TONY THOMAS
Tony Thomas was born in England in 1939,
and is a retired bureaucrat living in Brisbane,
Australia. He has an Australian wife, two
adult daughters, a dog and a cat. He holds
a degree in economics from the University
of Queensland. His interests are catholic,
and include: writing fiction, poetry, and
political diatribes to the newspapers. Other
abiding interests include political and social
philosophy, with occasional forays into logic
and the foundations of mathematics. His politics
are left wing anarchism, but his activities
are restricted to the pen rather than the
sword. Tony is actually a well known poet,
writer, mathematician and logician of some
stature, though he modestly complains that
on the contrary, he is not only obscure -
but unknown, and should probably be described
as such. On this website his prose pieces
and poems attract an increasing number of
regular readers - so I reckon he is wrong
for once - enjoy. ( Editor.)
|
GUNK A lighthearted romp through the gunkyverse
Tony Thomas
Gunkworld
Gunk is a theoretical substance that is infinitely
divisible. Superficially, it is rather like
water, which can be dispersed into a fine
mist. However, the finest drop of water is
composed of water molecules which are not
themselves drops of water. Water molecules
can be transformed into hydrogen molecules
and oxygen molecules by electrolysis so these
atoms cease to be the basis of water droplets.
An evaporated molecule of water no longer
has the macroscopic properties of the aggregate
of such molecules we recognise as water.
This example shows that matter, in this case
water, is not gunk. Similar arguments will
show that other forms of ordinary matter
are not gunk because it can always be resolved
into molecules at the lowest level of division.
This preserves the general idea that matter
is not infinitely divisible. However, it
does not prove that molecules, atoms and
their subatomic constituents cannot be divided
further or resolved into constituents that
are infinitely divisible.
If the gunk concept does apply to matter,
then it has to be accepted that there is
a preliminary division of matter up to the
single molecule or atom that comes before
true gunk is reached. In other words, there
may be gunk at the subatomic level, but the
gunk has boundaries before this point where
molecules form aggregates. If the gunk hypothesis
is accepted it would be necessary to show
that further hiatuses do not occur and that
there is no final basis of matter which cannot
be divided further.
Even if pure gunk does form the subatomic
stratum, there would have to be some way
of detecting that it was there. If a gunk
detector were devised, there would need to
be a means of measuring the fineness of gunk
at every level, otherwise the assertion that
it was infinitely divisible could not be
established empirically. Infinite divisibility
could never be established by experiment,
but could only be assumed on the basis of
divisibility up to the sensitivity of the
instruments used to measure the particularity
of the gunk.
A further problem is the relative size of
the particles from one level to the next.
Mathematically, the simplest ratio would
be 2:1, but there seems no reason why it
could not be any other ratio. For example,
it might be an irrational ratio, and the
ratio from one level to the next might not
be constant. Such speculation is unrestricted
and could only be resolved by empirical data.
Presumably, gunkologists would like their
hypothetical substance to conform to some
kind of mathematical model. Basic information
about atoms does exhibit numerical characteristics
both in terms of atomic mass and number of
entities, but the fact is there are a finite
number of elements and therefore of atomic
nuclei. The occurrence of boundaries, based
on subatomic and electrical forces leads
to a finite rather than infinite material
basis. Gunk, by contrast, is based on an
infinite concept that leads to an infinite
variety of gunk particles.
An obvious problem with the gunk theory is
how to explain why gunk sticks together.
In the case of liquids and solids, it is
the superficial electrical bonds associated
with electrons that bind atoms together to
form molecules and molecule to form solids
or liquids. At a lower level, where gunk
begins, these forces are absent. However,
it is conceivable that there is a binding
force between gunk particles of the same
magnitude. The problem then becomes how they
can be separated in order to divide the gunk
at this level. If the gunk is divided, as
it must if it is infinitely divisible, the
problem becomes an infinite regress, as splitting
apart the particles at the next level only
leads to finer particles that must be split.
The alternative approach is to hypothecate
homogeneous gunk which has no particles,
but which can be divided like clay, but without
limit. The question then arises as to whether
the 'glue' between smaller bits of gunk is
weaker, stronger or the same as between the
larger bits from which they came. The deeper
question is why gunk sticks together at all.
The laws of gunk might be opposite to the
laws of electricity and magnetism, so that
the surface of a piece of gunk attracts another
piece of gunk according to an inverse power
law. The attractive force between two bits
of gunk would then be a function of their
volumes, assuming that gunk has a homogeneous
density. When divided into sufficiently small
fragments a piece of gunk would be a cloud
of particles that would only weakly be attracted
together, rather like space dust. However,
given sufficient time, all gunk would eventually
coalesce into one big lump, or the Gunkyverse.
The Gunkyverse would be rather boring because
its homogeneous character would preclude
the formation of parts in the usual sense,
where such parts had attributes other than
the volume and any mass associated with it.
Indeed, the Gunkyverse would contain no parts
at all within the blob totality of undifferentiated
gunk. This is because there would be no gunk
cutters within the Gunkyverse who could divide
the gunk into forms.
If the Gunkyverse were infinite, then the
usual four-dimensional space-time would provide
a model. For every function of this geometrical
space, a corresponding gunk form would hypothetically
exist, but without a discriminating power,
would have no separate existence. What would
be required is a gunk-god who could divide
the gunk into the forms that It desired.
Having conceived the Gunkyverse, it seems
a pity not to take the matter further and
invent the god as well. The next but difficult
step would be to show how the gunk can be
transformed into the elemental particles
that seem to constitute our universe. Some
king of gunk explosion might be required,
presumably arising from the infinite compression
of the gunk ball into a point, from which
it magically transforms into the kind of
stuff that can evolve rather than just lie
there in a funk.
If the gunk-god is thought passé, we may
have to dump the gunk idea altogether. That
the cosmos that we know is nothing like the
Gunkyverse suggests that the gunk hypothesis
is just a load of, well, gunk. However, it
might be the case that physics is incapable
of detecting the Gunkyverse, just like the
aether that also defied detection and so
was deemed not to exist. It seems, therefore,
that only Occam's razor can cut through the
gunk and show that it is just another general
idea that provides no information that corresponds
to empirical observations about our rather
inhomogeneous world world.
NOTE
READ TONY THOMAS ON THE (SERIOUS) RAMIFICATIONS
OF GUNK
|