Plenum

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think we are getting too much into physics here, especially modern physics, which, since the Michaelson-Morley experiment have rejected the idea of a plenum and seek to describe everything in terms of particle interactions. Going back to the idea that light is a wave, then it would have to be a wave of something and the Debroglie wave relationship with regard to particles would have to be a wave of something. The Schroedinger wave would have to be a wave of something. Saying that all of this observations are merely some sort of mathematical convenience is to say that mathematics has nothing to do with reality.

But even aside from those specific observations, there is still the philosophical point to be made that an absolute void -- shear nothing -- has no attributes of being whatsoever. An absolute no being nothing could not take up a volume, it couldn't be anywhere, because it doesn't exist.

If nothing else, when we look out at the universe for many millions and billions of light years, we can still see things out there, which means that light is occupying that space in between there and here; otherwise, how could we see those far off galaxies? And we can tell by observing them that they are connected gravitationally; so gravity is there, isn't it?

But I'm still struck by the idea that someone said in this thread that gravitons between the earth and the moon is what makes gravity, and then he says he doesn't see why we need some concept of something in between the earth and the moon for gravity to operate, when he himself says there are gravitons there.

I am certainly not saying that the universe is packed to the brim with matter in the sense of being electrons, protons, or neutrons, since we also have light, photons, gravity, electromagnetism, and other non-particle items that are occupying any given volume. This is what I mean when I say that modern physics is particle crazy -- as in maybe these other things are not particles at all.

But maybe someone can show me where to find a good article on the web on gravitons. I've heard of their supposed existence, but I haven't read anything about them aside from a few news articles that don't go into much detail. What I have in mind is that one has one massive object here and another one over there, and in between there is something that makes gravity possible. And I guess it would have to be shown whether it is discrete or spread out; and if it is discrete, then there might be places in the universe where there are not any gravitons, which means no gravity. Otherwise, one is saying that all of space is filled with gravitons, which gets back to the plenum idea.

[y_feldblum]

Hah. An accessible resource on quantum physics. It doesn't exist. That's why I know only very little about it quantum physics.

In your argument, you again reify the void, that is, the lack of entities in any particular region. Without reifying the void, and starting with perceptual observation, how does one come to the philosophical conclusion of a full plenum - that is, a universe with no empty spaces between entities?

Personally, starting with perceptual observation, I observe that there are entities here and here, but I do not see anything in between. Being somewhat of a scientist, I design and perform experiments to test for the existence of other entities invisible to the naked eye, but, no matter what I try, I find none. I induce mathematical formula which describe all the observed phenomena, and which do not rely on any other entities which I have not yet observed, and these formula are very accurate. The conclusions is, of course, that there is not a full plenum, that there are regions of space (without reifying space) in which there are no entities.

[zeno]

Quantum tunneling is based on a particle moving through a barrier it should be unable to classically, i.e continuously with a certain energy level, cross. Alpha decay is a good example because it demonstrates wave/particle duality very well.

Yes, the particle exists within a continuous spatial probability distribution because position is a continuous parameter in QM. But this is no proof that a particle's path is continuous. Let's go back to the case of alpha decay. We definitely know when the particle is inside the nucleus of a radioactive atom, and we can clearly tell when the particle spontaneously "hops out" of the nucleus. Clearly the particle moves throughout its specific probability distribution. So to stay with a specific example of quantum tunneling, alpha decay, how can an alpha particle move continuously when it crosses the potential barrier of a uranium atom? It would violate the law of conservation of energy for an alpha particle to, without impetus or energy input, suddenly continuously shoot through the potential barrier and be emitted.

[y_feldblum]

"We definitely know when the particle is inside the nucleus of a radioactive atom, and we can clearly tell when the particle spontaneously "hops out" of the nucleus." Not according to the proponents of Quantum Mechanics.

[zeno]

All you need is a radiation detector

[John McVey]

Second, it is clear from all observations that entities move continuously. Anything else would require instantaneous teleportation.

