially
withdrawn from our day-to-day lives --- even for students. Supposedly, the
second was redefined: "The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."
Similarly to the current attempt to redefine the kilogram, the redefinition
of the unit of time missed the theoretical mark. Consider the idea that
scientists had their definition of “one second”, and set about finding in
Nature some such cycle that would occur within that time period. They found
the cycle or frequencies of the Cesium-133 atom.
But with that, the second was not actually redefined. Rather a more elaborate
gradation scale of its exemplification was employed ---from 1/86400 to
9,192,631,770 periods. The theoretical concept of one second remains: one may
consider it as representing 1/86400th of Earth’s orbital timing; or, one may
consider the second as containing 9,192,631,770 periods. Whichever the
particular case, a second is a second. Further, one may consider it as
representing “I’ll catch my breath in a second”; pretty much anything
measurable.
Historically, then, the object of measurement changed from the Earth’s
orbital timing to the periods of radiation of a particular atom. The
theoretical concept of one second remains untouched throughout this process
of changing objects of analysis and measurement.
No matter which example is chosen to represent one second, scientists who
seek constancy and a fixed-unit definition are actually going against Nature,
i.e., spacetime. Spacetime
is constant change. Hence, it is not that our definition of time [a second]
of Earth’s orbital cycle is incorrect. Rather, the Earth’s orbital timing
based on its many motions of revolution, rotation, nutation and the like, are
forever changing.
There in then, an obvious theoretical contradiction in scientists seeking to
find a fixed unit of measurement for all mass and all time, when mass and
time themselves are in constant flux.
The same theoretical considerations apply to the search for a constant, fixed
definition of the [kilo]gram. The theoretical
concept of the gram [or, kilogram] may be retained. What changes over time
are the specific and particular objects that supposedly represent as
matter/mass that a priori definition of the weight of one kilogram.
Even though the platinum-iridium artifact [IPK] is possibly losing an
incommensurable number of atoms (and not everyone agrees on this), the
definition of one gram remains intact. “A gram is metric unit of
measure for mass. It is the weight of one milliliter of water at a temperature
of 39.2 degrees Fahrenheit.”
This definition is not erroneous, nor does it require redefining in terms of
something else. It works, both in theory and in practice. And, even though it
may go unrecognized in these proposals to redefine the kilogram, it
represents the basis upon which even the selection of using the Planck
constant is made.
It matters not which particular example is used to supposedly exemplify its
measurement. Whether one uses a certain amount of water at a certain degree
of temperature or, one employs some physical constant like Planck’s constant
or Avogadro’s constant, the issue remains the same. A gram is a gram: a gram
of measured water or, a gram of supposedly measured atoms or, even a kilogram
of measured plutonium-iridium metal in the form of a cylinder.
In none of these three practical examples, as in none of the so-called
proposals to redefine the kilogram, is the concept of the gram altered. In
all cases it is merely exemplified. Historically, the events are such, that
the object of measurement was replaced. The water was replaced by the
platinum-iridium cylinder in a vault; and now, this metal cylinder is being
replaced by an abstracted count of atoms.
Again, the same occurred when the scientists supposedly redefined the second.
Only its object of measurement [not unit of measurement] has been
replaced by the Cesium-133 atom. The example employed is no longer the
orbital path/timing of the Earth; supposedly. Understandably, the second of
Earth’s day is used by everyone in our daily lives.
Consider: without the theoretical concept of one second, the particular
chosen cycle of periods of radiation of Cesium-133 would make no sense.
The question to ask is whether that particular cycle of Cesium-133 periods of
radiation represents a particular cycle natural to the element Cesium. If
that were the case, and that amount of frequencies emitted by the Cesium-133
atom actually represented in a naturally given cycle [not one chosen by
scientists], then what a powerful conclusion would be required.
Were the 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation of Cesium-133 to actually
reflect a natural cycle of the Cesium atom, then that coincidence between
that atomic cycle and the planetary cycle of Earth’s orbital timing
would cause scientists much concern.
