The Equation E = mc² Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 143):

… when Einstein presented his special theory of relativity to the world in 1905, the entire concept of mass was transformed. With his famous equation E = mc², Einstein demonstrated that mass (m) is a form of energy (E); a particle such an electron can be viewed as a lump of concentrated energy.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, Einstein's equation identifies the amount of unfolding potential of a process by reference to the amount of mass of the medium through which a process unfolds.

In this view, a particle such as an electron is an instance of quantum potential that mediates a process whose potential to unfold is proportional to the mass of the instance.

That is, the concentrated energy of an electron is the 'unfold potential' of a process it can mediate.

The Distortion Of Space-Time Around Black Holes Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 142):

The smaller a black hole is, the more strongly spacetime is distorted in its immediate vicinity (in effect, spacetime has to be wrapped more tightly to surround a smaller black hole). Distorting spacetime strongly implies the presence of strong gravitational fields, and Stephen Hawking has shown that the fierce gravity near such a hole would excite the quantum vacuum to produce real particles, paid for by the gravitational energy of the hole. Particles would boil off from the hole into the outside world, while the hole itself would lose mass and eventually evaporate completely away in a burst of subatomic debris.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, viewed through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, gravity is the relative contraction of space intervals, and relative expansion of time intervals, with increasing proximity to the centre of mass.

What the authors here describe as the tight wrapping of space-time actually describes the geodesic trajectories of bodies orbiting a black hole, with 'tighter' orbits — the tracing of smaller circles — around smaller black holes than around larger ones.

The reason why geodesics — the shortest path between two points — are curved towards the centre of mass is because space intervals are contracted in that direction. 

In the discourse of physics, space is routinely confused with the trajectories of bodies through space, and time is routinely confused with the processes that unfold through time.

Virtual Particles Viewed Though Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 136, 139, 140):

One of the more bizarre consequences of quantum uncertainty is that matter can appear out of nowhere. In classical physics, energy is a conserved quantity; that is, it can be neither created nor destroyed, only changed from one form into another. Quantum mechanics permits energy to appear spontaneously from nothing, so long as it disappears again rapidly. Since matter is a form of energy, this provides … for the possibility of particles appearing briefly out of nothing. Such phenomena lead to a profound modification of what we mean by 'empty' space.

Imagine a box from which all particles of matter have been removed. We might think of it as a perfect vacuum — empty space. In fact, the fluctuating quantum energy of the vacuum causes the temporary creation of all manner of 'virtual' particles — particles which exist only fleetingly before fading away again. The apparently inert vacuum is actually a sea of restless activity, full of ghostly particles which appear, interact and vanish. And this applies whether or not the box is emptied of all 'permanent' matter — the same restless vacuum activity goes on all around us, including in the space between atoms in ordinary matter. …

 The only thing that prevents the virtual particles taking on a real, permanent life is lack of energy. The inherent uncertainty of the quantum world allows them to appear for a short time, without the Universe budgeting for the discrepancy. But the fluctuation cannot be sustained indefinitely, and on longer time-scales the energy books must be kept in balance. Real particles can be created in a similar fashion only by supplying a large enough source of energy. … Virtual particles from the vacuum could be directly promoted into permanent reality if enough energy were available.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'restless activity' of brief spontaneous appearances of energy or matter ('ghostly particles') 'from nothing' 'out of nowhere' is the instantiation of potential.

From the same perspective, a particle is the medium through which a process unfolds, and as previously explained, energy is the ability of a process to unfold.

The duration of a process, mediated by a particle, virtual or real, thus varies with the ability of the process to unfold, and this ability varies according to the probabilities of the potential that each process instantiates.

The Distinction Between Classical And Quantum Physics Though Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 135-6):

For our present purposes, the central feature of the quantum theory is indeterminism. The old physics linked all events in a tight chain-mesh of cause and effect. But on the atomic scale the linkage turns out to be loose and imprecise. Events occur without well-defined causes. Matter and motion become fuzzy and indistinct. Particles do not follow well-defined paths and forces do not produce dependable actions. The precision clockwork of Newtonian mechanics gives way to a ghostly mêlée of half-forms. It is out of this submicroscopic ferment that the essential quantum uncertainty emerges. What happens from moment to moment cannot be predicted with definiteness — only the betting odds can be given. Spontaneous random fluctuations in the structure of matter, and even of spacetime, inevitably occur.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the main distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is that quantum physics introduced the distinction between potential and instance, whereas classical physics is only concerned with instances.

