Plenum or no?

[oldsalt]

Mr. Speicher:

Do you believe that the universe is a plenum? I do, on philosophical grounds, but I'm curious what science has to say on the matter (if you'll pardon the pun).

Wouldn't the lack of a plenum imply that there is "nothing?" In philosophy classes, I've heard this question discussed in paradoxical ways (al la Zeno's infinity, etc.), but I've never heard anything contra a plenum that made any sense whatsoever. Usually, there are vague references to "the void" and to an absolute vacuum, which I inferred to mean nothingness.

[dondigitalia]

Mr. Speicher (and others) has already discussed this subject at great length. You can find it here.

[oldsalt]

Thank you for the referal.

[stephen_speicher]

Do you believe that the universe is a plenum?  I do, on philosophical grounds, but I'm curious what science has to say on the matter (if you'll pardon the pun). 

The sheer existence of a plenum is a philosophical matter, which science should take as a starting point. The job of science, then, is to determine exactly what the plenum is.

[John S Bolton]

Plenum or no: If it means that there could be an absolute void somewhere; that would be a contradiction. Yet current physics speaks of quintessence, dark matter, dark energy and other accounts, as if all of space were filled up. Perhaps in physics today there is little belief in the possibility of an absolute void. The exact nature of the ether of space is not known. One could assume that its existence contradicts the theory of the hubble expansion. This leaves the alternative account of everything here getting a little smaller, including the meter that is used. To expand into nothing, is to move into a location which would be the location of nothing (and thus not a meaningful location). An approprate starting point for inquiries might involve such ideas as the above; but especially that there is no non-existence creating or occupying space. If it could, that would be some kind of existence. But what are the implications of these premises; do they rule out a large part of twentieth century physics?

[stephen_speicher]

But what are the implications of these premises; do they rule out a large part of twentieth century physics?

The vacuum of classical physics is different from the vacuum of general relativity, which again is different from the vaccum of relativistic quantum field theory, and this is different again from the superstring vacuum, etc. The point being that for all the standard theories there is no unifying principle which deals with the vacuum in a comprehensive and noncontradictory way. The standard theories work well in the domains where they are applicable, and each has its own scientific perspective on the nature of the vacuum. It is not that a "large part of twentieth century physics" is ruled out, but rather that the standard theories are not integrated into a cohesive whole.

Incidentally, what do you mean by this?

This leaves the alternative account of everything here getting a little smaller, including the meter that is used.

[John S Bolton]

I would assume from your statement that philosophy, not being given a coherent account of the vacuum which current theories are clustering around; may well have little to say about it. What I mean by 'getting smaller' is that , if the universal expansion is disbelieved, then the only alternative view that I know of, is the one which states that even our measuring equipment is becoming more compact, and in just such degree as to explain the data, which is otherwise said to imply cosmic expansion. One class of matter is under pressure from another, namely: the ether of space. Gravity causes things to get more densely packed, and the more so, the more closely they lie towards the center of a gravitational field. Yet they are getting denser, relative to the ether, but not in relation to the vacuum, which, on this theory, is denied. On this account, the ether does have determinate attributes; they are measured as gravity.

[stephen_speicher]

I would assume from your statement that philosophy, not being given a coherent account of the vacuum which current theories are clustering around; may well have little to say about it.

Because your wording is a bit peculiar I am not positive of what you are saying. But, as I mentioned previously, philosophy simply tells us that existence is a plenum, and it leaves the description of the plenum's detailed nature for science to discover.

What I mean by 'getting smaller' is that , if the universal expansion is disbelieved, then the only alternative view that I know of, is the one which states that even our measuring equipment is becoming more compact, and in just such degree as to explain the data, which is otherwise said to imply cosmic expansion.

That seems like a rather arbitrary and bizarre notion. Why and how would "our measuring equipment [become] more compact," and why would such a process affect only our equipment and not the rest of existence?

One class of matter is under pressure from another, namely: the ether of space. Gravity causes things to get more densely packed, and the more so, the more closely they lie towards the center of a gravitational field. Yet they are getting denser, relative to the ether, but not in relation to the vacuum, which, on this theory, is denied. On this account, the ether does have determinate attributes; they are measured as gravity.

I'm sorry, but this seems hopelssly confused. I cannot untangle any real meaning from this. Perhaps if you first start by telling me your conception of the ether, and what you think gravity is, then perhaps we may be able to return to what you intend here.

