It is necessary to consider the very usual form of analysis into
diversity of "substance," because, for reasons already given, we
cannot regard this form of analysis as ultimate. Let us take the
most elementary of scientific examples: the analysis of water into
hydrogen and oxygen. We recognize water by a group of characteristic
percepts and processes; by another group we recognize hydrogen,
and by yet another oxygen. We find that we can—e.g. by
electrolysis—produce hydrogen and oxygen where formerly there was
water; we find that the masses of the two bear a fixed proportion to
each other, and add up to the mass of the previous water; we find
further that, if we let them come together, water reappears, equal in
amount to what was lost by electrolysis. Such facts are interpreted
in science by means of the postulate that matter is indestructible.
If we accept this postulate, the facts prove that water consists of
hydrogen and oxygen. Exactly similar arguments lead us on from atoms
to electrons and protons, where, for the present, the process of
substantial analysis ceases.
Without questioning the convenience of substantial analysis, it
may be asked whether it is metaphysically accurate, and even whether,
at the stage we have reached, it is adequate to all the needs of
physics. We must now examine the arguments on this question.
As regards adequacy for physics: we have already (in Chapter IV.) given
a brief account of Heisenberg's theory, which, in effect, resolves the
electron into a series of radiations. We have also seen that electrons
and protons are not now supposed to be strictly indestructible, but
are thought by many to be capable of annihilating each other. Thus the
indestructibility of matter is no longer accepted as a universal law
of the physical world. With this goes the fact that proper[Pg 284] mass is
not supposed to be exactly conserved, and that relative mass has been
absorbed into energy. Mass was supposed to be "quantity of matter."
This certainly could not be said of relative mass, which depends upon
the choice of axes and belongs also to light-waves. And if it be said
of proper mass, we must conclude that the "quantity of matter" is not
quite constant. On all these grounds, persistent units of matter,
though still convenient, have no longer the metaphysical status that
they were formerly supposed to have.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account