When I was reading Hegel in class, I was bothered by what I perceived as a fault in logic. It seemed to me that Hegel was claiming to follow arguments based on logic, while actually following the rules of grammar instead. He argued that if there is a world that was created, there must have been a creator. Creation requires a creator. Verb requires Noun. Why should the primacy of the noun be an assumption of logic?
Tonight I realized we have the same problem in physics. In a conversation about the wave-particle duality issue, I pointed out that we have not observed any such thing as “a” wave. We have seen “waving”. Even in water, it makes no sense to say that “a wave” is moving through the water. That would imply the existence of some thing being in the water. Actually there isn’t anything. The water is waving, that’s all. “The” wave doesn’t exist. “Waving” exists.
So what about other things? In the example above, to show that there was no “wave” I let the example include the existence of a replacement noun — “the” water. I’m not here to replace one noun with another, I’m here to propose that we live in a world without nouns. So what is “the” water actually? Hydrogen, Oxygen. What are they? Protons, neutrons, electrons… the standard model. What are they? The idea of an indivisible “atom” is gone. The hunt for subatomic particles brings the discovery of smaller and smaller “things” depending on the precision of our instruments. And we always find out later that what we thought we saw must actually have been something even smaller bouncing around.
Photons, for example, are “particles of light”. The trouble is, if light were particles, then shining two flashlight beams at right angles to each other would result in interference. The particles flying sideways would smack into the particles going forward and knock them off to an angle like billiard balls. To make sense of this, we’ve been taught to think of light as having dual nature: sometimes wave, sometimes particle. What if there’s no particle and no wave? Instead, I think “waving” can give an appearance of “photoning”. I suggest that there is no substance or substrate (like spacetime or hyperdimensional ethers) that is the “thing” or fabric doing the waving. I think that seeing waving gives an impression of a fabric where there isn’t any.
I suggest we get rid of the nouns (which we have never observed in physics or in reality*) and generate a means of using language that represents the world as we have actually observed it.
*For example when your hand presses against a wall, there is actually no physical matter making contact. What you feel is magnetic resistance between magnetic “fields” around the atoms in your hand and in the wall. The magnetic fields resist each other just like the positive poles of two magnets, and nothing “solid” in your hand ever touches anything “solid” in the wall. We have no reason to believe that either “object” is solid. In fact, in the history of science, from the very small to the very big, nobody has ever observed the existence of anything solid at all. Nobody has ever grabbed up an electron and said “yep, just like I thought, it’s a hard little bead.” In fact, we’ve seen “electrons” doing things that are impossible for any little “thing” to do. To become a magnetic field, an electron would have to extend itself infinitely in every direction, only spreading itself a bit thinner as it got farther from its center. And it does this at the speed of light. So we call them waves or fields instead of particles. But the question of what “a” wave actually is… that’s a question that is forever postponed.
String theory is pretty close to what I’m saying. They say that all these particles we think we’re observing as separate types of things are just little strings vibrating in different ways. If it vibrates with higher energy, it’s ultraviolet, lower energy vibration and the same “thing” is infrared. So verbs exist, and adverbs can modify them. “Vibrating fastly” is what we’ve been calling “A photon” being blue, and “vibrating slowly” is what we’ve been calling “a photon” being red.
I just want to point out that we have no reason (except for the real-world experience of things bumping into each other that we recently discovered wasn’t actually happening) to believe that there needs to be a “thing” in order for “it” to do an action. We have no reason to believe that verbs require nouns; that acts require actors. Everything we’ve observed in physics has been verbs, no nouns yet discovered. ANYWHERE. EVER. Why should we believe that “things” exist at all, when all we’ve ever observed has been the existence of “actions”?
Keep string theory, but get rid of the strings. There are no strings doing the vibrating. There is vibrating in different ways, and we interpret those different modalities of vibration as different kinds of “particles” because we are accustomed to believing that there must be a thing there to have done the action. Just like Hegel claimed that there must logically be a creator to have done the creating of the world. (I’m certainly not making an atheist theological argument. I’m only pointing out that Hegel’s argument wasn’t logical, it was grammatical.)
According to our observations, it would be more reasonable to assert the existence of verbs and adverbs (actions and their modalities) without claiming the existence of any nouns (objects or actors) anywhere in the “physical” universe.
…Which makes it much harder to draw conceptual models for the physics classroom.
This is not a scientific theory (not conceivably testable/falsifiable) and it is not a philosophy. It is an argument for the ontological primacy of verbs instead of nouns. It is also a suggestion that our language about processes observed in physics should not be inhibited by grammatical rules of languages, but should be free to reflect what is really observed, even if it sounds silly to talk that way at first.
“high-energy vibrating excited the electro-magnetic fielding…..and so on…” And that’s how your digital camera works.
PS. To all the REAL physicists out there: I’M SORRY I JUST DON’T KNOW ANY BETTER! PLEASE DON’T DEMONSTRATE THE PRINCIPLES OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS ON MY BODY. but please do leave a comment!
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: physics, ontology, hegel, wave/particle duality, wave-particle duality, light, magnetic fields, waves, fields, particles, language, ontological, logic, argument, proof, string theory, photon, electron | Leave a Comment »