There is no supernatural coincidence between the number of periods of
radiation of the Cesium-133 atom and the Earth’s second of time ---other than
as defined by those scientists who made the so-called redefinition of the
second.
Further, there is no redefinition of the second as a unit of measurement of
time that was supposedly achieved with the atomic clock. A second of time is
still a second of time, irrespective of the relationships chosen to exemplify
its temporal period. The definition of one second as a unit of measuring time
has remained intact both before and after the advent of atomic clocks.
What changed was the object of measurement used to exemplify that unit/act of
measurement. In other words, are the 9,192,631,770 periods of the
radiation cycles of Cesium-133 a natural cycle of that element, or, is
that number of cycles superimposed upon our theoretical concept of one
second of Earth’s timing? In my view, the latter is the case.
The concept of one second in the historically significant time system based
on 24-hours, 60-minutes, 60-seconds, 1000ths of
one second is a purely human invention for dividing time on Earth. By no
means does its represent a dimensionless system for measuring spacetime/motion.
For that, it would be better to employ the concept of metric time
and that of a metric second, as in 100000 seconds per Earth
day. This would correlate the measurement of time with other metric units of
measurement.
A similar situation occurred again in 1983 when the unit of measurement the meter
was supposedly redefined. The proposal then was to redefine the meter as ebing “exactly 1/299792458 seconds, thereby
eliminating the need for the official artifact platinum-iridium meter stick
forever” [2:3].
However, in my view, with this the unit of measurement the meter was not
redefined as scientists continue to affirm today. The artifact as of which a
meter is measured was exchanged for a distinct relationship of spacetime/motion, another form of matter-energy. The
meter continues to be the meter to this day. The example that we use to
define its gradation scale has changed.
Instead of using the artifact platinum-iridium meter stick/bar, the device is
now a relationship of the speed of a photon and distance. The photon in vacuo replaced the platinum-iridium bar in a vault.
Without a doubt, the same outcome shall obtain today if scientists follow
through on their attempts to redefine the kilogram. The definition of one
gram of mass/weight shall remain intact, as defined above. The use of lengthy
numerical values as in the Planck Constant or in the Avogadro Constant will
not change that.
By having larger numbers in the atomic units of time [second; Cesium], in the
photonic unit of distance [meter; light speed], and/or in the atomic unit of
mass/weight [gram; protonic], an appearance is given to a greater degree of
exactness and accuracy in the definitions of these units of measurement. That
may be the apparent case as of the lengthy numerical values involved in their
computations. Nevertheless, there is no redefinition of terms. The second,
the meter, and the gram remain the same as far as their unitary definitions
are concerned. One second, one meter, and one [kilo]gram
remain the same before as after their supposed redefinitions.
The redefining procedure that has been prevalent throughout science for the
past fifty years or so, reminds me of the age-old question, what weighs more
one kilogram of feathers or one kilogram of steel? One can understand this
better when the question is specific to today’s discussion: what weighs more,
one kilogram of a platinum-iridium artifact or, one kilogram of 2250 x
281489633 atoms of carbon-12? The object of measurement
changes in each one of these examples, but in neither of the examples does
the definition of one kilogram suffer any change. No doubt, it would be a
valid scientific exercise for scientists to exemplify the kilogram in terms
of the number of atoms in the platinum-iridium artifact, instead of its gross
weight as an artifact, or instead of using the carbon-12 atoms.
Exactness in language in science writing is important. The idea that the
second has been redefined with atomic clocks, or, that the meter has been
redefined with the speed of a photon, or, that the kilogram is going to be
redefined with the use of a theoretical physical constant and its
corresponding atom count, together represent deficient reasoning and writing.
If we are so concerned about student perceptions, then we must be exact
in our own definitions of terms.
In the various proposals of redefinition cited in this essay, there has been
no redefinition of terms. Only the objects of analysis and measurement have
been replaced for each of the units of measurement examined here. The
examples of what are being weighed are undergoing change, that’s all. The IPK
simply does not weigh one kilogram anymore according to some scientists. So,
one must find a substitute to represent that measure of weight/mass.
