The Analysis of Matter

atom, any more than the whole of the light radiated from the sun can fall on the earth. But if the light emitted by a single atom travels in a straight line (approximately), like a material particle, then it may happen to hit one atom and be absorbed whole, just as Jonah might have been swallowed by another whale. We shall have to suppose, in this case, that the spherical distribution of light round a radiating body is a statistical phenomenon, like bullets fired from a fort in all directions. This suggests the hypothesis which we have already considered in Chapter XIII., according to which nothing at all happens between the emission of light by one body and its absorption by another. In that case, empty space collapses just as the electron did, and only the surface of the electron remains. This, however, seems hardly a tenable view. The intervening space might be described as non-existent from a metrical point of view, since the interval between the emission and the absorption of a light-ray is zero; but from an ordinal point of view this is not the case, since, if and are two points on a light-ray, we can distinguish the case in which the ray goes from to from that in which it goes from to . This difference can be stated in metrical terms. For example: Let us take as our time co-ordinate the proper time of no matter what body; whatever body we choose, will be earlier than , or else, whatever body we choose, will be earlier than . Again: Suppose that at and there are mirrors, which reflect part of the[Pg 330] ray in such a way that an observer sees both reflected rays. Then either every such observer will see the reflection from before that from , or else every such observer will see the reflection from before that from . We can free this from dependence on an observer by the following method of statement: Let be a point on the ray reflected from , and a point on the ray reflected from , so chosen that the interval between and is time-like. Then, however and may be chosen, either is always before , or is always before . This is stated in the language of the special theory, but it is still valid, mutatis mutandis, in the general theory. Thus when we say that the interval between two points on a light-ray is zero we are not denying that there is an important sense in which one is earlier than the other, and in which one can be regarded as cause and the other as effect. This suggests that the zero interval is not quite so significant as it might seem to be, and I cannot therefore accept the view that there are no events along the path of a light-ray in empty space. Let us now return to the emission of light, ignoring absorption for the present; and let us still consider a single hydrogen atom. We are told to suppose that the electron revolves about the proton for a certain time, say in a circular orbit four times as large as the minimum orbit; then, suddenly, it decides to revolve in the minimum orbit. When this change occurs, the atom loses a certain amount of energy, which is transformed into light whose frequency is obtained by dividing the loss of energy by (Planck's constant). Whether the light travels only in one direction, or in a spherical wave, we are compelled, in the present state of physical knowledge, to leave an open question. But we do assume that something travels away from the electron, and that, if light is absorbed by another atom, that light has traversed a route from its place or places of origin. We assume also that the light has a frequency, i.e. that what travels is a periodic process. When[Pg 331] the light is absorbed, it ceases to exist as light, although it may reappear (in fluorescence). But often its energy exists in discoverable forms—chemical forms in chlorophyl, for example. When, however, the energy exists in the form of a steady motion of the electron in its orbit, it is not discoverable until there is a change of orbit. If we had sufficiently powerful microscopes, we could see a glowing gas dissolving into a comparatively small number of spots of light, while the atoms in steady motion would be invisible. Thus we seem to reach the conclusion that the causal laws which genuinely connect one piece of matter with another are quantum laws, in which there are various stages: first, a periodic process having no outside effect; secondly, a sudden disruption of the energy of this process into two parts, one being a new periodic process in the original body, the other a periodic process travelling in empty space; thirdly, the arrival of the travelling process at another body; fourthly, a quantum change in this other body, involving absorption of the radiant energy in the production of a new steady state in the absorbing body. All genuine causal relations between different bodies, we may suppose, involve this process of sudden loss of energy by one body and its sudden acquisition, later, by another body. The older physical laws, as reinterpreted by relativity, can apparently be so stated as to leave bodies independent of each other; but I cannot see how the quantum laws can be so stated. If one could adopt what may be called the "parcels-post" theory of radiation, according to which, when energy leaves an atom, it does so with a definite destination in view, we could simplify our account of the matter. In that case, atoms would, at most times, live a self-contained life, "the world forgetting, by the world forgot." But sometimes they would give a parcel of energy to the postman, and sometimes they would receive one from him. The postman (who is perhaps not a teetotaller) sways from side to side as he travels, and the[Pg 332] bigger the parcel the faster he sways. But he travels at the same rate whether his parcel is big or small; and he is the only link