Balancing classical forces appears to require cancellation to infinite precision (which is one of the problems with "Tronnies"). Quantum theory fixes that by doing something akin to converting the maths from using real numbers to integers.
On 29 October 2014 10:43, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:01:15AM -0700, Peter Sas wrote: > > Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) > > where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the > transcendental > > categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One > of > > the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics' > > where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of > > attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms > > of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is > > explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be > > complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter > > infinitely throughout space. > > > > Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern > > terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of > > attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one > > object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the > objects > > moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in > the > > objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive). > > > > Here is what he writes: > > > > "These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can > > be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter > > impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as > > points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening > > between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two > ways > > for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line: > > either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; > > or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. > > Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make > sense > > of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to > > them." (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1) > > > > I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much > > more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started > > wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of > > attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible > > that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most > elementary > > form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get > closer > > to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they > > unified into? > > > > Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity > can > > also be repulsive. > > In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role, > > though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to > which > > the electromagnetic force appears to be related. > > In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role. > > > > So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day > > physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are > > different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and > > repulsion? > > > > > > > > Well that description remarkably presages electrostatic interations, > which come in both repulsive and attractive forms, are responsible for > the "solidity" of matter. Kant was perhaps 100 years ahead of his time > there. > > But not 200 years. It turns out that classical electrodyanamics is > unstable - we should have all vanished in a puff of ultraviolet > radiation if what Kant said is actually true. Stability of matter > requires the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and not only that - to > have any sort of interesting chemistry requires the Pauli exclusion > principle. > > In the words of our esteemed John Clark - clearly Kant doesn't know > what he's talking about :). > > Cheers > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret > (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