Instead of substituting it for another artifact, the purpose is to derive an
abstracted count of a certain amount of atoms as a prototype of a kilogram of
something. That something could be a specific amount of atoms of say the
Carbon-12 element, or it could even be something else.
But none of this has to do with a “better definition of a kilogram”. And,
whether the count of atoms has to do with a “better exemplification of a
kilogram”, well, that remains to be seen and requires a totally different
theoretical mindset from the one that I have followed in this critical
commentary.
Going from a division of 1000ths of a second to 9,192,631,770
periods of the radiation, or, from one kilogram of an artifact to one
kilogram of 2250 x 281489633 atoms of carbon-12, in no way
constitutes in my mind “an atom-counting definition of the kilogram that
fixes NA ... is simple, conceptually, enabling it to be widely
understood...”. [2:8-9]
The use of such abstracted large numbers, with so many decimal places, and
unending expressions, in no way constitutes conceptual simplicity in my mind.
The lengthy numbers may offer the appearance of greater accuracy or exactness
in the measurements, but even that is questionable.
Aside from confusing the redefinition of a theoretical unit of measurement
with how that unit of measurement is exemplified, one must examine the word
choice in these proposals. For example, consider the repeated use of the
words “exact/exactly” throughout the cited article, as though its repetition
may somehow impose its quality.
Again, the Planck constant is an unending fractional number. It would be
totally arbitrary to declare it a fixed number, as though fixed for all mass
and all time, and all relations. The CODATA Planck constant’s numerical value
is derived as an average from various other acts of measurement. It is
impossible to fix a mean, or an average numerical value, especially one that
results from other imprecise measurements. The Planck constant is itself
recognized as inexact in that sense even by the handbooks of physical and
chemical constants.
Now, consider the authors’ affirmations about the nature of Avogadro’s
number. “Avogadro’s constant, the number of atoms in 12 grams of
carbon-12, is: NA = 844468893
= 602,214,162,464,240,116,093,369.” [2:8]
Just imagine the mental abstracted exercise in measuring one kilogram
artifact as against this particular 24-digit numerical expression.
Accordingly, this 24-digit value may never be confirmed in its exactness, as
in counting each particular “atom, molecule, ion, electron or other
particle” to the degree suggested by the digits of this number.
The authors go even further in their repetition of exactness: “and, ...The mole is the amount of substance that contains
exactly 844468893 specified elementary entities, which may be
atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles or specified groups of
such particles.” [2:8] And, remember, they chose a number to the cube since
that reflects volume, given that “mass and mole are inherently
3-dimensional”, whereas squared values do not. Supposedly, then,
Avogadro’s number reflects the “perfect cube”.
I propose that no one knows for a fact how many atoms exist in the IPK, the
cited platinum-iridium artifact around which this entire discussion revolves.
These scientists want to replace that solid artifact whose weight and
measurements can be taken at any moment with certain precision. Still, we do
not know how many atoms make up that single exemplary artifact.
In spite of that, these scientists want to replace that solid artifact with a
supposedly “exact” atom-count in theory, in abstractio,
as though this so-called theoretical proposal were “a better definition of
the kilogram”.
Everything proposed regarding the redefinition of the kilogram, the second,
the meter, and so on, as far as I can tell, does not represent a redefinition
of a distinct or improved definition of the those particular concepts. Merely
specific measured devices or theoretical contraptions have been proposed and
even adopted to define the existing concepts [meter, second, gram, etc.].
These units of measurement concepts remain intact.
There is no theoretical reason why one could not choose a kilogram of bird’s
feathers to represent the weight and mass of a kilogram, or any other
particular choice of materials that are subject to being weighed. One could
base the meter as a unit of measurement for distance on the speed of sound
similarly as has been done based on the speed of light in vacuo. In either case, the meter traveled by sound or
by light, in both cases, when measured precisely and exactly, will be one
meter in either case.
Or, instead of taking the frequency of Cesium-133, some other material event
that could be used to mark off time in seconds, as occurs all the time in the
orchestration of musical instruments. The beat of the second remains the same
as a unit of measurement in both music and matter. Music is matter in motion.
