The property of impenetrability

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter xavier_r
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Property
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of impenetrability in the context of matter, particularly its implications in metaphysics and physics. Participants explore whether impenetrability has been studied for particles and seek resources related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the philosophical background of impenetrability, citing John Toland and Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz's differing views.
  • One participant questions whether impenetrability has been studied for particles and requests links to relevant resources.
  • Another suggests that the topic may be more suitable for the quantum physics forum, noting potential philosophical implications that could deter some participants.
  • A participant expresses interest in sharing personal theories related to impenetrability, indicating a desire for feedback from the community.
  • There is a reminder that personal theories should not be posted in main forums, but can be submitted to the Independent Research forum if they meet specific criteria.
  • One participant distinguishes between metaphysics and physics, emphasizing the relevance of the latter to their thoughts on impenetrability.
  • A participant shares a link to an article that may provide additional information, suggesting it could be accessible for university students.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the relevance of impenetrability to physics versus metaphysics, and there is no consensus on the appropriate forum for discussing personal theories. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the study of impenetrability for particles.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge the philosophical implications of impenetrability, which may complicate its discussion within a physics context. The distinction between metaphysical and physical interpretations of impenetrability is also noted.

xavier_r
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
From wikipedia:
In metaphysics, impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The philosopher John Toland argued that impenetrability and extension were sufficient to define matter, a contention strongly disputed by Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz.

Has impenetrability been studied for particles?
Can anyone please give me some links on this subject?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
woa... no replies...
 
You might want to post this in the quantum physics forum instead, although some people might be turned off by the philosophical implications of this.
 
Defennder said:
You might want to post this in the quantum physics forum instead, although some people might be turned off by the philosophical implications of this.

Where should I post it if I have some theories of my own?
 
xavier_r said:
Where should I post it if I have some theories of my own?
Personal theories are not to be posted in the main forums. However, we do have an Independent Research forum where you may submit your work if it meets our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.

Please refer to the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" for a full explanation of our rules; note especially the section on "Overly Speculative Posts".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks DOC AI...

Russ, yea i know the difference ;)
I have some thoughts on impenetrability but they are more into physics than metaphysics... I am preparing a paper of that and hope to get some opinions on that from PF...
 
Hi,

I apologize for my ignorance in this matter, but looking in the net I found this article. If you are student in some University I am pretty sure you could get it for free. Maybe this link could help you:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/bj00v2m9lrv4an2d/

Best.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
500
Views
95K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
14K