## Physics of space-time part II, meters and seconds

### II.1. The superfluous standards gram and coulomb

An important task for physics is to measure physical phenomena and to express these phenomena in a mathematical way. And of course one needs standards then to express these quantities.

Since there are many different physical phenomena, there also are many different standards in physics, like in daily life.
We measure space and time, speed and acceleration, weight, temperature, pressure, energy, all kinds of electromagnetic phenomena and so on. And for every phenomenon we have a standard, like the meter, the second, the kilogram, the degree, the watt, the ampere, the volt et cetera.

Most of these standards however can be reduced to only 4 standards, the meter (m) for space, the second (sec) for time, the kilogram (kg = 1000 gram) for mass and the coulomb (C) for electric charge. Other standards are combinations of some or all of these four standards, like speed is meter per second, ampere is coulomb per second, joule is kilogram times the square of a speed et cetera.

Reality is much more simple than the description of science. Everything you see and experience is nothing but a space-time relating between neutrons, protons and electrons. These particles all have a mass, while protons and electrons also have a charge. And whatever you see, hear, taste, smell, breathe or feel, you always experience a relating between these fundamental parts.
These particles move and act in space and time and then we feel our body, feel warmth or the wind, or we see colors, taste or smell food, hear music or noise, see pictures on the screen et cetera.
Mass and charge moving in space and time, that is all there is, as far as the quantity is concerned, the map made by physics.

So the four basic standards are m, sec, kg and C. They can describe everything, together with figures of course.
And even the kilogram and the coulomb can be eliminated. And to show that, is the purpose of this part II of physics of space-time. The result then is physics of only space and time, physics that perfectly fits modern insights, I think, wherein mass has lost its absolute character.

Why are the kg and the C superfluous? Let us start with the coulomb.
When people first discovered electricity, they of course did not know much about it. They for instance did not know the electron yet as the source of charge, as the smallest charge unit.
A rather arbitrary amount of charge therefore is chosen as standard for charge and is called 1 coulomb . A charge is 1 C if it causes a force of 9×109 newton (= kg×m/sec2) on an equal charge at a distance of 1 meter, in the empty space.

Nowadays we know that there is a smallest charge, the charge of an electron which equals the opposite charge of a proton. An amount of charge always is a whole number of electrons; too many electrons is called a negative charge, too few electrons a positive charge. And half electrons do not exist.

So there is a real unit of charge in reality. If we were free to choose the standard for charge now, we undoubtedly would choose this natural unit as standard.
Why are we still using an artificial and obscure standard like the coulomb when there is a natural standard like the electron? Because we are used to it, I think. Practical reasons may also play a role. For if we really choose the electron as the new standard for charge, then at first sight millions of measuring devices must be replaced. However, if we do it clever, we do not have to change much in practice.

First theory. Like I said, if we would choose the standard for charge now, we undoubtedly would choose the electron as natural standard, for example by calling its charge 1 coulomb.
But when we say that 1 electron has a charge of 1 coulomb, what then is the meaning of the word coulomb?
This meaning then is charge-unit or elementary charge or just charge. And since we actually mean charge-unit, we better also call it charge-unit instead of coulomb. Calling it coulomb does not bring any extra information, on the contrary, it hides information; it then looks as if coulomb has a significance.

So let us call the charge of 1 electron = 1 charge-unit or just 1 charge. Bigger charges then are a whole number of charges.
We then express reality much more clear and accurate than by saying that the charge of 1 electron = 1.602×10-19 C like we do now. And a charge of 1 C then becomes a charge of 6.2422×1018 charge-units, exactly what really is the case.

 1 electron = 1.602x10-19 C, is like 1 human = 1.602x10-10 mankind.   It is true that we do not know that number exactly then, so not all 18 numbers after the decimal point. But that also is true if we call that number 1 C.
We can make the number exact, simply by declaring that 1 C in future is 6.2422×1018 charge-units exactly, or 6.25×1018. Then the problem has become a practical problem, the problem to weigh exactly 6,250,000,000,000,000,000 electrons.

So it would be wise to replace the standard coulomb by the number of charge-units it really stands for. Everywhere where we see C in physics, we can replace C by 6.2422×1018 charges. We could choose a letterform for the new standard then, ec for example (elementary charge).

But if you say that the charge of 1 electron = 1 charge, then you also can express the charge with just the number 1. I mean, we already have said that we mean charge, so why saying charge again? When I say "The number of people is 10." then it is perfectly clear what I mean. I do not have to say "The number of people is 10 people.".
You do not have to say that the charge is X charges. The charge is X. That suffices. Charge is a number.

So we can easily eliminate the standard coulomb and replace it by the number that is meant then, without losing information. On the contrary, we then gain information; children then automatically learn that charge consists of smallest units.

