www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?opti...&lecture_id=3576
Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Out of its original context, this quote can be misleading. Einstein was not referring to today's contemporary physics, but to Maxwell's ("classical") electromagnetic wave theory, and its necessary consequences, including the constant speed of light.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn."
Whether the "world" is fundamentally continuous or made of particles (quantized) is a
philosophical issue and not one for physics to decide. The fundamental premises of physics can be this, or that, either or both. The default realist mind of the physicist is incapable of coming to terms with such multiple possibilities, demanding a single, "true" premise, and therein lies the dilemma, and not in the physics itself.
Historically, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno, and Plato initiated the discussion in philosophy, and we have not yet caught up to these ancients. Especially not the physicists who are directly confronting observable consequences of the problem.
Fundamentally, it boils down to the following questions:
1) what is what we call the "world", if anything at all
2) what do we mean by the word "is": can the world be said to be, or just to be continually becoming
3) what is unity (oneness) and many: are "objects" an illusion
4) how does relativity of place, time, and relation alter what might be
These are the issues that make Plato's "Parmenides" the enigma that it is held to be.
I suggest that anyone still interested in further limited clarification, see articles in
Wikipedia and the
SEP before tackling Part I of
Plato's dialog.
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