In none of the cited cases, have the definitions of meter, second, gram,
etc., been redefined. The system of measurement remains the same in all
instances, and the units employed for those acts of measurement continue to
be identified as they were since their inception. Only the materials employed
to establish their supposedly more precise measurement have changed and are
being changed in scientific discourse. On a day-to-day basis they are changed
infinitely so in our everyday actions, of buying special cuts of meat at the
meat market.
But, let us not confuse the contributions of scientists today in attempting
to achieve more relevant and precise measurements.
One way is to rethink this tendency of employing examples of measurement that
involve materials and abstractions beyond the reach of the layperson and
students alike. These mentally abstracted examples of measurement also lie
beyond the reach of many scientists, physicists and chemists who do not have
access to the instruments of measurement, such as in a multi-million dollar
watt-balance laboratory. The question is simple: who has access to the
instruments and materials related to measuring the element Cesium-133 to tell
time; or, to the speed of a photon in vacuo; or, to
the number of atoms in carbon-12?
With “better” definitions of these kinds, not only laypersons are left out of
measuring stuff, but even most scientists remain outside the commensurable
loop.
Now, I said that in order to consider the theoretical level of the proposal
of using the Planck constant to measure the [kilo]gram, one would have to
consider the numerical value of that constant first, before anything else. I
did not do that, I saved these considerations for last.
Before one suggests employing the Planck constant to redefine the act of
measurement of mass/weight, one must consider whether that particular
constant is correct in its numerical value. That would mean determining whether
the Planck constant could even be used to determine a particular measurement
of mass, as in the definition or exercise offered by the cited authors, Hill,
Fox and Miller.
Forget about wanting to fix the value of the Planck constant for a moment,
which everyone knows is an unending number. First consider whether the
numerical value given for the Planck constant is even computationally
correct.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, in order to derive the Planck constants, one
must employ two different numerical values. For it is mathematically
impossible to derive the numerical values of all of the Planck constants as
of a single value for implied mass.
Without repeating my earlier analyses, suffice it to say, that in order to
derive the Planck constant {6.62606896 fractal} and the Planck mass
{2.17643986 fractal} two different numerical values are necessary for implied
mass in the computations.
By way of the value for implied energy {1.956300196}, one requires an implied
mass value of 3.387040 in order to thus derive the Planck
constant, 6.62600689. By way of the elementary charge
{1.602176487}, one requires an implied mass value of 3.487040 in
order to derive the Planck mass 2.17644 value. It is impossible
mathematically, to derive both the numerical values of the Planck
constant and the Planck mass constant based solely upon either one of the
cited values for implied mass, either 3.387040 or 3.487040.
In my mind, as I have explained throughout my analyses of the CODATA
constants, the previous contradiction of numerical values represents an error
in the Planck constants. If this is correct, then “fixing” the value of the
Planck constant is without meaning. Even supposedly deeming it to be “exact”
as given today by the CODATA, makes little sense.
In this light, the use of the Planck constant to supposedly better define the
kilogram or, in a more limited fashion, to even serve as a particular example
of the unit of measurement of the kilogram, is meaningless.
Similar observations hold for other CODATA constants cited in the previous
articles that are critiqued in my essay. For example, reference is made to an
alternative analysis employing the de Broglie-Compton frequency. In a
precious essay, I have shown that the Compton Wavelength represents the
fractal reciprocal of the Planck implied length constant. http://earthmatrix.com/sciencetoday/planckconstant/fractal_reciprocal_planck_implied_lenght.html, Part of the text from my
analysis follows:
“The Compton wavelength numerical value is presented also in the CODATA as
the natural unit of length: fractal 3.8615926459. Now, consider its
relationship to the Planck implied time value: 3.8615926459
times 8.637717964 equals 3.335534816. [n.u. of length | Planck implied time | reciprocal of
speed of light] The natural unit of length, i.e., the Compton
wavelength, times the Planck implied time yields the fractal reciprocal of
the speed of light in a vacuum.