And that also is all we know. What exactly is charge? We do not know, we can not explain further. We know that charge can move, always moves actually, and then we can measure these movements as warmth, as light, as force, as energy and the like. And energy and the like then consist of smallest packets, because the working charge consists of smallest parts.
That is all we measure, a movement in space and time consisting of smallest packets. What is charge? A potential space-time movement, that is all we know.

Now about the practical implications. Do we have to throw away all our old measuring devices, when we replace C by that number?
No, because we can continue to use the word coulomb, but then as the name of a number, like kilo means 1000. C then becomes the number 6.2422×1018. Then we do not have to replace our measuring devices. The change then only is a change in the theory.

And I repeat: Also now the significance of the word coulomb is nothing but that number. So let us be honest and replace the symbol C by the number 6.2422×1018. That really is all we know.

A same story can be told about the kilogram, the standard for mass, though there seems to be a problem here, since there are 3 units of mass, the neutron, the proton and the electron. But that is not really a problem, I think. An isolated neutron automatically falls apart into a proton plus an electron after a while, so changes into a hydrogen atom. So the neutron in a way contains the proton and the electron.

We anyhow could choose the neutron as standard for mass, instead of that arbitrary piece of steel in Paris, or what- and wherever this standard may be today. That would really be an improvement since we use a natural standard then.
The word kilogram then would mean a number of mass-units, an equivalent number of neutrons, and that also really is the case. In theory, every piece of mass can be reduced to a number of neutrons, provided that it is an electrically neutral piece of mass. If the mass has a charge, we also are left with some protons or some electrons.

So the mass of 1 neutron can be called 1 mass-unit, or just 1 mass. But when you say "The mass of 1 neutron = 1 mass.", you of course also can forget that second use of the word mass. The mass of 1 neutron = 1, that suffices. Mass then is a number, and that also is all we know about it.
What is mass? Mass too only can be measured as a movement, as weight, as warmth, as wind, as force, as energy. Measuring itself is such a movement as well, measuring is weighing.
And these movements then always have a packet-character. One can not divide weight or energy and the like into infinitely small packets. And that is because the working mass consists of smallest particles.

So the standard gram also can be eliminated, like the coulomb. Even must be eliminated, I think, since these standards are completely useless, while in an exact science like physics there is no room for useless things.
And also now the word gram has no other meaning than a number, a figure. So let us be honest and use that number instead of an obscure word like gram, as if gram has a meaning .

And also here it would be wise to keep on using the words gram and kilogram, however with the difference that these words in future only mean figures, numbers. One kg then becomes the number 5.9712×1026, 1 gram the number 5.9712×1023. We even can declare 1 kg to be exactly that number, or the number 6×1026.

I really can not see any argument against elimination of the gram and the coulomb. Not a practical argument either when we continue to use the words gram and coulomb to express numbers, so that we do not have to throw away our measuring devices. I only see benefits, for our children for example who automatically learn then that charge and mass always consist of whole numbers of smallest units.

And physics then becomes physics of space-time, wherein everything is expressed in terms of only meters and seconds, and numbers of course. Such a space-time physics then perfectly fits modern insights.

The existence of smallest units of mass and charge then becomes visible in physics in the form of smallest length measures or smallest lengths of time, fundamental space-time units.

So what will happen in physics?
When kg and C become numbers, then other standards also have a new significance.
1 J (joule) = kg×(m/sec)2 then = 5.9712×1026 (m/sec)2
1 A (ampere) = C/sec then = 6.2422×1018 sec-1
1 V (volt) = J/C then = 9.5659×107 (m/sec)2
1 (ohm) = V/A then = 1.5325×10-11 m2/sec

Everywhere in physics where we see C, kg, J, A, V and we now can replace these symbols by these new expressions in numbers, meters and seconds.

And also here we can continue to use these symbols J, A, V and especially in practice, but with a new significance. 1 A then is a number per second, 1 is a number times a length times a speed, while 1 J and 1 V then are numbers times the square of a speed.
J expresses mechanical energy and a number of mass-units then always is playing. V is the energy per charge, a number of the mass-units then also is charge-unit. In the mass-charge relation is the number of mass-units per the square of the number of charge-units.

The information about these mass- and charge-numbers and about the relation between the numbers is hidden in the words weight, energy, current, tension, resistance and the like. So when we replace both the kg and the C by numbers, physicists will never be confused about which numbers play a role. When they speak of tension for example, they know it is about the number of mass-units per the number of charge-units; kg/C then is superfluous in the standard, since kg/C is hidden in the word tension.

