Re: [Marxism] O, Dialectics!

[Les Schaffer <schaffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carlos A. Rivera wrote:

> Even in the absolute zero (ie complete lack of motion on the atomic 
> level) molecules become an Einstein-Bose condensate, hence 
> transforming into another thing!!! 



you've done a little condensing of your own, but you're correct in spirit.

there are two effects here.

one is that at absolute zero temperature there is a little energy in 
molecular motion. the uncertainty principle in this case actually gives 
you a little heuristic device to work with: if motion ceased completely, 
you would know both the position and velocity of the molecule. since 
that's a no-no, molecules at absolute zero have to jiggle a little. this 
would be true even for a single molecule, its lowest energy state is not 
sitting still at a point.

even before you get to absolute zero there is another effect, this time 
a collective effect amongst a large number of cold molecules. if the gas 
is dense enough, as its cooled, each molecule's wave function starts to 
spread out and overlap others (the uncertainty smear gets larger than 
the distance between the molecules). then for molecules that obey 
bose-einstein statistcs (another story), this overlapping allows a kind 
of bonding together, in spite of a lack of a classical force field 
between the particles. the point is reached where you effectively have a 
single, spatially extended macro-particle: all comrades in a united 
front acting coherently, if you will.

needless to say, such a coherent state has unusual properties.

in a similar spirit, Leninology misses something when he says protons 
are made of quarks, which are unchanging even if the proton decays. in 
fact, the opposite would be true. IF the proton does decay, this means 
the triplet of quarks bound so tightly  together to form said proton 
have to undergo interactions leading to a transformation of at least one 
quark into other fundamental particles. If Leninology would look a 
little closer at quantum field theory (or perhaps s/he is a physicist 
and is familiar already with these things), s/he would see (or admit 
there are) endless such transformations taking place between fundamental 
particles and the vacuum background (yet another long story).

that there are invariant quantities in nature, say the energy of an 
isolated proton, does not in any way preclude these endless 
transformations. in fact, the possible transformations can depend on 
invariant quantities such as energy. from a relativistic point of view, 
this makes sense. as the energy E of a particle increases from zero, by 
equivalence of mass and  energy, transformations with other fundamental 
particles with a given mass m can take place when E >= m * c^2.

having said all this, i do like Leninology's spirit. nowhere above did i 
use the term "dialectical", yet many would see dialectical-like 
principles at work. the question is, is a dialectical philosophy of 
nature capable of "changing the world"? that is, starting from a 
dialectical principle, can we formulate new theories or discover new 
domains of behavior. it would be interesting to try. there is precedent 
for taking a philosophical principle and running with it, with 
surprising results, Heisenberg's transition to a quantum mechanics comes 
to mind. but the story has a funny ending, see below. funnier still, 
because for now, Heisenberg was right; that is, with his naive 
philosophy, he helped change the world.

les schaffer

==========

Einstein-Heisenberg dialogue

a 1926 dialogue presented in Werner Heisenberg "Encounters with 
Einstein" © 1983

For the first time, therefore, I now had the opportunity to talk with 
Einstein himself. On the way home, he questioned me about my background, 
my studies with Sommerfeld. But on arrival, he at once began with a 
central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum 
mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the 
notion of "electron path" did not occur at all, but that in a cloud 
chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It 
seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in 
the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a 
path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in 
which the electron's movements were occuring. I defended myself to begin 
with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path 
concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, 
in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of 
the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition 
probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to 
introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly 
observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in 
the theory.

To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this 
argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable 
quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply 
cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I 
had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made 
the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: 
"Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it 
is nonsense all the same."... ...He pointed out to me that the very 
concept of observation was itself already problematic. Every 
observation, so he argued, presupposes that there is an unambiguous 
connection known to us, between the phenomenon to be observed and the 
sensation which eventually penetrates into our consciousness. But we can 
only be sure of this connection, if we know the natural laws by which it 
is determined. If, however, as is obviously the case in modern atomic 
physics, these laws have to be called into question, then even the 
concept of "observation" loses its clear meaning. In that case, it is 
the theory which first determines what can be observed.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism