The Analysis of Matter

the same as a point at another time, except in the case of a material point. The existence of this connection may be taken as the definition of "matter"; and obviously the connection is causal. [Pg 322] In order to develop this further, we must return to the view suggested in connection with perception, that events occur, usually, in groups arranged about centres. These centres may be taken to be places where there is matter. It is found that, given events arranged about a centre at one time, there are generally similar events arranged about neighbouring centres at slightly earlier or later times. By taking the centre very small, and by continually diminishing the time-like interval concerned, this statement can be made more and more nearly true; in the limit, when stated in the language of differentials, it may be exactly true, except where quantum phenomena are concerned. In their case, continuity is not the criterion, at least not continuity in all respects. There is continuity in some respects, and in others there is a jump of a definite amount connected with the quantum theory. This case shows, however, that continuity is not the essence of material identity; the essence is inferribility of a group of phenomena at one time from a group at another, when both groups are arranged about centres.[68] The time must be very short, and the inference is only approximate, except in the limit, as the time tends towards zero. Moreover, the time of the group is not any of the times at which the several members of the group occur, but the calculated time at which the group began to be propagated from the centre. The centre is "where the piece of matter is," and the route of the piece of matter is determined by the differential equations which result from the above principle. But as to what are the actual events at the centre, we know nothing except what follows from the fact that our percepts and "mental states" are among the events which constitute the matter of our brains. Thus each material unit is a causal line whose neighbouring[Pg 323] points are connected by an intrinsic differential law. The simplest form of such a law is the first law of motion, from which it follows that if a body covers a given distance in a very short time, it will cover a very nearly equal distance in the next very short time. I conceive—though this is conjectural—that, given any event anywhere in space-time, there is usually some qualitatively very similar event in a neighbouring place in space-time, and that, if there is any measurable relation between the two events, the "velocity" of the change varies continuously, so that at a third neighbouring point there will be an event differing from the second by very nearly the same amount as that by which the second differed from the first, provided the interval between the second and third points is equal to that between the first and second. This, together with the fact that events can be grouped about centres by the sort of laws which we have called "perspective," seems to explain the utility of matter in stating the causal laws of the physical world. But there is need of caution owing to quantum phenomena, as explained in the preceding paragraph. Continuity is the rule, but it may have exceptions. So long as the exceptions are subject to ascertainable laws, they do not make the whole system impossible. So far, I have said nothing about extrinsic causal laws, i.e. those which we naturally regard as exemplifying the influence of one piece of matter upon another. Einstein's theory of gravitation has thrown a new light upon these; but this is matter for a new chapter. FOOTNOTES: [68] In this case, however, if Heisenberg is right, we cannot identify an electron at one time with an electron at another. This would be a difficulty if an electron were conceived as a substance, but for us it is merely an empirical limitation of the empirical conception of a causal line. [Pg 324] CHAPTER XXXI EXTRINSIC CAUSAL LAWS I MEAN by an "extrinsic" causal law any formula in which one piece of matter is mentioned as concerned in the behaviour of another. Newtonian gravitation afforded a perfect example of an extrinsic causal law, but Einsteinian gravitation, prima facie, does not. The question I want to consider is: Can we, in the last analysis, dispense with such laws altogether, and regard each piece of matter as completely self-determined? Or must we admit them, and, if so, in what form? And what are we to say of such matters as the emission and absorption of light? Let us first consider Einsteinian gravitation. The theory consists in ascribing to every region of space-time a metrical structure which is obtained (roughly speaking) by superposing a number of structures which are symmetrical about centres, the centres being portions of matter; and, given the structure, each piece of matter moves in a geodesic, or rather is a geodesic. It is not very easy to see what this means when it is translated from the technical language of theoretical physics into the language of groups of events. Nevertheless, we must make the attempt. To begin with: Can we make "matter" into a mere law according to which events occur in the places where there is no matter? This question is analogous to that of phenomenalism as discussed in Chapter XX. We there considered the possibility of explaining unperceived "things" as laws concerning the behaviour of perceived "things." Similarly we might take events which occur in empty space, and find that they were subject to laws symmetrical about centres, and[Pg 325] define each such law as a piece of matter situated at the centre. Conversely, we might regard the supposed events in empty space as mere laws connecting events in different pieces of matter; this becomes phenomenalism if we