The 'precision clockwork' of Newtonian mechanics is only concerned with the quantification of instances. Quantum mechanics, however, is concerned with the quantification of both potential and instance, where potential is quantified in terms of probabilities (uncertainty, 'betting odds'), and instances are quantified in terms of frequencies that manifest those probabilities.

It is the probabilistic nature of potential that the authors describe in terms of instances that are 'fuzzy and indistinct' and a 'ghostly mêlée of half-forms'.

The Beginning Of Space-Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 135):

The big bang implies the appearance not merely of matter and energy, but of space and time as well. The bonds of gravity marry spacetime to matter; where one goes the other must follow. The big bang is the past extremity of the entire physical Universe, and marks the beginning of time; there was no "before". This perplexing concept was long ago anticipated by St Augustine, who maintained that the world was created 'with time, not in time'. 

Generations of philosophers and theologians have argued about the meaningfulness of a creation 'with time'. Such an event must be without prior cause, for causation is itself a temporal concept. … But modern physics, specifically the quantum theory, has thrown new light on the relation between cause and effect, cutting across the old paradox of what caused a big bang for which there is no "before".

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, space and time are the dimensions of the Universe: the four axes of space-time along which the location and extent of phenomena can be measured. What 'begins' are the phenomena that afford such measurement.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, processes may be self-engendered or other-engendered. However, the beginning of the Universe can only be self-engendered because, by definition, the Universe is all inclusive.

Quantum Theory, as interpreted through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, provides the means of understanding this self-engendered process as the process of instantiation, whereby potential becomes actual. In this view, the beginning of the Universe is an instantiation of potential.

The Planck Time Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics And General Relativity

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 134):

… it is now widely accepted that there is a fundamental unit of time, the 'Planck time', beyond which intervals cannot be subdivided. This quantum property of spacetime implies that time 'began' in a sense, when the Universe was 10⁻⁴³ of a second 'old'. The singularity can never be probed. What had previously been treated as a singularity at the origin of time is smeared out by quantum effects.

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, the Planck time is the time a photon takes to travel the Planck length (1.62 × 10⁻³⁵ m). That is, from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the Planck time is the duration of the unfolding of the fastest process over the shortest space interval.

To be clear, the notion that time (i.e. processes) began when the Universe was 10⁻⁴³ of a second 'old' is self-contradictory since, logically, this is the end of the first time interval, not the beginning. However, the resolution of this contradiction is provided by Quantum Theory, as interpreted by Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. From this perspective, the first Planck time interval is the duration of the first instantiation of potential as actual. In this view, it is the Universe as actual that begins at the end of the first Planck time interval.

Moreover, from the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the cosmological expansion entails the relative expansion of the Planck space interval and the relative contraction of the Planck time interval, whereas gravity, conversely, entails the relative contraction of the Planck space interval and the relative expansion of the Planck time interval.

Observation Converting The Potential Into The Actual — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 132-3):

Another strand of research … involves quantum theory, which tells us that there is an inherent uncertainty in the outcome of events at the subatomic level. In quantum mechanics, many possible future patterns all exist, in some sense, until observation converts the potential into the actual. This crucial transformation might just in some way be connected with the woolly concept of the flow of time.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, quantum potential is a probabilistic ('inherently uncertain') system, and a system is instantiated in accordance with its probabilities. Importantly, the 'many possible future patterns" only have potential existence. The reason why observation converts the potential into the actual — instantiates the system — is that this process of sensing is the act of construing experience as (an instance of) meaning.

The act of observation defines the present as a point of reference on the time axis. This is distinct from the change of this reference point on the time axis (the 'flow of time').

Understanding Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 132, 133):

Although the great weight of scientific and philosophical argument is on the B-theorists, and against the objective reality of a moving present, it seems impossible to shrug the matter aside. Surely there must be some aspect of time that we do not yet understand, and which surfaces in a muddled and incomplete way in our perception of a moving present moment? …

Unsatisfactory though it may be, we have to admit defeat in our attempt to decide what time is, and to make do with our everyday images of the flow of time in trying to describe the origin and ultimate fate of the Universe. This very admission of defeat is, however, in itself one more indication of the need for a post-Newtonian paradigm, a sign that there is more to the Universe than our established scientific theories can yet encompass.

Blogger Comments:

As previously explained, the notion of an 'objective reality' beyond semiotic systems is invalidated by the experiments of quantum physics which demonstrate that 'reality' is meaning construed of experience, as in the act of observing. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, reality is not 'objective', but intersubjectively construed.

