Physics of spacetime 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 spacetime 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 spacetime. 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 9×10^{9}
newton (= kg×m/sec^{2}) 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 chargeunit or elementary charge or just charge. And since
we actually mean chargeunit, we better also call it chargeunit 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 chargeunit 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 6.2422×10^{18}
chargeunits, 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
6.2422×10^{18} chargeunits exactly, or
6.25×10^{18}. 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
chargeunits it really stands for. Everywhere where we see C in physics, we can
replace C by 6.2422×10^{18} 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 spacetime 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
6.2422×10^{18}. 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
6.2422×10^{18}. 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 massunits, 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 massunit, 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 packetcharacter. 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 5.9712×10^{26}, 1 gram
the number 5.9712×10^{23}. We even can declare 1 kg to be exactly
that number, or the number 6×10^{26}.
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 spacetime, wherein everything is expressed
in terms of only meters and seconds, and numbers of course. Such a spacetime
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 spacetime 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 = 5.9712×10^{26}
(m/sec)^{2}
1 A (ampere) = C/sec then = 6.2422×10^{18} sec^{1}
1 V (volt) = J/C then = 9.5659×10^{7} (m/sec)^{2}
1 (ohm) = V/A then = 1.5325×10^{11}
m^{2}/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 massunits then always is
playing. V is the energy per charge, a number of the massunits then also is
chargeunit. In the masscharge relation is the
number of massunits per the square of the number of chargeunits.
The information about these mass and chargenumbers 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 massunits
per the number of chargeunits; 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 quantumphysics, 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 5.9712×10^{26} (m/sec)^{2} then h changes into 3.9559×10^{7} m^{2}/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 c^{2} and then h/c^{2} = 4.4017×10^{22} second.
Actually, h is that famous quantum in quantumphysics, 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 wavelength
for example. Because if the wavelength 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 spacemeasure,
which standard we, so the particles, use to measure each other. And since space
is nothing but measuring and being measured we meet this
spacemeasure, 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} sec^{2}/m^{3}.
And when sec^{2}/m^{2} is considered to be 1/c^{2}, 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/c^{2} 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 standardmass 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 m^{2}/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 notempty 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 spacetime 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 screwthread when we see a boltnut 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 2dimensional world. That is why a 4dimensional world also might be
possible in our mind. From this 4dimensional point of view, one then would
look at our 3dimensional world, like we look at beings who think there only
are 2 dimensions.
We know better then, see what the 2dimensionals do not see. And that is why
there could exist a still better knowing, untouchable for us
3dimensionals.
We can not picture it, nevertheless we can understand it as an image.
In the same way we can imagine a protonelectron 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
protonelectron 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
innerspace and outerspace, 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 valuejudgment. 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 innerspace
versus outerspace 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
innerspace 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 valuejudgment. That is what we know.
Concentrated or concentrating inner space, that actually is the most objective
description of mass.
There also is something like outerspace in our world, the field of light,
spreading out in the cosmos.
And then of course there also are borderareas between inner and outerspace,
there where electrons are dwelling and playing around atoms, molecules and
things. And in these borderareas 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 selfaware in the beginning, so only felt a relation with
their innerspace, 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 protonelectron couple,
relating with the innerspace but also with the outerspace.
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 outerspace 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 massunits of bacon (±1,66 kg).
Jan Helderman
end 1999  beginning 2000
