| |
5.2 Derivative dispositions
Energy and force
If we look at physics and at what physics regards as part of its central understanding,
we see that one extremely important idea is energy. Physics talks about kinetic
energy as energy having to do with motion and potential energy as energy having
to do with what would happen if the circumstances were right. If we look
at definitions of force and energy which are commonly used to introduce these concepts,
we find definitions like
- force: the tendency F to accelerate a mass m with acceleration
F/m.
- energy: the capacity E to do work, which is the action of
a force F over a distance d, according to E=Fd.
- potential energy field: the field potential V(x) to
exert a force given by F= - dV(x)/dx if a test particle
is present.
Furthermore, we may see a pattern here:
- potential energy field: the disposition to generate a force,
and
- force: the disposition to accelerate a mass, and
- acceleration: the final result.
We cannot simply identify ‘force’ and ‘acceleration’, because, as
Cartwright (1983) points out, force is not identical
to the product ma: it is only the net force at a point which has that
effect. An individual force is only a tendency which may or may not be manifested.
It is a disposition, as is energy generically, as well as is potential energy. It
is generally acknowledged that ‘force’ is a disposition: my new point is that it
cannot be reduced either to ‘acceleration’ or ‘energy’.
I take these as examples of two successive derivative dispositions, where
the effect of one disposition operating is the generation of another. An electrostatic
field potential is a disposition, the manifestation of which--when a charge is present--is
not itself motion, but is the presence now of a derivative disposition, namely a
force. The manifestation of a force--when acting on a mass--may or may not occur
as motion, as that depends on what other forces are also operating on the mass.
The production of a force by a field potential does not appear to be something that
occurs by means of the rearrangements of microscopic parts. It appears to be more
fundamental and almost sui generis. It appears that field potentials,
force and action form a set of multiple generative levels. This situation
is in need of philosophical inspection.
Admittedly, many physicists and philosophers often manifest here a tendency to
say that ‘only potential energy is real’, or conversely perhaps that ‘only
forces are real’, or even that ‘only motion is real’, and that in each case
the other physical quantities are simply calculational devices for predicting whichever
is declared to be real. Please apply a contrary tendency and resist this conclusion.
In Section 6.4 I will evaluate such reductionist strategies
and discuss the comparative roles of mathematical laws and dispositional properties
within a possible dispositional essentialism.
We normally think of energy, force and acceleration as the sequential stages
of a process. However, in nature, there is still energy even after a force has been
produced, and forces continue to play their roles both during and after accelerations.
This means that energy does not finish when force begins, and force does not finish
when acceleration begins, but, in a more complicated structure, all three continue
to exist even while producing their respective derivative dispositions. The best
way I can find to explain this more complicated structure is that of a set of ‘multiple
generative levels’. We can think of a ‘level of energy’ as persisting even while
it produces forces. Since we take forces as existing even while they produce accelerations,
we must allow ourselves to talk of a ‘level of forces’ as existing continuously.
The idea of a ‘level’ is a spatial metaphor for what is not itself spatial, but
the metaphor still serves to illustrate my argument.
|