As previously explained, the meaning of 'time' can be clarified by viewing it through the lens of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory. This perspective provides a clear distinction between time and process, which are confused in the discourse of physics, and identifies the present moment as a point of reference on the time axis defined by the location in time of a process of making meaning.

As previously explained, the post-Newtonian paradigm is the immanent view of meaning provided and validated by quantum physics. In this view, scientific theories are open-ended evolving semiotic systems. The notion of scientific theories 'encompassing' the Universe, on the other hand, takes the transcendent view of meaning, assuming that the domain outside semiotic systems is pre-categorised, independent of semiotic systems.

Distinguishing The Cosmological Expansion From Arrows Of Time Using Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 131-2):

The ultimate clock is the Universe itself, which through its progressive expansion in size defines a "cosmic time." It seems as if there may be some deep significance in this — both the thermodynamic arrow of time and the philosophers' arrow of time seem to have their roots in the expansion of the Universe, in the cosmological arrow of time. …

The gravitational equations that govern the motion of the cosmos impose a restriction (known technically as a constraint) which has the effect of eliminating the time coordinate. As a result all change must be gauged by correlations. Ultimately, everything must be correlated with the size of the Universe. Any vestige of a moving present has faded completely, exactly as the B-theorists have always claimed.

Blogger Comments:

This confuses time as the dimension of the Universe along which processes unfold with the unfolding of processes from start to finish ("the arrow of time").

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the expansion of the Universe is the relative expansion of space intervals, and the relative contraction of time intervals (as between ticks of a clock). 

An arrow of time (the unfolding of a process), therefore, does not "have its root" in the expansion of the Universe. Instead, the expansion of the Universe entails the contraction of the intervals of the dimension along which processes unfold.

By the same token, a process of change is distinct from the time dimension along which it unfolds. The dimension itself involves taking the unfolding of one process as a standard, such as one revolution of the Earth around the Sun, and correlating the temporal duration of that process with the durations of other processes. The size (spatial extent) of the Universe is thus largely irrelevant to such correlations.

And none of this has any bearing on a 'moving present', since the present is just a reference point on the time axis, corresponding to the time of sensing or saying (of construing experience as meaning or wording).

The Notion That Time Cannot Be Measured Directly — Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 131):

Indeed, the B-theorist can go beyond this, by pointing out that we never measure time directly. What we actually measure is something physical, like the position of a hand on a clock, or the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. When we say that something was broken at four o'clock, what we are really saying is that intact states correlate with the little hand of the clock being above the number 4, and broken states correlate with the little hand being below the number 4. In this way, it is actually possible to eliminate all reference to time in describing the world.

The A-theorist might counter that the notion of the changing position of the clock hand itself requires a reference to time, unless it too is correlated with something, such as the rotation of the Earth. But then one can wonder about the motion of the Earth, and so on. What lies at the end of this regress?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, interpreted in terms of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is the dimension along which processes unfold, so processes provide the criteria for determining time intervals or units.

For example, the process of the Earth orbiting the Sun once provides the time interval 'year', and the process of the Earth rotating on its axis once provides the time interval 'day'. The time interval 'hour' derives from arbitrarily dividing the duration of one Earth rotation into 24 equal intervals.

So we don't "measure the position of a hand on a clock". Instead, the hand on a clock indicates the time at a spatial location in terms of the Earth's rotation.

And, in this regard, we don't exactly "measure the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun". Instead, the duration of the orbiting process provides time intervals that serve as units for measuring the extent and location of processes in general.

So when we say that a coffee mug was broken at 4 o'clock, we are temporally locating the mug's process of breaking relative to the Earth's process of orbiting for a given spatial location. The qualities 'intact' and 'broken' describe the medium of the breaking process, the mug, before the inception of the process and after its completion.

On this basis, it is not time that the authors have attempted to remove from their description, but process. The description depends on the reference to the time of four o'clock, but it removes the process of breaking.

The B-Theorist Model Of Change Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 130-1):

At this point, the sceptical reader may well protest … 'Whatever the physicists and philosophers may say, of course things happen. There is change; I experience it directly. For example, today I smashed a coffee mug: this event occurred at 4 o'clock … . My coffee mug is now broken, and it wasn't this morning.'

