
Our Price $17.95 Paperback In Stock 
Our Price $19.95 Paperback In Stock 
Our Price $18.95 Paperback In Stock 

The physics paradigm today is based mainly upon the concept of csquare, the squaring of the speed of light in a vacuum. Numerous fundamental physical and chemical constants provided in the physics literature [CODATA] reflect numerical values based upon powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo. The speed of light in a vacuum is determined to represent the upper limit of movement of massenergy by physicists. 
The upper speed limit for a light photon is 299792458 meters/second. The square of that number produces a numerical value that does not exist in any form of matterenergy. The csquare actually represents a number that corresponds to a near massless event: a light photon. The author goes beyond a critique of Albert Einstein’s famous formula based upon this unreal number. The rejection of Einstein’s formula is explored through basic math, the summation of powers in the equation’s terms. 
A common procedure followed in deriving many of the CODATA recommendations is to divide certain fundamental physical constants by the value of the elementary charge, e, 1.602176487. With regard to the Planck constants and units of measurement, the case is argued that Max Planck may have simply reversed engineered this procedure in order to derive his natural units. 
Planck Units of Mass, Momentum and Energy:
c^{7} , c^{8} , c^{9} Respectively,
Powers of the Speed of a Light Photon
Charles William Johnson
©January 2, 2011 Copyrighted
Earth/matriX Editions
Today's science literature gives the following values for Planck mass, momentum and energy units in scientific notation:
Planck mass 