So let us replace C, kg, J, A, V and by their new expressions.
I begin with h, Planck's constant.
This h is very important in quantum-physics, for example in the formula E = h×f, wherein E is the energy of light and f is the frequency of light, the number of waves per second.
Planck's constant h = 6.625×10-34 Jsec (joule×second).
When we replace J by 5.9712×1026 (m/sec)2 then h changes into 3.9559×10-7 m2/sec.
And if we consider m/sec to be the speed of light c, then we find the length h/c = 1.3196×10-15 meter which length is as fundamental as h and c.
We also can divide h by c2 and then h/c2 = 4.4017×10-22 second.
Actually, h is that famous quantum in quantum-physics, discovered first by Max Planck. The essence of the quantum apparently is a length (or a distance).

Our reality is the result of the finiteness of our speed of light and for finite light there must exist a smallest space measure, a smallest wave-length for example. Because if the wave-length would become infinitely small, so zero, then light would become infinite as well, making a finite reality impossible.
So the essence of h apparently is a smallest space-measure, which standard we, so the particles, use to measure each other. And since space is nothing but measuring and being measured we meet this space-measure, so the quantum, everywhere in physics. Also the measures and even the mass of the fundamental particles must be characterized by this fundamental length.

As second example, the constant in Coulomb's law, which constant depends on the speed of light according to Maxwell's equation.
The constant = 8.8543×10-12 Asec/Vm (= C/Vm).
When we replace A (or C) and V by their new expressions, then = 5.7778×10-1 sec2/m3.
And when sec2/m2 is considered to be 1/c2, then the length 1.9257×10-17 meter appears in physics, which length is as fundamental as or c.
This length actually is the magnetic constant .
And  = 1/c2 according to Maxwell's equation.

The numerical values of these lengths do not have a fundamental significance. Because if we would have chosen an other length as standard meter, then the numerical values of the two lengths would be different as well.
The relation however between the two lengths is constant. Would we choose the electron instead of the neutron as standard-mass unit of 1, then both lengths would change proportionally, so that the relation between the lengths would stay the same.

And h/c is 68.52 times longer than .
This figure 68.52 (better known as 2×68.5 = 137) must have a deeper significance, I think. Although it very well may be possible that the figure can not be explained further, like it also seems impossible to me, to explain the relation (pi) further. There must be a relation then, that is for sure. But why exactly this figure? There is no further reason for that, I think.

Seeing more relations always brings more unity in reality and also in a theoretical system like physics. And this new unity then again can lead to seeing new relations et cetera.
We now for example see that Planck's constant h is expressed in the same combination of standards as the ohm, the standard for resistance against electric current, namely in terms of m2/sec, a length times a speed.
Planck's constant is ±25,813 ohm then. And since h is fundamental, ±25,813 may very well be a fundamental amount of resistance. And in 1980 the German physicist Klaus von Klitzing indeed discovered that ±25,813 behaves as a constant, a kind of natural unit of resistance.
The constant (resistance of a vacuum = 376.73 ) then appears to be 1/68.52 part of 25,813 ohm. There is that number 68.52 again.

Resistance, that seems to be the essence of all. And that of course also is the primary characteristic of a finitely fast light, compared with an infinitely fast light. A infinitely fast light does not need time to bridge space. Space then obviously does not have any resistance. A finitely fast light however experiences resistance, for it needs time to bridge space.
Even empty space has a resistance, for a finite light. The not-empty space, called matter, then of course has even more resistance.

### II.2. Meters, seconds and numbers

Physics then is space, time and numbers, dynamics of space and time.
But physics of course only is a map and not the area. In reality everything is distance, so space-time in one. Space only is space if it has a significance, and this significance always is experienced as the time it takes, in music as well and in color.
On the map however we can not express distance as a unity, so not express distance in 1 figure. There on the map, we have to split up distance in space separated from time.

It actually is time we can not catch and map. We can measure points of time, but not time itself. Time always is playing between the measured points of time, no matter how short the interval between the points is. This interval can never be zero, because then there is no time at all. So, the more we try to grasp time, by making the interval shorter and shorter, the deeper time is slipping away .

The map of physics only is a snapshot, like every map. Physics then not only is an understanding of the figures on the map, but also a right interpretation of the map itself, as just an abstraction, a snapshot on which time stands still.
We have to fill in time ourselves when reading the map, like we fill in the idea of the screw-thread when we see a bolt-nut couple.

And a right interpretation of the map it self as just a map, actually also is a right interpretation of what our mind is. And that, so understanding our mind, also is the main purpose of the Relational philosophy.