The B-theorist, however, will retort that there is only an illusion of change. 'All you are really saying is that before 4 o'clock the coffee mug is intact, after 4 o'clock it is broken, and at four it is in a transitional state.' This neutral mode of description — the physicist's B-series — conveys precisely the same information about the coffee mug events, but makes no reference to the passage of time. There is no need to talk of the coffee mug changing into a broken state, or to say that this happened at 4 o'clock. There are simply dates, and states of the coffee mug; that is all. No more need be said.'

Blogger Comments:

To be clear, B-theorists do not believe that change is an illusion, but that all change can be described in 'before-after' terms, without recourse to tense distinctions. Clearly, in these terms, a smashed coffee mug has undergone a change of state from intact (before) to broken (after).

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the authors are here confusing process with time, misconstruing the unfolding of a process (smash) as the passage of time. From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is one axis of four-dimensional space-time, and dimensions do not "pass".

Clearly, what the authors present as the physicist's B-series mode of description is not neutral, since it is epistemologically motivated. Moreover, it does not convey precisely the same information about the coffee mug events, since it reconstrues a material process ('smash') as a temporal relation between qualities ('intact' and 'broken').

The Forward Movement Of The Present In Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 130):

A further difficulty, they [B-theorists] point out, concerns the question of how fast the present moves forward in time — how fast time flows. The answer can only be one second per second (or twenty-four hours per day), which tells us nothing at all; it is a mere tautology. The concept of flux or change refers to something that has different values at different times. But what sense can one attach to the notion of time changing with time?

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is a dimension: one of the four axes of space-time. The notion of any dimension flowing is inconsistent with both the theory and the notion of a dimension.

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the present is the time of making meaning, a senser sensing or a sayer saying, and this time serves as a reference point for labelling temporal locations as past or future. The "movement of the present in time" is the change of the location of this reference point on the time axis.

The A-Series vs B-Series Theories Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

 Davies & Gribbin (1992: 129-30):

Philosophers have long debated the thorny issue of whether the present moment is objectively real, or just a psychological invention. Those, such as Hans Riechenbach and G. J. Whitrow, who have argued for the reality of the present are known as 'A-theorists', while their opponents, among whom are some distinguished figures such as A. J. Ayer, J. J. C. Smart are called 'B-theorists'.

The terminology A and B reflects the existence of two quite distinct modes of speech. The first, the so-called A-series, uses the concepts of past, present and future, and the rich vocabulary of tenses that permeates human language. 

The second system of discussing temporal sequences, the B-series, uses a system of dates. Events are labelled by the date on which they happen: Columbus sets sail, 1492; first man on the Moon, 1969. This serves to place events in order unambiguously, and is the system that physicists use. The dates are simply coordinates, exactly analogous to the use of latitude and longitude for defining spatial positions on the surface of the Earth, and as far as the physicist is concerned that is all that is needed to give a complete account of the world.

B-theorists argue that these two schemes of discussing the same set of events cannot be compatible. Because the present moment is always moving ahead in time, events which start out being in the future sooner or later become the present, and then the past. But a single event cannot be labelled by all three descriptions — it cannot be in the past, the present and the future.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the A-series theorists take the tense system of the verbal group as the basis of a model of time, whereas the B-series theorists, as they are presented here, take the circumstantiation system of the clause as the basis for a model of time.

Actually, what the A-series theorists assert is that the present is somehow 'metaphysically privileged' over the past and future, and the B-series theorists deny this. From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the 'metaphysical privilege' of the present is simply the fact that it alone is the time of making meaning (sensing or saying).

Importantly, the present is a reference point on the dimension of time, and so it is this reference point that varies in its location along the time dimension. The mistaken notion of a 'flow' of time, which the A-series theorists insist upon, derives from not recognising the present as a reference point on the time axis.

Once the present is understood as a reference point, the two schemes, the A-series and the B-series, can indeed be seen as compatible, since the same set of events can be labelled as past, present or future, depending on their location in time relative to a reference point.

'Objectively Real' vs 'Psychological Invention' Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 129-30):

Philosophers have long debated the thorny issue of whether the present moment is objectively real, or just a psychological invention. Those, such as Hans Riechenbach and G. J. Whitrow, who have argued for the reality of the present are known as 'A-theorists', while their opponents, among whom are some distinguished figures such as A. J. Ayer, J. J. C. Smart are called 'B-theorists'.