“The product, 3.335534816, is suggestive of the reciprocal of the speed of
light in a vacuum 3.33564095. This particular equation makes all the sense in
the world; it just needs to be turned around. Reciprocal speed
of light | Planck implied time | n.u. length 3.33564095
divided by 8.637717964 equals 3.86171552”
As I have demonstrated in my earlier studies about the physical constants,
many of the numerical values of the CODATA constants are merely multiple,
fractal and reciprocal expressions of one another. It is possible to
illustrate how many CODATA constants derive from other physical and chemical
constants themselves. It is possible to suggest employing the physical and chemical
constants as a basis for the theoretical explanation and definition of
certain units of measurement.
But, such explanations would require more extensive considerations than those
presented in this brief critical commentary about the so-called redefining of
the kilogram.
Names may be changed, but the basic unit of measurement remains the same.
This also occurred with regard to the change from the Celsius temperature
scale to the Kelvin scale. Essentially, little was changed between the
Celsius and Kelvin scales other than the order of the numbers on the
gradation scale itself. The degrees in Celsius and the kelvin units are
basically the same measured length on those two scales. One degree Celsius
equals one kelvin. There was no redefinition of the scale of gradations, nor
was there a change in the length or degree that mercury travels in the
thermometer when heated or cooled. The Kelvin scale retained the logic of the
centigrade Celsius, scale it simply inverted the numbers. The gradation scale
for Celsius -273.15AZ to 0.00FPW became 0.00AZ to 273.15FPW on the Kelvin
scale.
This procedure was similar to what the Celsius scale did regarding the prior
centigrade scale. The gradation 100FPW to 0.00BPW on the previous centigrade
scale became 0.00FPW to 100BPW on the Celsius scale. The unit of measurement,
expressed as degrees or kelvin remained intact. The Kelvin scale did
not redefine the Celsius temperature scale as such. The names were changed to
protect the gradation scale, the units of measurement of temperature.
Unlike the Celsius and kelvin temperature scales, the Earth/matriX thermodynamic temperature scales represent changes
in the gradation scale itself. My research seeks to develop a distinct system
of measurement at different levels of analysis. But, in order to achieve
that, it is not necessary to choose specific examples that illustrate or
define the existing units of measurements. It is necessary to consider
changing the system of units of measurements in its entirety.
In order to achieve a distinct system of measurement, one must convert to
metric time, to matter-energy units of temperature as on the proposed Earth/matriX temperature scales, along with other significant
changes. I invite the reader, not to limit the analysis to examples of
measured events as those being proposed in the literature under review here.
I invite considerations for transforming the entire system of measurement and
our way of thinking about the unitary measurement of spacetime/motion
and its different forms of matter-energy.
Undoubtedly, one must employ the old units of measurements, such as the
meter, the second, the gram, the degree/kelvin, etc. But the need exists to
rethink the relationships behind those concepts. That means re-examining the
current tendency to derive relationships and not artifacts of
matter-energy for exemplifying the units of measurement. -0- ©2010 Copyrighted by Charles
William Johnson. All rights reserved. reproduction
prohibited. |
|
Author: Charles William Johnson
|
Book Read how the implicit formula designed into Einstein's famous equation predetermines the numerical results obtained are generally confusing or redundant. The confusion is clarified when using Planck mass and Planck energy in the equation. Below is a brief excerpt of this essay, but it is best to read the entire line of reasoning behind the distinction of Einstein's formula and Einstein's equation. They are in fact two different aspects of the same numerical values. The former has to due with a rigidity in the design of the E-term, energy, and the latter emphasizes the behavior of the numerical values in the relation of equivalency. The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299,792,458 meters/second. The square of 299,792,458 produces a numerical value that does not exist in any material sense of matter-energy. It is just a "big number" as some scientists hold, while others identify that number as only a "mathematical tool". Johnson goes beyond a critique of Albert Einstein's famous formula based upon this unreal number. The rejection of the logic behind Einstein's formula is explored through basic math, the summation of power's in the terms of the equation. This study also examines the powers of c (the measured speed of light in a vacuum) as contained in symbolic formulae of the Planck constants for Planck Mass and Planck Energy .The Planck constants are considered in light of c-square and other higher values for the exponents of mass and energy.
|
||
|
|