between the atom and the rest of the world. For the present, we dare not assume that the question is as simple as in the parcels-post illustration. Energy may (as the orthodox theory supposes) be lost by radiation into the void—lost, I mean, not mathematically, but practically. The difficulty is that we cannot put an instrument into the void to see what happens there; the attempt is just like trying to go and see what things look like from a place where there is no eye. All our actual knowledge is concerned with the boundary surfaces between matter and empty space: what is inside and outside these surfaces is conjectural. I cannot help believing that some far simpler logical scheme of physics is possible than any yet evolved, and that the simplification is most likely to come through giving up the attempt to make physical space resemble the space of percepts, of which a beginning has been made by the Heisenberg quantum mechanics. The theory of space-time developed in Chapters XXVIII. and XXIX. was, perhaps, unduly orthodox and unimaginative. Perhaps a great deal of apparatus could be cut away if we could free ourselves from the belief that we must preserve, in physics, characteristics which we find in psychological space and time. To this topic I shall devote the next chapter. [Pg 333] CHAPTER XXXII PHYSICAL AND PERCEPTUAL SPACE-TIME IN Part II., when we were considering the transition from perception to physics, we took over from common sense certain rough-and-ready approximations which, at our present stage, we must seek to replace by something more exact. We want now to make a second approximation: having inferred a certain kind of physical world from our percepts, we can use the properties of this inferred world to reinterpret the relation of percepts to the outer world, and we can consider more carefully whether any of the properties we assigned to the outer world were accepted without sufficient reason, merely because they were such as we think we find in the perceptual world. The subject is imaginatively difficult, and it is not easy to disentangle different levels of inference, but it is important to do so. Starting from percepts, we observe that different people have similar percepts, whose differences proceed approximately according to the laws of perspective. The first picture of the physical world to be derived from a comparison of percepts (when we start with a developed logic, not with common sense) is, that there are groups of more or less similar events arranged about centres; that the first-order laws as to the differences between events in one group are spherically symmetrical with respect to the centre of the group; and that the second-order laws are obtained by combining a number of laws of "distortion," each of which has its own centre. In this picture of the world, we use a physical space which is derived from, and also correlated with, the space of percepts, in the manner explained in discussing phenomenalism in Chapter XX. I[Pg 334] shall here repeat and amplify this construction, with a view to suggesting modifications of it derived from physics. We cannot wholly eliminate the subjective factor in our knowledge of the world, since we cannot discover experimentally what the world looks like from a place where there is no one to see it. But we can make the subjective factor approximately constant, and thus be reasonably convinced that the differences which remain are due to causes that are not subjective. I shall therefore suppose that, at a given moment, a number of photographs are taken of some object, say a chair or a table, from different places, with cameras and plates as similar as possible. I shall suppose that the photographs are compared by a person sitting motionless, who places them successively on a fixed stand in front of him. It is then reasonable to assume that the differences between his percepts of the photographs are due to physical causes; also, within limits, that the likenesses between them are due to likenesses in the stimuli to the photographic plates. We find that the differences between the photographs proceed according to certain laws, which we call the laws of perspective; these laws are correlated with the differences between the appearances of the different cameras to an observer who sees them all at the moment when the photographs are taken, and so on. In fact, they can all be expressed as functions of the "co-ordinates" of the cameras and the parts of the table, where "co-ordinates" may be defined by relation to the single observer. E.g. he may get another man to go with one end of a stretched tape-measure to each camera in turn, while he holds the other end; he can read the length of the tape-measure, and observe, on scales, the angular co-ordinates , of the tape-measure. These facts lead us to attribute a measure of objectivity to our co-ordinates, since, although they are all observed by us from our point of view, they determine the sort of photograph that a camera will take. Further, they lead us to think that, all[Pg 335] round the table or chair which is being photographed, there are events which are connected with each other according to the laws of perspective as stated with reference to a certain centre as defined by our polar co-ordinates. Our observer's , , are facts concerning his own percepts, yet they suffice mathematically to determine the "percepts" of the cameras; they must therefore have some significance which is not purely private to him. This argument, elaborated and extended in obvious ways, gives the ground for supposing that our perceptual space has some objective counterpart, i.e. that there is some relation between the camera and the table corresponding to the relation between the co-ordinates of our percepts of them. (I