confine the pieces of matter to human brains. There are many possible ways of turning some things hitherto regarded as "real" into mere laws concerning the other things. Obviously there must be a limit to this process, or else all the things in the world will merely be each other's washing. But the only obvious final limit is that set by phenomenalism—perhaps one ought to say, rather, that set by solipsism. If we have once admitted unperceived events, there is no very obvious reason for picking and choosing among the events which physics leads us to infer. This argument, however, hardly warrants us in assuming events inside an electron. If we assume an electron of the Rutherford type, we shall have to say that, if anything does take place inside the electron, we can know nothing about it. No physical process passes through the electron, so that the inside, if it exists, is a prison from which nothing can escape. No event inside an electron can be compresent with an event outside it; consequently, according to the theory of Chapter XXIX., no line can cross the boundary of an electron. What goes on inside, if anything does, is irrelevant to the rest of the universe, and is not really in the same space-time as what-goes on outside. Now the world of physics is intended to be a causally interconnected world, and must be such if it is not to be a groundless fairy tale, since our inferences depend upon causal laws. Therefore if anything occurs which is causally isolated, we cannot include it in physics. We have no ground whatever for saying that nothing is causally isolated, but we can never have ground for saying: Such-and-such a causally isolated event exists. The physical world is the world which is causally continuous with percepts, and what is not so continuous lies outside physics. Thus if[Pg 326] anything occurs inside an electron, such an occurrence does not belong to the world of physics. It would seem to follow that, if the electron is to have a definite position in space-time, it must be either a point or a hole. The former, however, is physically unsatisfactory, and the latter seems scarcely capable of an intelligible interpretation. Thus the Rutherford type of electron raises problems, however we may interpret it. The Heisenberg electron offers a way out of these difficulties. This electron is not in a definite place, and nothing happens inside it. It is essentially a collection of radiations observable in other places than that in which the electron would formerly have been said to be. Thus the electron is reduced to a law as to occurrences in a certain region. We cannot say, on this view, that the electron is a point, or that it is a certain finite region, or that it is a hole; it is, so to speak, something of a different logical type, connected with a region through the fact that the radiations concerned have diminishing intensity as we pass away from this region, but not capable of accurate correlation with either a region or a point. Thus on this view matter consists merely of laws as to occurrences in "empty" space. Owing to the fact that an electron at one time cannot be identified with an electron at another time where quantum changes have intervened, the conception of motion loses its definiteness where electrons are concerned. This, however, only raises difficulties when we are concerned with very minute phenomena, such as those which occur within an atom. For large-scale phenomena, such as those with which astronomy is concerned, we may still regard the electron as persisting and as moving in space-time. We can now return to the Einsteinian theory of gravitation, which necessitated this long digression. According to this theory, each electron is associated with a crinkle, which grows[Pg 327] less marked as we get away from the electron, but extends theoretically throughout space. The actual metrical structure of space-time in any region is obtained (roughly speaking) by superposing these crinkles. Now the metrical properties of space-time are nothing but a method of stating causal laws. In the case of gravitation, these laws have to do with the way in which the movement of one electron is connected with the positions of the others. We must suppose that the formula for interval represents something in the state of affairs at each place, and that bodies left to themselves move in geodesics, and that, so long as electromagnetic phenomena are left out of account, the formula for interval at any place is found approximately by superposing a number of spherically symmetrical formulæ, each of which corresponds to an electron in its central region. It is natural to ask, at this point, whether interval has any more physical reality than force. But I do not wish to raise this question yet, as I propose to consider it in later chapters. For the present we may say (a) that we can recognize peculiar regions in space-time, which are those that would naturally be regarded as in the immediate neighbourhood of matter; (b) that the formula for interval at any place is a function of the geodesic distances from that place to neighbouring pieces of matter; (c) that pieces of matter travel along geodesics. The question whether, in such a theory, there is "action at a distance" is really one of words. The formula by which we determine what will happen in a given region will contain references to distant regions, and it may be said that this is all we can mean by "action at a distance." To mean more, it may be said, is to regard causality as something more than correlation, which there can be no reason for doing. If what happens in one place is correlated with what happens in another, we may be told, nothing more could be imagined in the way of action at a distance. But this is not quite what[Pg 328] in fact occurs. What happens in one place