Yeh, I was thinking that myself, once. If spacetime were quantised then motion would have to consist of an object at total rest one moment, then achieving infinite acceleration, moving the quantum of distance in zero time at infinite velocity, then achieving just the right amount of infinite deceleration to bring it to a halt at the next position, then sitting there unmoving for one or more units of time. Asserting quantisation creates more problems than it solves, at least from this layman's perspective.

JJM

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Asserting quantization creates more problems than it solves, at least from this layman's perspective.

Yes and no, depending on how you look at it. Reality is quantized in the sense that there are entities, and that these entities do not extend infinitely. Even galaxies, which are very large, have a fairly discrete -- or quantized -- existence. Earlier, when I said that we need to find out if the stuff in between is discrete or spread out, what I meant was whether or not they are point-like, as the elementary particles seem to be.

There does seem to be a quantization of even aspects of existence, such as energy, which is quantized when it comes to specific molecular or atomic or subatomic interactions. It seems there is a very precise and not fudge-able energy interaction when it comes to things like orbital changes. And I think one could say that particles are quantized, at least in the sense that they have such and such molecular weight or particle mass -- i.e. an electron is quite a bit less massive than a proton, and there doesn't seem to be any electrons that are somewhere in between the mass of a standard electron and the proton.

The question is: Can motion or change be quantized? The answer seems to be yes, that there is a sort of smallest unit of distance a particle can travel, say when it jumps from point A to point B in quantum jumps. Of course, I think quantum jumps are an indication of something there acting on the particle -- else why would they jump? -- which gets back to the plenum idea.

Looking at the issue from the point of view of everything in existence being specific and there not being any actual infinite nor actual infinitesimal, I would say that it is possible that there is a smallest distance a particle could move, but not less than that. I don't know what that size would be, as I haven't studied it in any detail, but it makes sense from a philosophic point of view that there is no infinitesimal; that at some point, the graininess of existence being specific would show up. This also makes sense if the plenum or the aether is not point like in nature, say if the particle could not land inside an aether "particle", but would have to land somewhere on its edge, so to speak.

Of course, all of this would have to be confirmed by physics, but I think quantization could be a very important clue about the fundamental nature of existence. That is, just as there are entities on the grand human perception scale, so there are entities on every level of existence.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Please explain how an object can occupy a position for no quantity of time.

Google <infinitesimal> or Wiki infinitesimal. This will explain the mathematical aspect of the question. Also see Wiki entry on non-standard analysis.

Could motion be discontinuous? We have reasons to believe that angular momentum does not occur in infinitesimally small amounts. Matter is discrete (it comes in lumps). Energy is discrete (it comes in quanta). Is linear momentum as quantified as angular momentum?

ruveyn

[eriatarka]

Google <infinitesimal> or Wiki infinitesimal. This will explain the mathematical aspect of the question. Also see Wiki entry on non-standard analysis.

The mathematical aspect is uncontroversial, but that has no obvious connection with the real world. Mathematical objects arent physical objects, as results like Banach-Tarski make clear.

Edited June 12, 2008 by eriatarka

[ruveyn ben yosef]

The mathematical aspect is uncontroversial, but that has no obvious connection with the real world. Mathematical objects arent physical objects, as results like Banach-Tarski make clear.

Newton and Leibniz based their calculus on infinitesimals. What The Bishop called the Ghost of Departed Quantities. I think the connection between calculus so based and reality is quite clear. We got the science of mechanics from it. It turns out that to put the entire matter on a purely logical basis the theory of limits and convergence was developed. From a heuristic point of view there are many problems where infinitesimals gets the results quicker and slicker than with limits.

As to the Banach Tarski Theorem, it is -not- a paradox. It shows what happens when a compact metric space is decomposed into non-measurable sets. At no point did Banach and Tarski make a logical error.

ruveyn