[John S Bolton]

The claim is not that only our measuring instruments are under this pressure of compression which would make them a little smaller in a unit of time, but that all matter ( except the ether) is compacting in this way. The ether, on this theory, is also matter, but it is buoyant in space, while the familiar matter sinks toward the center of a gravitational field. Gravity is the pressure of the ether on the remaining kinds of matter, on this account. Why should one class of matter be so different that its motion would exert net pressure on another? My speculation is that the ether of space moves without friction, and this is its distinct nature and way of exerting compression on our well-known matter which is driven to the centers of its own accumulations (stars,planets, etc.). The matter which is not ether of space, is frictional in the geometry of its basic structure, and such that the non-frictional matter (the ether) causes it to clump into spherical aggregations, and this process is gravity also.

[John S Bolton]

One addition: Sometimes matter is driven to an excessively dense configuration, and such that an explosion ensues. This allows for an endless cycling of the known matter; out into space after an explosion, then back into dense concentrations under the pressure of gravity.

[stephen_speicher]

The claim is not that only our measuring instruments are under this pressure of compression which would make them a little smaller in a unit of time, but that all matter ( except the ether) is compacting in this way.

And how exactly does this "pressure of compression" come about? And, why just compression? Why not tension and torsion? What are these forces, what are their source, and how do they act?

The ether, on this theory, is also matter, but it is buoyant in space, while the familiar matter sinks toward the center of a gravitational field.

So there is ordinary matter, and ether-like matter, and space? What is this "space" that the ether is buoyant in? And, do you really think that matter "sinks towards the center of a gravitational field?" Do you realize that in the real world gravitational fields are non-uniform, and the many-body interactions of a solar system are responsible for orbital variations?

Gravity is the pressure of the ether on the remaining kinds of matter, on this account.

Huh? Are you aware of how gravity acts in the real world? How does this "pressure on the ether" account for a nonuniform gravitational field? How does it explain the gravitational deflection of a light ray as it grazes the Sun? How does it explain the anomalous advance in the perihelion of the planet Mercury? What is it about this "pressure on the ether" that requires the Global Positioning System to account for nonuniform gravitational effects on the orbiting atomic clocks?

The matter which is not ether of space, is frictional in the geometry of its basic structure, and such that the non-frictional matter (the ether) causes it to clump into spherical aggregations, and this process is gravity also.

Okay, I see now. You're just putting me on. You are pulling my leg till it hurts. You win. It hurts. You got me.

[John S Bolton]

These speculations are given in order to suggest alternative accounts, which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics, or that part of it which is continually cited in support of the most outlandish mysticism. The bending of light rays, as they pass close by the sun, might be explained also as waves showing the deflection of their ray-normals in the gravitational field extending out from the sun. That is; if light is all waves, and not particles at all, it is perhaps not problematical for waves to suffer deflection in such a field. Tension and torsion could be secondary effects arising from the basic force of compression on frictional matter. The source of the differential force is stated to be the non-frictional ether being thus able to carry vibrations further, while the frictional matter gathers like froth at the center of the surface of a liquid, which is being agitated in a container. The ether would be buoyant in the plenum, and capable of penetrating all matter, since it would be continous, while all other matter is granular. Frictional matter is like grit in the gears of the ether, and so much so that, an aggregation of this matter in the ether, pushes one such spheroid towards a neighboring one. The ether could carry vibrations more efficiently, if there were nothing else around, therefore superior force impinges on the sides where it hits a spheroid from clear space, in comparison to what may propagate in the belt of ether between two spheroids, which are close together. The system would be eternal, if the source of energy for setting the ether into vibration, is also the explosions caused by frictional and granular matter, being compressed beyond its natural limits.

[stephen_speicher]

These speculations are given in order to suggest alternative accounts, which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics ...

John, I really love to talk about physics -- especially foundational issues where physics meets philosophy -- but the things you say are so disconnected from reality that they are not even wrong. Before you attempt to replace what you consider to be the irrationality of modern-day physics you might want to first learn the physical facts upon which that physics is based.

[oldsalt]

Please forgive my tardiness in thanking you for your answer. I do understand the relaionship between philosophy and science. I guess my question wasn't very clear. I'll try again.

Do the scientific theories of physics operate on the premise that the universe is a plenum? (That still sounds like a sloppy construction to me. I hope you can decipher it.) From what you said in answer to Bolton, that there is no coherent, unifying theory, I infer that the answer is no. Correct?