2.17644(11)x 10^{8} kg 
Planck momentum 

6.52485 kg m/s 
Planck energy 

1.9561 x 10^{9}J 
These Planck Units represent sacred numbers within today's field of physics. Every few years these numerical values, along with a couple of hundred other fundamental physical constants' values are modified or refined. The fundamental physical constants are generally presented with a certain degree of uncertainty as though the precision in their measurements were scientifically proven [ as in 2.17644(11) x 10^{8} kg].
The numbers of these Planck Units, along with others, are generally not questioned with regard to their theoretical worth. It is taken for granted that these numbers are scientifically significant. In fact, these numbers along with other constants are deemed to be the basis of why our world is like it is today. And, were these numbers to have changed ever the slightest, we would not be living in the world we live in.
One cannot emphasize enough what these supposedly super precise Planck numbers mean to scientists in general and to physicists especially. They represent an unquestionable aspect of physics today, almost theoretically off limits.
In spite of all the excitement about the Planck Units as some kind of special units of measurement, these numerical values, as well as those of other Planck Units, reflect in fact the numerical values corresponding to the powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo:
Planck mass: c7 = 2.176431087
Planck momentum: c8 = 6.524776252
Planck energy: c9 = 1.956078711
From my perspective, there is no special theoretical basis to the numerical values granted to the Planck Units. Max Planck did not lay bare in detail the theoretical posits of his proposition at the end of the 19^{th} century when he first presented some of his socalled Universal units, what today have become known as Planck Units. And, the values that are assigned to the socalled Planck Units today have no special theoretical meaning. At least, no one has been able to offer an acceptable theoretical explanation, other than in terms of simply praising their worth as being Universal for all times and all places.
It is impossible to think that the Planck Units cited here, based on the numerical values of 2.17644, 6.52485, and 1.9561 might have some spacetime/motion meaning outside of the coincidental fact that they reflect powers of c, the speed of light in vacuo. I mean, just imagine the unbelievable coincidence that would have to exist to think that Planck and his followers happened upon three numbers that just happen to be randomly coincidental to three consecutive powers of c. The fact that those particular Planck Units just happen to have those values, obviously, does not reflect some intriguing theoretical position about the forms of matterenergy within spacetime.
One can only wonder why would the 2.17644 and 1.9561 numbers be rounded off, yet, the 6.52485 number is not rounded off to say 6.525. This question arises especially since the numerical values for the fundamental physical constants are constantly being searched and researched to distinguish their evergrowing number of decimal placements. It is intriguing to me, at least, why the numerical values of the Planck Units are obviously shortened versions of the powers of c, yet not managed as such in the science literature.
Obviously, there is no independent theoretical perspective for those three numbers based upon the physical measurement of spacetime and its forms of matterenergy. The theoretical posits of the Planck Units, in fact, are incommensurable. They are a theoretical idea that precisely presupposes the impossibility to measure them. Say for example, the impossibility to measure the first unitmass or unitenergy at the moment of the Big Bang! No one even knows whether the Big Bang actually existed or not; the theoretical meanderings about that particularly singular event are simply that, theoretical suppositions that can be neither proven nor disproven.
Upon contemplating the three cited numerical values for the three cited Planck Units
[ 2.17644, 6.52485, 1.9561 ] and their comparison to the powers of c, the speed of light in a vacuum,
[ 2.176431087, 6.524776252, 1.956078711 ] it is impossible to think that Planck and his followers just happened upon those numbers out of some kind of independent discovery about spacetime. Apparently, they searched the powers and roots of the speed of a photon of light.
Now, consider the improbability of such a coincidence by considering how those three values just happen to fulfill the requirements for a basic relationship within spacetime, within matterenergy.
Planck momentum divided by Planck mass yields c, the speed of light in a vacuum.
6.524776252 divided by 2.176431087 equals 2.99792458
Planck momentum divided by Planck mass equals c
c^{8} divided by c^{7} equals c^{1}
And, consider these values within the famous equation supposedly enunciated by Albert Einstein:
2.176431087 times c^{2} equals 1.956078711 [= Energy]
Planck mass times csquare equals Planck energy [ i.e., E = mc^{2} ]
c^{7} times c^{2} equals c^{9}
Were the numerical values of the given Planck Units to be substituted in the previous equations, similar results would obtain, but they would not be as precise in the terms of powers of c. They would be approximate; they would not be exact, precise or accurate. They would only be suggestive of the results produced by the powers of c.
One cannot expect to obtain relations of equivalency for massenergy based solely upon the numerical values of terms limited to c, the speed of light in a vacuum. By definition, physicists identify a light's photon as a massless event. By employing the numerical values related to the three cited Planck Units one is evidently relating only powers of c, in spite of the fact that one of the Planck Units is assigned the name of "Planck mass". Even though that particular numerical values [2.17644] may be called "Planck mass" by scientists from different fields of study, the fact remains that that particular numerical value suggests the relationship of c^{7}, the speed of a photon of light in a vacuum to its seventh power. And, with that, one is not referencing mass, but simply an imaginary state of the speed of a massless event in vacuo. The numerical value tied to c to the seventh power in fact reflects a nonevent, an imaginary number, one that does not exist in spacetime, in any form of matterenergy in terms of speed.
The fact that those three numerical values have been chosen by physicists is not evidently out of happenstance, nor out of practical measurement. Their selection evidently obeys the simple fact that they are relational mathematically in the equations deemed significant for talking about mass, energy and momentum with regard to spacetime and its different forms of matterenergy, specifically massenergy. But, those three numbers are not derived from the study of spacetime [matterenergy], but rather from the theoretical supposition that numerical values of c, the speed of light in vacuo, can be related to one another in relations of equivalency. That is simple math.
There are no theoretical posits in those three numbers regarding the existence of spacetime. In fact, one would have to begin again in considering the idea of Universal Units, Planck Units, dimensionless numbers/constants for all space, all time, all forms of matterenergy everywhere in the Universe. A single relationship of cterms, as shown, no matter how prestigious the equations may be that are employed for their manipulation, does not suffice to distinguish the features of the existence of spacetime. No doubt the concept of the maximum speed attained by matterenergy in spacetime, the speed of a light photon in a vacuum, is highly significant. But, it does not represent an omnithesis to spacetime existence. The speed of a light photon is but one form of matterenergy as defined by spacetime; it does not define spacetime and all forms of matterenergy thereof.
To transpose the numerical values of powers of c to encompass such theoretical concepts as the universal units of mass, momentum and energy in relation to themselves exceeds not only their theoretical worth, but their practical worth as well.
Further, given the exact numerical values yielded by the powers of c, there is no reason for the CODATA committee to continue to modify the cited numerical values for powers of c, as far as I can tell. Rather, the question seems to be the consideration for abandoning those numerical values as they reflect c, and not the supposed terms as defined by the Planck Units. Theoretically, it is unacceptable to employ powers of c exclusively to define relationships of mass, energy and momentum of all matterenergy, or even of specific forms of massenergy.
In my view, it is obvious that whoever selected the three numerical values under discussion here for the Planck Units [2.17644, 6.52485, 1.9561] did so based upon the powers of c, albeit in summary form. It is amusing to note the existence of these numbers in the science literature, along with affirmations that Einstein's formula reflects a certain amount of magic as to how Einstein happened upon the value of csquare. Csquare in Einstein's famous formula simply has significance because it is in relationship to two other significant values, c^{7} and c^{9}.
c^{9} is Energy; c^{7} is mass; and, c^{2 }is simply c^{2} .
The names of two of the terms energy and mass have been changed, but the numerical values for c have been retained in the computations. The computations of numbers are shown to work, and with that it is then usually stated that there is magic in the formula, E = m. And supposedly the Planck Units reduce Einstein's more complex formula to its simple expression of the conversion of energymass [E = m]. Knowing that the numerical values commonly employed by physicists are reflexive of c, the speed of light in vacuo, one must ask, where is the surprise. There is no awe, neither in the numbers, nor in the terms. There may be a questionable procedure in the mixup of terms and numbers, but one would have to study the history of physics to know how physicists today have come to deposit so much significance upon this particular mixture of terms and numbers.
That particular vein of inquiry, however, is irrelevant in my view at this point. What is significant is to understand the intermingling of terms and numbers and, then, consider their meaning with regard to the theoretical interpretation of spacetime/motion [i.e, matterenergy]. And, I say this, because with all the drum beating about the Planck Units and Einstein's famous formula, not much headway has been made regarding the quantitative analysis of spacetime/motion as of these symbolic formulae and their specified terms of unit analysis. [For now, I am not discussing the qualitative theoretical posits forwarded by Einstein or Planck in their respective discourse about spacetime and matterenergy.]
No matter how profoundly one is able to tinker with the powers and roots of c, the speed of light in vacuo, in my view, a complete theoretical appreciation and apprehension of spacetime/motion shall not be forthcoming. Something else besides the mere management of the numerical values of the speed of the light photon is required to uncover the meaning to spacetime/motion. That something else requires further explanation than the critique offered in this brief commentary.
©January 2, 2011 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved. Reproduction prohibited.
Earth/matriX Editions
P.O. Box 231126, New Orleans, Louisiana 701831126, USA
www.earthmatrix.com
johnson@earthmatrix.com
ISSN 15263312