What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

You start with objects moving and "forcing" other objects to move, without explaining initial cause.

I am not sure where you get this idea from. Especially considering the obvious logic presented in your next sentence.

I start with the universal unified force/pressure field as being the initial cause of things moving.

The only way to get something to move, is to have something else already moving. If everything were at rest, then nothing would ever move: A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
Your "universal unified force/pressure field" must, by definition of existence, be a particle field - there is simply no choice in this, no matter how dimly lit you choose your visualisation to be. You cannot have a continuous fluid, at some level of size there must be granularity, and if you cannot see it, then you have not looked closely enough. Also, there is no refuge in "pure energy", even if you should choose a picture of a poetic wisp of non-material substanceless substance, it is to no avail. If it interacts with or exists in the universe it is physical: Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter. Labelling this view as "materialist and objectivist" in order to find solace in the impossible will not succeed. There is no dodge or philosophical sidestep - physics will be satisfied.

Whatever, your philosophical standpoint, can you or anyone seriously object to the scientific premise that "if something happens, something must have caused it": A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.

Hopefully we may safely ignore the clown logic of Big Bang Theory, in which case we can say that the universe is very old: a trillion years, 10 to the power of a trillion (10^1,000,000,000,000), 10 to the power of "a very big number". Thus, for all that time, the quantum vacuum field or universal unified force/pressure field or plain old aether, have been operating continuously, working on, or presenting themselves as, electrons and protons and photons and all that matter stuff that we recognise as the universe we inhabit. For however long all this has been operating one must naturally assume that at some point in the distant past it might have been different. A period of aeons or a momentary event from which what was before became what we observe now:

you must either posit or ignore "first" cause. What other choice is there? No first cause?

There is really no choice in the matter, we must ignore it. It happened, we have no way of knowing when or how. It is not possible to include this in our contemplations of the present operations of the universe. All we can say is that the universe exists and that it operates. The precise nature of that operation, which is intertwined with and to some extent causal to what we can observe, is a matter of debate: quantum vacuum field or universal unified force/pressure field or simply aether or standard model.

I have no problem considering the possibility that the natural realm has a supernatural cause.

Science doesn't have this luxury, or at least, it should not. Besides, whatever supernatural maybe, if it exists, it must be physical. Gods, beyond those of imagination, can only be an unknown force or an alien - by a rather obvious and straightforward definition. Regardless, or the nature of the supernatural, and of the detailed nature of the operation of the present universe or of what may have been before the present form of the universe, we can say with absolute certainty that this list of fundamental laws can be said to be true and self-evident. Whatever the extent of ones pan-galactic omnipotent powers, you will still be subject to the following laws:

What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be created (or conveyed) by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This also serves as proof that action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.
6) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Oracle_911,

In the past i read a book about LASERs, there was a capitol about modulation of light by E fields.

Sorry, I do not understand the point you are making. Would you kindly explain further.

Michael

[tayga]

tayga,

...you think that magnetic, electrostatic and gravitational attraction are all caused by collision?

How do you justify your certainty?

ALL EFFECTS MUST HAVE A CAUSE

If you can find ANY truth or truism or fact that is more self-evident than this I would be desperate to know it.

If you can provide ANY possible or plausible explanation for the generation of force other than by direct collision, I would be desperate to know it.

You are assuming that force can only be transmitted by direct collision because there is no other plausible explanation. You have a very loose definition of 'know for certain'. I'm pretty sure we don't know how force is transferred.

Plausibility is a subjective quality:

plausible 4. a. Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable, probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; ...

OED

[mjv1121]

tayga,

You are assuming that force can only be transmitted by direct collision because there is no other plausible explanation.

I make no assumption whatsoever, the obvious fact that force can only be transmitted by direct contact is self-evident and proved beyond any doubt by: A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.

I'm pretty sure we don't know how force is transferred.

Yes we do. It is transferred in the only possible way: by direct collision.

How do you manage to consider any process in the universe without the aid of physical laws?

Is there anything that you would consider to be something that you know for certain?

Michael

[tayga]

I make no assumption whatsoever

You most certainly do.

the obvious fact that force can only be transmitted by direct contact is self-evident and proved beyond any doubt by:

You use the phrase 'self-evident a lot'. Just asserting that something is self-evident does not constitute a proper argument.