[stephen_speicher]

Do the scientific theories of physics operate on the premise that the universe is a plenum? 

Some do, some don't. For those that do, some do so implicitly, some explicitly.

As you yourself observed, there is an absence of a truly unifying standard theory. That fact alone permits some leeway which would, of necessity, disappear, if the theories were integrated into a cohesive whole.

[John S Bolton]

Replying to S. Speicher: I realize that I have been dismissed, and I accept that. Yet I don't think you should say "disconnected from reality", when I have given what I consider to be perfectly sensible speculations, aimed at rationality. They may not have been stated with utmost clarity. I would rather you say that you think I am speculating on the basis of ignorance, and you have no further time for it. I thank you for your time and consideration.

[stephen_speicher]

Yet I don't think you should say "disconnected from reality", when I have given what I consider to be perfectly sensible speculations, aimed at rationality.

John, I would be delighted to have you prove my assessment wrong.

Let me make clear what I mean by "disconnected from reality." To connect an idea to reality you must reduce it to the logical thoughts and physical facts upon which the idea depends. In addition, you ultimately need to integrate your idea with everything else known. A hallmark of an arbitrary idea is the inability to connect it to antecedent logical thoughts and physical facts, as well as the impossibility of integrating the idea with what is known.

As an example, let's take the gravitational deflection of light. It is an experimental fact that light deflects in a gravitational field. Classical theories (Newtonian, etc.) can only account for 1/2 of the observed deflection. Other theories, including Einstein's general relativity, can account for the entire amount of observed deflection. Note that -- and this is relevant to your assertions -- experimental observations related to the Sun have shown that, just as predicted by general relativity, light which comes from any direction will be deflected by the Sun, the amount of deflection depending on the angle from the Sun.

Now, suppose I come along and say that modern physics is irrational, and I have a much better theory -- the Demon Ether Theory (DET) -- to explain this experimentally confirmed gravitational deflection of light. My theory is that space is filled with little light demons, each demon mischieviously moving light around by little puffs of breath. And, these demons are strategically placed such that the strength of their puffs is a function of their angle and distance from the Sun, thereby explaining the observed effects. I offer my DET as an "alternative account, which might turn out to be more rational than the 20th century physics."

I hope that you can see that DET is a rather arbitrary speculation on my part, a theory which is disconnected from reality. Afterall, what possible logical thoughts or physical facts could I appeal to to make sensible the existence of these demons, and what thoughts or facts would connect with the relative force of their breath depending on their position from the Sun? Also, how could I possibly integrate my DET with anything else which is known? How can the demon distribution for the Sun integrate with a million other experimental facts about gravity which would require a much different distribution of demons to explain these other observations?

My point to you was that, being a person knowledgeable in both philosophy and physics, I assess your speculations as being just as arbitrary, just as disconnected from reality, as my Demon Ether Theory. But, as I said at the beginning, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. Perhaps I misunderstood what you offered, or simply missed a few points. Please take the experimental facts of the gravitational deflection of light, and show me, specifically, how your speculations explain the facts, not by reference to the demons which I invented, but by reference to ideas connected to reality.

[John S Bolton]

The Newtonian theory may only be able to account for half the observed deflection of light waves, in the stronger gravitational fields, because it assumes a void. When the plenum is credited, we have matter filling the entire path of the deflected light ray. The ray curves towards the area closer to the sun, which is shielded from the long reach and build-up of the vibrations in the plenum, by the mass of the sun, which absorbs or reflects these( or such is the speculation, as, for example with the theory of C. Colden). The ray-normal crosses into a denser shadow of the sun; shaded from the superior force of the vibrations crossing the plenum unobstructed. As previously suggested, the ether might, through being continous and non-frictional (non-granular), be so much more efficient at transmitting vibrational energy, that the area closer to the sun is shielded from this, and the ray-normal turns sunward, rather as waves turn in around a headland, and in such degree as to always face the shore. There is, then, net pressure on the side facing clear space relative to the side facing the sun. The closer to a larger aggregation of frictional matter, the ray approaches, the greater this shielding effect will become. I am supposing that Newton's theory is applied assuming light waves in a vacuum; but here we are positing a plenum. Presumably additional deflection is expected in this case. Further, I assume that all light rays will spread out, given sufficient space, and that this may contradict the classification of light rays as (absolutely) transverse. For compression vibrations to turn readily is not such a conundrum, as it would be for the absolutely transverse radiation, which, in principle, cannot reduce to longitudinal vibration, regardless of how it is subdivided or allowed to extend.

