Just one point:
[PC]
> >...the conceptual
> >defining vocabulary will be underspecified in the sense that it will
> >not **include** any of the theories of physics that are
inconsistent,
> >but will be able to **describe** those theories. I do have
> protons and
> >neutrons as constituents of (most) atomic nuclei in my ontology --
is
> >there any serious debate about that?
>
[KL]
> Yes, there is.
>
> In the incomplete foundational physical theory I described above,
> there are no protons. More precisely, there are no individual
> distinguishable entities possessing the characteristics we associate
> with protons. There is only a proton wave function, which specifies
> probabilities of outcomes of various experiments we can carry out to
> measure phenomena associated with protons. It is not correct to say
> "Proton P1 is located at L1 and Proton P2 is located at L2." All we
> can say is "Two proton-localization events were observed: one at L1
> and the other at L2." For these kinds of events, quantum theory
> gives stunningly accurate probabilistic predictions.
>
> Kathy
To say there are protons "in the nucleus" does not make any
commitment as to whether the thing called "proton" is a point particle
or a distributed wave function; it only says that the proton can be
observed "in" the nucleus under conditions where it would be expected
to be observed there - and the "location" relation means just that
wherever that atom goes, the proton thingie goes with it. If you want
to say that the proton may be found "at a distance from the atom", that
would not be technically correct because the atom itself can be found
"at a distance from the atom" (i.e. at a distance from the nominal
location of the nucleus greater than the atomic diameter given in
standard physics handbooks). If any part of the atom can be found "at
some distance" from the nominal location, then the **physical theory**
of atomic locations would have to say that, and the proton "located" in
the nucleus would still be found within the same boundaries of space
that the atom is found. (01)
Perhaps you can cite a paper that says that there are atomic nuclei
*without* protons? That would be the one "fact" that makes the
proton-in-the-nucleus assertion invalid. (02)
If you want to be able to say, that, when observed in a certain
fashion, proton particles (or a quark soup or individual quarks, if you
prefer) distribute probabilistically in a region around an atomic
nucleus, the foundation ontology will provide a vocabulary that will
let you say that too. That would, however, not require that such a
theory be part of the foundation ontology, we just want to be able to
describe that theory. (03)
The objection of proton location based on probabilities illustrates the
great problem with using ordinary language to try to say things
precisely. In the ontological definition I favor, to say that one
physical object is "part" of another physical object says only two
things:
(1) the part has a mass less than or equal to the whole (relativistic
mass)
(2) the region of space that fully encompasses the whole also fully
encompasses the part. (04)
These are necessary entailments that do not capture all intuitions
about 'part'. If anyone wants a stronger version, let them propose one
- a full-blown mereology might fit just fine if anyone wanted it. (05)
The quantum-mechanical interpretation of location does not contradict
these basic inferences of the 'located' relation. (06)
* * * * * *
If "there are no protons" how come physicists call their big
expensive toys "proton accelerators" (131,000 Google hits) instead of
"proton wave function accelerators" (0 Google hits)???
Let's be constructive, shall we? The foundation ontology has to handle
common sense as well as technical language. (07)
Pat (08)
Patrick Cassidy
CNTR-MITRE
260 Industrial Way West
Eatontown NJ 07724
Eatontown: 732-578-6340
Cell: 908-565-4053
pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx (09)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Kathryn Blackmond Laskey
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:47 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
>
> >...It has been *proved* that physics as a whole
> > > does not have a consistent foundation.
>
> Not true. Physics is *incomplete* but not inconsistent. No one has
> yet developed the hoped-for Grand Unified Theory that encompasses
> both quantum theory and General Relativity, but there are perfectly
> good, incomplete theories of each separately, and they are consistent (010)
> with each other.
>
> Specifically, Tomonaga and Schwinger showed how von Neumann /
> Copenhagen quantum theory can be made consistent with general
> relativity by requiring wave function collapses to occur along a
> timelike separated sequence of spacelike surfaces in spacetime.
> Their theory does not resolve the divergence problems that occur in
> general relativity at high energies, and it does not resolve the
> foundational debates within quantum theory about whether
> wave-function collapses really happen or whether a theory will be
> found that dispenses with them. Therefore, the theory is incomplete
> -- it doesn't fully describe what happens at very high energies and
> it doesn't explain when or how wave-function collapses occur. But it (011)
> is consistent. And very well confirmed empirically.
>
> >And every field other
> >> than physics is in even worse shape.
>
> Every other field is less complete. As for inconsistencies, one has
> to attempt to put everything into a single formalism even to attempt
> to find inconsistencies. To my knowledge no such attempt has been
> made in most fields.
>
> >...the conceptual
> >defining vocabulary will be underspecified in the sense that it will
> >not **include** any of the theories of physics that are
inconsistent,
> >but will be able to **describe** those theories. I do have
> protons and
> >neutrons as constituents of (most) atomic nuclei in my ontology --
is
> >there any serious debate about that?
>
> Yes, there is.
>
> In the incomplete foundational physical theory I described above,
> there are no protons. More precisely, there are no individual
> distinguishable entities possessing the characteristics we associate
> with protons. There is only a proton wave function, which specifies
> probabilities of outcomes of various experiments we can carry out to
> measure phenomena associated with protons. It is not correct to say
> "Proton P1 is located at L1 and Proton P2 is located at L2." All we
> can say is "Two proton-localization events were observed: one at L1
> and the other at L2." For these kinds of events, quantum theory
> gives stunningly accurate probabilistic predictions.
>
> Kathy
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config:
> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|