Jeff D, John S, list,
Jeff, I think that you're correct that quantum mechanics is not at all
so contrary to continuity as people sometimes think. As you say, QM has
been reconciled with special relativity, leading to quantum field
theory. It is the Lorentz invariance in SR that demands continuity of
spacetime. It's been claimed that limits on any violation of Lorentz
invariance continue to be tightened, mainly through astrophysical
observations of neutrinos that enter the atmosphere. As I've said
before, Peirce's view that space and time are continuous continues to
look good. The Lorentz symmetries are holding, and, from what I've read
in the past, only the Lorentz symmetries and the Galilean symmetries
allow for the Principle of Relativity, that the laws of nature "look the
same" in all inertial frames of reference. I don't have references
handy, but I think those two sets of symmetries are the only games in
town. Theoretical physics would get very complicated with Lorentz
symmetries plus corrections for their observed violations,
Limits on neutrino Lorentz violation from multimessenger observations of
TXS 0506+056 [a blazar]
Physics Letters B, Volume 789, 10 February 2019, Pages 352-355
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269318309821
Testing Lorentz Symmetry Using High Energy Astrophysics Observations
Symmetry 2017, 9(10), 201; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9100201
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/9/10/201/htm
Test of Lorentz invariance with atmospheric neutrinos
Phys. Rev. D 91, 052003 – Published 3 March 2015
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.052003
7.3 Billlion Years Later, Einstein's Theory Prevails"
Oct. 28, 2009, New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/science/space/29light.html
Peirce's _reason_ for thinking space and time continuous was that he
thought that the process of thought is continuous. Insofar as that was
at the basis of his argument for Synechism, John S is right, many of us
would be reluctant to say that physicists ought — even without special
relativity or recent observations of neutrinos — to expect continuity of
spacetime on the basis of continuity of the process of thought as such.
More to the point, even very good physicists familiar with Peirce would
(I think) tread carefully in that regard.
The discretism of quantum mechanics pertains first of all to amounts of
energy and the like, not at all to positions in spacetime. Moreover
Peirce did not hold that everything whatsoever is continuous; he said
more than once that matter is discrete and once that it "no doubt"
consists of "Boscovitchian points." QM's discretism about things like
energy levels leads to surprises that nobody anticipated, e.g., the
limited internal heat capacities of particles (note, massless particles
have no internal mass/energy at all), hand in hand with their limited
capacities to contain information, which in turn is related to the
severe uniformity of particles of the same kind.
I've said enough, I myself am no physicist.
Best, Ben
On 9/3/2019 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
John S, List,
John: Re Cosmology: Peirce learned mathematics, physics, and
astronomy at his father's knee. Until he lost his position at USCGS
and JHU, his knowledge of those fields was at the forefront of
research, and that research is reflected in his cosmology. No one
knows what he might have thought about quantum mechanics. It supports
his Tychism, but it poses a challenge to his preference for
Synechism. . . . For these reasons, I'm skeptical about using
Synechism to support claims about cosmology. Peirce's logic and
semeiotic are still at the forefront of research today. But his
physics is obsolete, and so is any mathematical metaphysics that is
inconsistent with QM.
Jeff: QM takes states--most of which are characterized in discrete
terms--as the primary objects in the universe of discourse for the
theory. As such, there appears to be a tension between Peirce's
insistence on the importance of the principle of continuity for
physics and the QM of the first part of the 20th century. Having said
that, it was already recognized by 1920 that some things that seemed
to have characteristics that could be characterized in the terms of
discrete quanta, such as light, also needed to be understood in terms
of waves moving in an EM field.
For my part, I don't think the tension between the emphasis on
discreteness in the standard interpretation of QM and Peirce's
synechism in physics is as great as some might take it to be. After
all, the states are taken to involve probabilistic distributions where
some characteristics are more continuous even if other characteristics
are more discrete. In the latter part of the century, however, the
standard theory of QM is understood to be just a part of the picture
of what is happening at the quantum level. The fuller picture seems to
involve explaining phenomena in relativistic terms (RQM). What is
more, many things that are not sufficiently explained in the terms of
RQM are better explained by appeal to quantum field theory, which
takes operators and not states as the primary objects in the universe
of discourse for the theory. The operators in the fields are
understood in terms of continuous distributions in fields
My estimate, which is highly prone to error in these matters, is that
many physicists today seem to take RQM and QFT to be more fundamental
than the standard interpretation of QM.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2019 8:33 AM
*To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's work in progress
Jon and Gary R,
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