 

Blogger Comments:

On the one hand, the opposition between 'objectively real' and 'just a psychological invention' derives from the Galilean distinction between primary qualities (e.g. the position and motion of bodies) and secondary qualities (e.g. odours and sounds), with primary qualities being the only valid domain of scientific study. See, for example, the earlier posts:

The Thoughts Of Galileo Vs Systemic Functional Linguistics

Edelman On Galileo Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

On the other hand, the notion of 'objectively real' takes a 'transcendent' view of meaning, such that meaning transcends semiotic systems like language. In this view, experience is pre-categorised, independent of semiotic systems, and the task of science is to identify those categories and their relations.

However, this 'transcendent' view of meaning is invalidated by the experiments of quantum physics, which demonstrate that, in the words of John Wheeler, 'no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon'; that is, that 'reality' is the meaning that we (intersubjectively) construe of experience. This is the 'immanent' view of meaning: that meaning is created as semiotic systems. In this view, the task of science is to make meanings of meanings, primarily of the meanings of language construed of the meanings of perceptual systems.

'Past-Future' vs 'Earlier-Later' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 128-9):

But confusion also arises as a result of a linguistic muddle over the use of the terms 'past' and 'future'. The concepts of past and future do have a place in physics, provided that one is careful to use these words in the correct way grammatically. The notion of the past or the future is not allowed. Nevertheless, one can still talk of one event being in the past of another event. There is no doubt that events are ordered in time, just as the pages of this book are ordered in space, in a definite sequence; furthermore, this order … has a direction associated with it, even though nothing actually 'flows' at all. After all, the very idea of causality demands that some sort of earlier–later relationship applies to events.

But when we refer to an 'arrow' of time, we should not think of the arrow flying though the void from past to future; rather, we should think of the arrow as like the compass needle, pointing the way to the future, even though it is not moving into the future. 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, the terms 'past' and 'future' signify locations in time relative to the time of making meaning: the present. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'internal' to the sensing or saying event.

From the same perspective, the terms 'earlier' and 'later' signify locations in time that do not take the time of making meaning as the point of reference. In a sense, these meaning distinctions are 'external' to the sensing or saying event.

By the same token, the 'arrow' of time is the 'direction' of the unfolding of a process, from its inception (at an earlier time) to its completion (at a later time). The unfolding of a process is distinct from the circumstantial dimension of time in which it is located, and along which it extends.

The 'Arrow' And 'Flow' Of Time Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 128):

Many people confuse the existence of an arrow of time with the psychological impression that time is flowing or moving in one direction. This is due in part to the ambiguous symbolism attached to the idea of an arrow, which can be used to denote either motion in the direction of the arrow, or simply a spatial asymmetry, as when the arrow on a compass needle distinguishes north from south. When a compass needle points north, it does not mean that you are moving north.

 

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of the General Theory of Relativity, time is one dimension of space-time. The notion of an arrow of time construes this dimension as a vector, that is: with direction as well as magnitude. 

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory, time is a feature of processes, and applied to physics, it is the dimension along which processes unfold. In this view, the arrow is the direction of the unfolding, as from the start of a process to its conclusion.

Where time is construed as a dimension, the notion that the dimension itself flows or moves is just as nonsensical as construing a dimension of space as flowing or moving. Objects move in space, and the process unfolds in time.

The Notion That Time Is 'Stretched Out' Like Space Viewed Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Davies & Gribbin (1992: 127-8):

… the concept of a unified spacetime 'continuum' implies that time is 'stretched out' in its entirety, like space. No absolute and universal meaning can be attached to the notion of 'the' present. Furthermore, the idea that time 'flows', or that the present moment somehow moves from the past to the future in time, has no place in the physicist's description of the world. This state of affairs was neatly summed up by the German physicist Hermann Weyl, who declared that 'The world does not happen, it simply is.'

Blogger Comments:

Taking the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic Theory on the General Theory of Relativity, time is the dimension of the unfolding of processes. On this basis, time is not 'stretched out in its entirety like space' because there is no time dimension for processes that have not yet unfolded.

From the same perspective, the present time is the time of the unfolding of the process of making meaning, sensing or saying. As such, the present is a point of reference defined by the process of making meaning.

In this view, the idea that time 'flows' — which is voiced by physicists continually — confuses the unfolding of processes (flow) with the dimension along which the unfolding is measured (time).

Given the above, the world does 'happen' — just as Weyl's declaration 'happened' — and since motions are happenings, physical models of the motions of bodies, such as quantum mechanics, are models of happenings.

The notion that all is 'being' is a perspective that naturally arises from viewing phenomena through the lens of mathematics, since the mathematical equation is a construal of experience as being: an identity relation between phenomena.