A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.

OK

This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause.

It is a sub-category of 'all effects' but OK

This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.

And here is the leap of assumption. How does that follow from the preceding statements?

[mjv1121]

tayga,

"Force or action at a distance is not possible". This is beyond any doubt as self-evident. Action, that is force and thus the result of force, requires a cause - all effects require a cause.

"The impossible may be true because I can imagine it" is not an acceptable argument. I am astonished that anyone should be incapable of grasping the simplest of concepts: Cause and Effect; if there is no cause there can be no effect.
Action/Force at a distance requires effect without cause. Force without collision requires effect without cause.

Try, if you wish, to argue that gravity or magnets work, but you are unable to see the cause, therefore it is an example of cause without effect. You may then seek out some ancient Greeks to convince them that air does not exist, because it is invisible. A clumsy analogy perhaps, but directly equivalent. On the one hand you appear to accept that effect requires cause, but you then deny the impossibility of action at a distance.

What then is your counter-argument and logical justification ?


What We Know To Be True:

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This also serves as further proof that action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.
6) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

Michael

[tayga]

I'm pretty sure we don't know how force is transferred.

Yes we do. It is transferred in the only possible way: by direct collision. Michael

I think you have difficulty distinguishing what we know from what we accept. This is the same problem that has led Consensus Science to where it is now. To be honest, my pet hate is the expression of belief as knowledge that characterises Science Press and TV. My 16 year-old daughter can tell the difference between what she knows and what she thinks she knows. Why can't professional scientists?

How do you manage to consider any process in the universe without the aid of physical laws?

You can't, of course, but having physical laws that describe the behaviour of the physical universe is not the same as knowing how things happen. For example, in Newton's Law of Gravitation he explicitly states that it does not know the mechanism of gravitation.

Is there anything that you would consider to be something that you know for certain?

Honestly, any of us would have to assume that what we experience is real to be certain about anything (you should read about brain function and awareness if you believe otherwise). Putting that aside and starting from the basis that we can believe what we see, we know anything our senses and instruments (with qualification) can perceive. Everything else is agreement, acceptance, consensus or assumption.

[Aardwolf]

Michael,

What force or exchange of momentum accelerates light when it exits a denser medium?

Aardwolf.

[webolife]

I'm with Tayga here. MJV is claiming that causation can only be the outcome of collisions of particles, yet offers no mechanism by which for example the solar system is held together gravitationally/magnetically/otherwise at a TREMENDOUS DISTANCE. MJV, it is your assumption that causes must be particulate, but "granularity" in the universal field does not necessarily mean particulate, only quantized, which I would say is "self-evident"; ie. there must be some smallest Planck-ish magnitude, over which denominator larger effects can be "counted"... another consequence of which is my recognition that the universe is FINITE. Yes, I would definitely agree that every effect must have a cause [or "we are lost"], but you have very narrowly defined what is ACCEPTABLE to you as CAUSE, and this puts your list off to the side of "what we know for certain". And yes, I would also agree that modern science is self-limiting in this regard. This is why we scientists stand on what we think is the foundation of observation, experimentation, and predictability, and pretend that what holds up our foundation is IGNORABLE. And as I argued vehemently on another thread ["Materialism"] a couple years back, you or other modern scientists [actually "post-modern"] conveniently ignore the fact that your "foundation" is actually a set of "beliefs", not certain knowledge. Historically, the great majority of "modern" scientists have acknowledged the presence of the supernatural in their physical universe. For you this is a MUST IGNORE only-option. For me it isn't, hence my signature line.

[mjv1121]

tayga,

Since you mention Newton, and since it is his laws to which I am referring, perhaps we may ask his opinion:

"It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter, without mutual contact"...."That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws." Isaac Newton

"I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses." Isaac Newton

I have bolded to key phrases, and since I agree with Newton, it should come as no surprise that he agrees with me.

The possibility of effect without cause such as that required by force or action at a distance is utterly absurd.

