COMMON sense starts with the notion that there is matter where we
can get sensations of touch, but not elsewhere. Then it gets puzzled
by wind, breath, clouds, etc., whence it is led to the conception of
"spirit"—I speak etymologically. After "spirit" has been replaced
by "gas," there is a further stage, that of the æther. Assuming the
continuity of physical processes, there must be things happening
between the earth and the sun when light travels from the sun to
the earth; assuming the mediæval metaphysic of "substance," as all
physicists did until recently, what is happening between the earth and
the sun must be happening "in" or "to" a substance, which is called the
æther.
Apart from metaphysical interpretations, what we may be said to know
(using this word somewhat liberally) is that processes occur where
there is no gross matter, and that these processes proceed, at least
approximately, in accordance with Maxwell's equations. There does not
seem any necessity to interpret these processes in terms of substance;
indeed, I shall argue that processes associated with gross matter
should also be interpreted so as not to involve substance. There must,
however, remain a difference, expressible in physical terms, between
regions where there is matter and other regions. In fact, we know
the difference. The law of gravitation is different, and the laws of
electromagnetism suffer a discontinuity when we reach the surface
of an electron or proton. These differences, however, are not of a
metaphysical kind. To the philosopher, the difference between "matter"
and "empty space" is, I believe, merely a difference as to the causal
laws governing successions of events, not a difference expressible[Pg 122] as
that between the presence or absence of substance, or as that between
one kind of substance and another.
Physics, as such, should be satisfied when it has ascertained the
equations according to which a process takes place, with just enough
interpretation to know what experimental evidence confirms or confutes
the equations. It is not necessary to the physicist to speculate as to
the concrete character of the processes with which he deals, though
hypotheses (false as well as true) on this subject may sometimes be
a help to further valid generalizations. For the present, we are
confining ourselves to the standpoint of physics. Whether anything
further can be known or fruitfully conjectured is a matter which we
shall discuss at a later stage. We want, therefore, to consider the
difference in physical formulæ which is described as that between
the presence and absence of matter, and also to consider briefly the
difficulties as to the interchanges of energy between matter and empty
space. I say "empty space" or "æther" indifferently; the difference
seems to be merely one of words.
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