Tuesday, March 7, 2023

1053: Physics after Newton...

 Newton's great achievement was to unify the physics of the heavens and the physics of the world we see around us, but he certainly didn't leave us a Theory of Everything.
   
The idea of particles of matter subject to contact with other particles and subject to the laws of gravitation was what we got so far.
 
Classical mechanics could be adapted to deal with fluids and solids as well as rigid bodies like planets, but it was of next to no use in dealing with electricity, heat, light, magnetism and chemistry.
 
The classic materialist thought in terms of particles and their behavior, which eventually could be observed. However, the afore mentioned phenomena were difficult to understand from this perspective.
   
Ontological issues, that is, what does really exist, were at the heart of science's endeavors to give an account of these phenomena. In the 17th and 18th century, all kinds of exotic forms of matter were provided as possible explanations.
 
What happens when something burns? That must be caused by phlogiston, a word that contains the Ancient Greek word flox = flame). The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory
 
that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called phlogiston contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion.
 
The idea was first proposed in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher. Phlogiston theory attempted to explain chemical processes such as combustion and rusting, now collectively known as oxidation.
   
It was abandoned before the end of the 18th century following experiments by Antoine Lavoisier and others.
 
It is generally accepted that Lavoisier's great accomplishments in chemistry stem largely from his changing the science from a qualitative to a quantitative one.
 
Lavoisier is most noted for his discovery of the role oxygen plays in combustion. He recognized and named oxygen (1778) and hydrogen (1783), and opposed phlogiston theory.
   
The story of the historical development of the scientific account of the nature of light is much more complicated..' and one in which materialism has an uncertain place.
 
Consist light of particles? That would fit in with a materialist account, but light can in many cases better be explained if you assume that light is waves of some kind. So, an ontological problem here.
 
And then there was the magnetic FIELD, introduced by Faraday around 1821.  Traditional materialism may not have much to say about waves, and it is certainly challenged by the concept of the field that is somehow a medium but not quite material.
   
So traditional materialism can be seen to have mixed fortunes in the progress of science in the two centuries following Newton. Materialists had no single account of what kind of substance make up the natural world.
   
There were a few wins, however. The kinetic theory of gases, according to which pressure, temperature, and heat were the manifestations of atomic motions and collisions, led to substantial new mathematical physics,
 
Another one was, of course, the triumph of atomism at the turn of the twentieth century, which turned the metaphysical theory into an experimental and practical science, that unified chemistry and physics.
   
Physics discovered all kinds of "non-material" phenomena,  which didn't fit into the classic materialist picture anymore, but there still were 'atoms' and there was no recognition of non-material substances in scientific theory.
 
Having been the major intellectual stimulus to the scientific revolution, it was not really a happy end. While materialist epistemology (what can I know?) IS the scientific method, developed and improved over centuries,
   
that method of investigation has discovered a world of the very small of extraordinary complexity and strangeness and thereby has condemned classic materialism as an entry in the catalog of false theories.
   
Leaves us with the question, what is twenty-first century materialism?
   
Thank you for your attention again.....
   

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm
R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)


TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  


  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011



The Discussion 



[13:16] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:17] herman Bergson: In other words, the question, what really exists has become much more difficult to answer for the materialist today
[13:18] oola Neruda: I believe the people studying physics of the universe (stars, planets, etc.) using physics... have come to conclusions that help to explain that
[13:18] herman Bergson: The simplistic particle-model is garbage
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): there is  more to it
[13:18] herman Bergson: What is matter, is the question
[13:19] herman Bergson: Just look at the picture to my right next to Simone de Beauvoir
[13:19] oola Neruda: and where does matter come from
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:19] herman Bergson: Well oola, you also can ask...where does our universe come from :-)
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well the big bang theory is doubtful at the moment
[13:20] herman Bergson: I never understood this big bang  idea....
[13:21] herman Bergson: ina mathematicla sense it seems to work as an explanatory device.....it seems
[13:21] herman Bergson: so, where does matter come from, oola, I really don't know :-)
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes, a com up thing fir what we don't understand, like religion a bit
[13:22] herman Bergson: I even don't know how to answer your question
[13:22] oola Neruda: from what I understand is  high energy physics ...the "life and death of molecules"... makes the biggest difference...
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we don't have the answers so we try make it fit in, at least there is no supernatural hocus pocis involved
[13:23] herman Bergson: Whatever you bring up as a possible answer runs again into the question...and where did that come from
[13:23] oola Neruda: the exposions in stars ..
[13:24] herman Bergson: where did the stars come from?
[13:24] oola Neruda: depending upon the elements that the stars are made from
[13:25] herman Bergson: We are at the limits of the thinkable here, I guess....
[13:25] oola Neruda: when they explode, they affect each other
[13:25] herman Bergson: Our brain is simply not wired thus, that we can handle these questions
[13:25] oola Neruda: create and or destroy matter
[13:25] oola Neruda: depending
[13:26] oola Neruda: that is the high energy physics part of it
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well we will see when LHC fires up again, however other then the higgs boson that was already foreseen it has not produced anything else revolutionary, LHCb have discovered pentaquarks but no supersymmetry, no alternate dimensions, no missing matter ect
[13:26] herman Bergson: It doesn't answer the question where matter came from
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or is the accelerator still not powerful enough maybee
[13:27] herman Bergson: Maybe there is some answer......
[13:27] herman Bergson: based on our limitations
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybe
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): question is where
[13:27] oola Neruda: explosions of stars can create other elements
[13:28] herman Bergson: epistemological materialism is the basis of knowledge....
[13:28] herman Bergson: that is...all we know we have gathered through our senses
[13:29] herman Bergson: that means...we only KNOW what actually is there....and in this reality we are born.
[13:29] oola Neruda: gl
[13:29] herman Bergson: so, the question, where was I before I was born, we can not answer
[13:30] herman Bergson: Is like....what was there before the universe came into existence
[13:30] oola Neruda: modern astronomy requires the application of high energy physics... it's role in creation and/or destruction in the universe
[13:30] herman Bergson: We just exist in the middle of this material world and the only thing we are able to experience is, that this world, this reality is there.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Every thing we know we deduce from what is there,,,,
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:32] herman Bergson: The Big Bang theory is a kind of reverse engineering
[13:33] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i think it's good that we exist :-)
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:33] herman Bergson: I have no complaints either Bergie ^_^
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa indeed Herman
[13:34] herman Bergson: So,we may conclude, that we ARE
[13:34] bergfrau Apfelbaum: it had to be said instead of racking my brain where my pixels come from
[13:34] bergfrau Apfelbaum: grins
[13:35] herman Bergson: well we all know where our physical body came from.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: our physical pixels actually which we call cells :-)
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and the cells?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well, I guess we have blown up our brain today again :-))
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): smashed it in the LHC
[13:37] herman Bergson: they cam from two other cells , Bergie :-)
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): speaking of that
[13:37] herman Bergson: Kind of big bang too ^_^
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4J5VUwiAs
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): what if u put your head in a particle accelerator?
[13:38] herman Bergson: But that one is understandable
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): there is a Russian guy who did that by accident) and lived
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: Lucky guy
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed,
[13:39] herman Bergson: I guess it is time to cool down our brains
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i would NOT try
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:39] herman Bergson: Unless you have a question still
[13:40] oola Neruda: the physicists I know, wear a kind of "geiger counter" on the zipper of their jeans.... to be sure to count how much radiation they might be getting...when working around accelerators...
[13:40] herman Bergson: As you all are still....^_^
[13:40] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed i would not want to even be near an unshielded machine in operation
[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we have a lot to think about
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well linacs is fine, its when u bend the beam around u get the radiation
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like syncrotrons
[13:41] herman Bergson: Is a bit much indeed Beertje :-)
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that when it gets dangerous
[13:41] oola Neruda: Particle... have you read the book I recommended to you
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): syncrotron radiation (its called that)
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i looked it up
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the Fenyman dude?
[13:41] oola Neruda: yes
   


No comments:

Post a Comment