The purpose of this thread is to divine, beyond the bleeding obvious of 1)-5), what we can say that we know rather than what we think we know. As I pointed out in my first bracketed paragraph of my opening post, if we wish to play the doubtful philosopher, we may question even the nature of our own existence. Whether we in fact we exist as humans in a real universe or in the passing moment of a fleeting dream of an unknown alien being, it really makes no difference. Everything must yield to the simplest of truths: all effects must have a cause. How is it that you believe you have any knowledge of anything ever, and yet to reduce what is surely the single most obvious fact of any existence to "something that we accept to be true". Could there possibly being anything that could be held in higher regard than this simple and self-evident fact.


Michael

[webolife]

Aardwolf,
Nice to see you here in this discussion! Kinetically speaking, denser media are characterized by less "energy" or momentum, so in a kinetic model of light it can be supposed that the light stuff is freer to move and be jostled about by the higher KE media it is "entering". However these assumptions, and the premise that light is moving faster in one medium than the other, are only evidenced by the angular refraction/reflection difference, not by actual velocity measurements. There are geometric reasons why the vectors of light would change direction between two media that have nothing to do with light actually moving across space. This also applies to the supposed "slowing" of light through a Bose-Einstein concentrate. The allegedly limiting "c-rate" for light is another presumption that is not on the list of "what we know for certain".

[webolife]

MJV,
The paragraph following this quote from the Principia has Newton going on to ponder about an aether like field mediating gravity. Kind of like a "quantum" field? I like Newton as well, but I again agree with Tayga that this falls back out of the realm of "what we know for certain". You seemingly cannot yet cognitively separate between what you "know" and what you "think" you know.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

MJV is claiming that causation can only be the outcome of collisions of particles

I think you have mistaken that which I may have said in other threads with what I have stated in this thread. My list of fundamental truths does not mention particles. Obviously, no matter how many times you divide an particle, even a Planck quantum, what you are left with is small particles. Referring to this a quantisation does not remove the fact that at whatever level of size you wish to reduce to you still have particulation. You can reduce and reduce and reduce, but you will not find the continuous wispy fluid of your imaginings. As with any gas or liquid with which we are familiar, if you reduce in size you will find particles. Spiritualising and romanticising about the nature of reality will not rid you of the inevitable reality of particles.

Of course, if you choose you may select an aether (force/pressure field) that behaves as a fluid, and you may have waves and force and action by those waves. But be under no illusion, the operation of those waves is in fact the collisional operation of particles. That all being said I have not installed even this is my list - not yet anyway.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

What force or exchange of momentum accelerates light when it exits a denser medium?

I was not aware that light is accelerated anywhere. Surely it always travels at c (other than the Aardwolf caveat of course). Photons/light travel at c in "the vacuum" and slower through other mediums. I would say that it is due to absorption (i.e. collision) with electrons and then re-emission. As to the speed it travels (future evidence notwithstanding) it always travels at the same speed and always actually travels through the vacuum.

Why do you ask?

Michael

P.S. You will also notice that the speed of light as c is not on the list and neither is the concept of electron emission and electron absorption/re-emission and neither is photon-particle or wave and neither is particle-wave duality and neither is light is or is not affected by gravity.

Theories of light, gravity and electromagnetism are rather too contentious. As is the nature of the vacuum, the age and size of the universe and where do bears find it most convenient to .....

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,
Nice to see you here in this discussion! Kinetically speaking, denser media are characterized by less "energy" or momentum, so in a kinetic model of light it can be supposed that the light stuff is freer to move and be jostled about by the higher KE media it is "entering". However these assumptions, and the premise that light is moving faster in one medium than the other, are only evidenced by the angular refraction/reflection difference, not by actual velocity measurements. There are geometric reasons why the vectors of light would change direction between two media that have nothing to do with light actually moving across space. This also applies to the supposed "slowing" of light through a Bose-Einstein concentrate. The allegedly limiting "c-rate" for light is another presumption that is not on the list of "what we know for certain".

According to the paragraph below, which I have taken from a description of how light is manipulated, it appears they make a direct measurement of the speed of light pulse, not an inference due to refraction.

An example is seen in Figure 13 where the shadow (and the cloud) has a length of 0.008 inches. By sending a light pulse through precisely this cloud, we record the red light pulse in Figure 14. It takes the pulse 7 microseconds (7 millionths of a second) to get through the cloud. We now simply divide the cloud length by the propagation time to obtain the light speed of the light pulse: 71 miles/hour.