[John S Bolton]

Regarding general relativity: is it incorrect to say that the ether was discredited by Einstein at one point, and then brought back by him with what he called ether theory (in German), but which is called general relativity today? Would the reason for this turn of events, have been that the earlier theory, assuming a void , did not explain the additional light deflection mentioned above, because it assumed a void? The general relativity theory is not generally accepted, yet the experimental results (or light-deflection observations) are verification of some ether theory, or not? I do not claim that they prove what I say; but it has been suggested that they are incompatible with my speculations.

[stephen_speicher]

The Newtonian theory may only ...

This is all nonsense, John, no better than my Demon theory. You failed to connect a single idea, in any meaningful way, to any experimental fact of reality, much less integrate it with what is known.

[stephen_speicher]

Regarding general relativity: is it incorrect to say that the ether was discredited by Einstein at one point, and then brought back by him with what he called ether theory (in German), but which is called general relativity today?

 

The ether was superfluous for Einstein's development of special relativity, and the "ether" of general relativity, to Einstein, was the gravitational field itself. Hardly to be connected with any traditional view of the ether.

"If we imagine the gravitational field, i.e., the

functions g_ik, to be removed, there does not remain a

space of the type (I), but absolutely _nothing_, and

also no 'topological space'. For the functions g_ik

describe not only the field, but at the same time also

the topological and and metrical structural properties

of the manifold. A space of type (I), judged from the

standpoint of the general theory of relativity, is not

a space without field, but a special case of the g_ik

field, for which -- for the coordinate system used,

which in itself has no objective significance -- the

functions g_ik have values that do not depend on the

co-ordinates. There is no such thing as an empty space,

i.e., a space without field. Space-time does not claim

existence on its own, but only as a structural quality

of the field"

-- Albert Einstein, "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory,"

p. 171, Three Rivers Press, 1952/1961.

Would the reason for this turn of events, have been that the earlier theory, assuming a void , did not explain the additional light deflection mentioned above, because it assumed a void?

Only if one knew absolutely nothing about general relativity.

The general relativity theory is not generally accepted ...

Are you serious? General relativity is the de facto gold standard of gravitation, accepted as the literal spearhead of modern physics. Where are you getting this nonsense from?

, yet the experimental results (or light-deflection observations) are verification of some ether theory, or not?

Please do not confuse "some ether theory" with the nonsense that you previously provided. I have too much respect for some of the (misguided but) real physicists who have attempted over the years to develop a meaningful and consistent ether theory. But, regardless, your reasoning in regard to Newtonian theory and light deflection is unsound and historically inaccurate. Newton did not present a causal mechanism for gravity in his Principia but he speculated at various times throughout his life about an ether which would explain the gravitation which he formulated mathematically. Newtonian gravitation fails to correctly predict light deflection because the mathematics is wrong when applied to that phenomena, not because Newtonian theory is absent of an ether.

I do not claim that they prove what I say; but it has been suggested that they are incompatible with my speculations.

As far as I can tell, you make no sense at all. You seem to be ignorant of physics and its history, and ignorant of experimental fact, which hardly qualifies you to pronounce judgment on modern physics, much less qualify you to replace it with what you think to be "more rational than the 20th century physics." Rationality is not composed of arbitrary speculations and ignorance of facts. Instead of worrying about the irrationality of the physics which brought you the devices we are communicating on, educate yourself instead.

[John S Bolton]

I am sorry that I have failed to convey the sensible and non-contradictory quality which I believe to be present in the above account. I admit that I don't know all the facts of physical processes, or enough of them to say that none of these facts is being contradicted. But I do know that modern physics contains many gross contradictions, such as the appearance of infinities in basic equations, not to mention the wave-particle contradiction. This spurs me on to think of what alternatives could be better, and I am hoping that someone will before long break out of the theoretical impasse of modern physics, and move on to a more rational approach. Do you agree, or are you a staunch upholder of relativity and our current table of particles and fields?

[stephen_speicher]

I admit that I don't know all the facts of physical processes, or enough of them to say that none of these facts is being contradicted.

John, the reason I am so harsh is not so much against you personally, but because of the damage done and the injustices made by Objectivists with a similar approach as yours, ones who promote like-ideas to your own.