### II.3. Reality as relating between zero and infinite

Back to physics one more time.
Will we ever be able to really understand a proton and an electron and what plays in between?
Real understanding always involves picturing the thing. We can picture bolt and nut and man and woman and also feel what is playing in between. These relations also need a concrete form to express themselves.
A proton and an electron however, in a way are only size, size without a concrete form, a kind of formless form. And how can we picture that? Enclosing and being enclosed without something?   Nevertheless we can think of it and then see that such pure forms indeed might be possible. It is like understanding mathematics with more than the 3 space dimension we know. We anyhow know what a dimension is, and we even can picture a 2-dimensional world. That is why a 4-dimensional world also might be possible in our mind. From this 4-dimensional point of view, one then would look at our 3-dimensional world, like we look at beings who think there only are 2 dimensions.
We know better then, see what the 2-dimensionals do not see. And that is why there could exist a still better knowing, untouchable for us 3-dimensionals.

We can not picture it, nevertheless we can understand it as an image.
In the same way we can imagine a proton-electron couple. And the concrete forms of bolt and nut or man and woman even can be helpful then. These relations all must be family, because everything is made of protons and electrons in the end. So all possible relations already must have existed in the first proton-electron couple, as a potency and that also is something.

And in order to really understand, we also must realize that the immaterial relations are the real fundament, also of matter. When we buy a bolt and nut, we pay for the material. However, we actually buy the immaterial relation. Would bolt and nut be melted together, we would not buy the material. So not the material but the immaterial relations, that is where we are living for.
On a fundamental level these immaterial relations even define the materiality of proton and electron. That must be the case, since a particle can not exist without a relation first. A particle is a relation, a part compared with all, or compared with nothing.

But what then is that fundamental relation that creates matter out of nothing?
For an infinitely fast light, a zero piece of space and the eternal infinity are exactly the same, the same nothing at all. Main character of light with a finite speed however, is that it never can reach the zero point of nothing, nor the eternal infinity. That is exactly why it is finite.
So first of all, a finite light creates a difference between zero and infinite, with all finite measures as result in between. A finite light actually is a dwelling between zero and infinite, between nothing and all, an immaterial sphere around zero. A tensed sphere as well, a relative thing, a relating.
For this sphere there anyhow is a difference then between let us say inner-space and outer-space, while this difference not really exists, not objectively. Maybe the circle we think around an atom, really is a straight line with only left and right, seen from an other point of view?
We think an atom is very small, but that is a value-judgment. For a very slow light, our atom can be the whole cosmos.

The finite sphere it self, as finite awareness, as finite light, creates the difference, resulting in the existence, or at least experience, of inner-space versus outer-space with of course also border areas in between.  And that actually also is how our reality behaves, also if it concerns atoms and what plays between and inside them. There anyhow exists something like inner-space in our reality, hidden space in the nucleus of atoms. We will never be able to see that hidden space completely, only an infinite light can do that.
We call that space mass, the mass of neutrons and protons, or the mass of quarks. But we do not know what we mean with mass. It is limited space, that is what we know. And we can not reach it completely, that is also what we know. And it resists against changing its speed. And we call that space small, but that is a value-judgment. That is what we know.
Concentrated or concentrating inner space, that actually is the most objective description of mass.

There also is something like outer-space in our world, the field of light, spreading out in the cosmos.

And then of course there also are border-areas between inner- and outer-space, there where electrons are dwelling and playing around atoms, molecules and things. And in these border-areas everything is happening. Life literally is superficial.

Some final remarks about neutrons, protons and electrons, in a try to picture these particles.
This is my picture: Befóre the beginning, light was infinitely fast, experiencing nothing at all. Then, at the beginning, light became finitely fast by taking time . From that moment, there was a difference between here and there, and past and present.
In that limited field of view, points of view came to existence. These points of view only were self-aware in the beginning, so only felt a relation with their inner-space, like neutrons do.
Later however, these points also became aware of the surroundings and therefore aware of each other as well. The neutron became a proton-electron couple, relating with the inner-space but also with the outer-space.
And since then, bigger patterns of relations became possible, bigger atoms, molecules, things and beings. From that time mathematics also became possible and physics and life, as harmony in the patterns of relations.

Can we understand such a creative point of view, only starting with a difference between inner- and outer-space and then creating all the harmony and beauty out of that? I think so, and maybe we can even feel it better. Being moved by music, that also is understanding the music.

This of course is a qualitative description of an atom. But what is wrong with that?
We always give qualitative descriptions. Even mass, charge, space and time are qualitative concepts. See more about this subject in part II of the Relational philosophy.

In 1958 by the way, Dutch physicist prof. H.B.G. Casimir already pleaded for elimination of the standards gram and coulomb (Journal of Electronics and Control, Vol. 4, No. 5, p. 463, May 1958) in which article he imagined children in future going to the shop ordering for example 1000000000000000000000000000 mass-units of bacon (±1,66 kg).

Jan Helderman
end 1999 - beginning 2000 To SiteMapVersion Fabc.info 