Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998
Gravitation inquiry
Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
>From: Tom Bowden
>
>I guess what confuses me is not knowing whether the
>force of gravitation is *something* distinct from the fact
>that bodies attract each other. In other words, is there
>some underlying fact (whose existence we know of), an
>*effect* of which is the movement of bodies toward each
>other? Or is "force of gravitation" simply a conceptual
>identification of the fact that bodies attract each other,
>without an understanding of any underlying cause?
This question really hinges on what is meant by the term "cause."
In Objectivism, the term "cause" primarily means that an entity
acts according to its nature, making "cause" refer to the thing
acting, and "effect" the action (or change) of *that* entity.
The primary statement of cause and effect is: it acts; where
"it" is the cause, and "acts" is the effect. This is also why
causality is self-evident in Objectivism, since we observe
things acting.
In this sense of the term, the cause of gravity is not yet
known. That is, no one has yet identified "that which is acting
between massive bodies leading them to a mutual movement towards
one another." Most modern theories of what this is rely heavily
on a hypothetical particle called the "graviton," which is
supposed to be able to impart momentum to bodies with mass -- in
my opinion, this is multiplying metaphysical entities more than
is necessary.
However, the term "cause" can also mean "to bring something about."
In this sense, gravity does have a cause -- the existence of the
massive body, which brings about a gravitational field, that
then acts on other bodies leading them to move closer.
This is the sense in which Newton's theory can be said to be
causal, rather than merely descriptive. A gravitational field is
a physically real existent -- and the same can be said of
electric and magnetic fields. However, he also knew that since
he couldn't identify what this something between bodies was, his
theory was a mixture of merely descriptive mathematics and
causal mechanics. He was the one to come up with the conception
of a field, which, somehow, imposes a force on the bodies in it.
That "somehow" is probably the crux of your question.
Certainly, in the very least, the stuff between things would
have to be something real -- and highly active -- for one body
to influence another over a spatial distance. Calling it a
"field" is a step in the right direction, but if the "field" is
not mathematically modeled as a thing acting, then it leaves a
gap in understanding how it all works. In other words, a
gravitational field is conceived of as static (unchanging), and
yet, somehow acting on bodies -- leading to a "disembodied"
force -- the gravitational force -- acting on the massive bodies
with no particular means. This is a premise that needs to be
checked, and corrected. When it is, it will resolve many
problems in the continuity of physics right down to the quantum
level.
I'll say this for Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves,"
at least he understands *something* must be *active* between
material bodies for them to be able to influence each other over
a spatial distance. Unfortunately, for gravity, even his theory
relies on the supposed graviton, which existence hasn't been
confirmed in any way whatsoever.