Physicists are extremely rational people in their work, with a healthy epistemology and a commitment to facts. This is what is demanded in their work. Most physcists disdain philosophy. And, rightfully so, considering the philosophical ideas which they are typically offered. They conclude, early in their education, that physics deals with reason and facts, while philosophy deals with irrational nonsense having little to do with the real-world physics they love.

When physicsts hear criticism from Objectivists who are ignorant of physical facts, they see Objectivism as just another one of those silly philosophies having nothing to do with the real world. That makes my own job infinitely harder than it already is. Before I can even present the meaningful ideas of Objectivism to colleagues, associates, or friends in the field, I first have to undo the damage done by Objectivists who, out of sheer ignorance, philosophize about areas they know little to nothing about.

Well-deserved rational criticism based on fact is not the same as rationalism based on ignorance.

But I do know that modern physics contains many gross contradictions, such as the appearance of infinities in basic equations ...

And what, pray tell, is the contradiction of that? Do you know the difference between infinity as a concept of method, and infinity as an actual existent? Do you also object to the use of the "imaginary number" i, the square root of minus one? Let me tell you something John. If you are concerned about infinities, instead of criticizing the supposed irrationalities of modern physics, why aren't you out there blasting the hell out of Newtonian physics? Do you know that Newtonian gravitation propagates at an infinite speed? An actual infinity, not just a concept of method. Start waving your rationalistic philosophical flag against Newtonian gravitation instead of against some mathematical infinity.

This spurs me on to think of what alternatives could be better, and I am hoping that someone will before long break out of the theoretical impasse of modern physics, and move on to a more rational approach. Do you agree, or are you a staunch upholder of relativity and our current table of particles and fields?

Well, pardon me, but in my ignorance I never realized that Objectivism philosophically objects to "our current table of particles." As to relativity: relativity has been experimentally confirmed, with greater precision, than anything offered before modern-day physics. Special relativity is a monument to rational thought, a bullet-proof formulation with postulates based on experimental fact, confirmed thousands of times daily in experiments within the domain it applies (non-gravitational). General relativity is one of the most beautiful things that a man has ever done, a brilliant structure which has predicted things in the universe never even dreamed of before, things which subsequently have been and continue to be verified experimentally.

Now, there are things which are wrong about modern physics, both philosophically and scientifically. But rationalism and ignorance are not the tools for identifying and fixing those problems. The postulates of relativity are completely correct and experimentally based. What has been missing is a physical reason which explains some of the experimental facts. The same is true of quantum mechanics. There is a rational theory which provides a physical basis for both relativity and the quantum, one which is causal, local, and deterministic. This is not the place to discuss that theory, but you can learn about it from http://speicher.com/tew.html and from there you can find the proper forum to discuss the theory if you like.

But, I warn you in advance: Just as I fight against those who criticize modern physics out of ignorance, I have no interest in "converts" who would embrace a better theory out of sheer ignorance. If the buzz words of modern physics cause you to reject modern physics, then I do not want anyone for whom better buzz words causes acceptance. There is nothing wrong with ignorance; as my signature line says, the state of ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge. But acceptance based on ignorance is just as bad as rejection based on ignorance. I simply wish that more Objectivists were less ignorant of the facts before they criticize modern physics, and I wish they would not misuse Objectivism in the process.

[John S Bolton]

I do not speak for Objectivism, when I make certain objections to modern physics. I assume that objectivists do not have a problem with the list of particles and fields. I have seen objectivist writers praise Einstein, but I have not seen them deducing that 20th century physical theories must be wrong, from first principles. Physicists should be ready to answer objections from all quarters, which proceed on rational grounds. That is, not every one of them; but some should. My motivation is that I would like (myself and others) not to be told to believe in theories which raise serious doubts as to whether they are compatible with our observations of the world.

[stephen_speicher]

My motivation is that I would like (myself and others) not to be told to believe in theories which raise serious doubts as to whether they are compatible with our observations of the world.

It is you who have advocated ideas which are not "compatible with our observations of the world," and offered naught but ignorant commentary on the physics which you condemn. Your approach is indefensible, and, frankly, you seem to be impervious to the valid criticism which I have made. You have ignored the facts which I identified and just continue to assert that for which you offer no rational basis in support. There are valid criticisms of modern physics to be made, but valid criticism does not stem from ignorance of the subject, and avoidance of the facts.