What causes a particle to become a wave?

LucidFlight · #1 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 11:30 am

With Templeton's permission, and fresh from the Philosophy forum, I am reproducing part of a post (made by the aforementioned member) here. Please feel free to offer any suggestions as to how you might address the concerns it raises.

I have included the comments about consciousness to retain some element of context the perhaps the intended implication behind the questions. However, if you feel such implications are irrelevant and wish to address just the physics, then please, I encourage you to do so.

Templeton wrote:Alas where do we define consciousness? Matter is energy in a base form, a wave , if you will, and prior to a wave? A particle.

So I would ask; what causes a particle to become a wave? And further; what brings a collection of waves into matter that we build into a bridge, a tree or a Christ in Mass dinner?

What if consciousness is what molds reality?

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your responses.

Evolving · #2 by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 12:20 pm

A particle doesn't become a wave, nor a wave a particle.

The same thing - an electron, say - can be observed to be behaving sometimes like a wave, sometimes like a particle, depending on the circumstances in which it is being observed. But it is always the same "thing" being observed.

The same person can sometimes be observed behaving like a Frenchman, and sometimes like a lawyer. (I am not claiming that this is a perfect analogy!)

twistor59 · #3 by **twistor59** » Dec 26, 2011 12:23 pm

Firstly we need to consider what is meant when people talk of matter being a wave or particle. It usually means "classical wave" or "classical particle". A classical wave is something that behaves like a water wave - it propagates, spreads out, refracts etc. A classical particle is something that you can localize and talk about its motion, like a grain of sand for example. But in fact, when you examine matter closely with all the expensive apparatus we've put together over the years, we find that it sometimes behaves in a wave-like manner and sometimes in a particle-like manner. Which of these alternatives it displays at any given time depends upon how we examine it.

"Wave" and "particle" are just models - paradigms for describing things we can see. The most accurate model we have for matter is that of a "quantum field". This isn't so easy to describe in words, but is possible to describe mathematically. When we say "matter is a quantum field", we're speaking loosely - what we mean is that "matter is modelled by a quantum field". This just means that a quantum field can be used to predict how the matter behaves in given circumstances. That's where physics stops and philosophy begins. Physics just build models.

I haven't a clue what consciousness is. Some sort of collective behaviour of matter? I suspect that ultimately, physics may evolve into some sort of information modelling - where matter is just information. Maybe consciousness will fit into this picture better. Don't know. I'm content with sticking with easier problems for now.

twistor59 · #4 by **twistor59** » Dec 26, 2011 12:28 pm

Evolving wrote:
The same person can sometimes be observed behaving like a Frenchman, and sometimes like a lawyer.

But never at ze same time. Zere are pas de French lawyers ?

LucidFlight · #5 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 12:33 pm

Thanks, twistor and Evolving. As for what brings matter together into a tree, I guess that's down to the causal nature of reality; that is, matter/energy interacting according to the laws of physics?

Evolving · #6 by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 12:34 pm

It seems to me, too, that consciousness, whatever it is, is a property displayed at a higher level of complexity than elementary particles. I don't see (though that may well just be my inadequacy) what the physics of elementary particles has to contribute to the question of what is consciousness.

LucidFlight · #7 by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 12:36 pm

Evolving wrote:It seems to me, too, that consciousness, whatever it is, is a property displayed at a higher level of complexity than elementary particles. I don't see (though that may well just be my inadequacy) what the physics of elementary particles has to contribute to the question of what is consciousness.

I think some people think the relationship is the other way around: that consciousness has something to do with the physics of elementary particles. However, that's a discussion for the philosophy forum, I think.

Evolving · #8 by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 12:36 pm

LucidFlight wrote:Thanks, twistor and Evolving. As for what brings matter together into a tree, I guess that's down to the causal nature of reality; that is, matter/energy interacting according to the laws of physics?

Yes - but also laws operating, again, at higher levels of complexity.

If you observe a tree then obviously, trivially, the particles constituting it are obeying the laws of physics; but much more interestingly (in this context) they are obeying the laws of biology.

Evolving · #9 by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 12:37 pm

LucidFlight wrote:
Evolving wrote:It seems to me, too, that consciousness, whatever it is, is a property displayed at a higher level of complexity than elementary particles. I don't see (though that may well just be my inadequacy) what the physics of elementary particles has to contribute to the question of what is consciousness.

I think some people think the relationship is the other way around: that consciousness has something to do with the physics of elementary particles. However, that's a discussion for the philosophy forum, I think.

I don't understand that.

EDIT: In between me reading your post and tapping the "Quote" button, you had edited in the last sentence!

It was the previous sentence to which my post referred.

LucidFlight · **#10** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 12:43 pm

Evolving wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
I think some people think the relationship is the other way around: that consciousness has something to do with the physics of elementary particles. However, that's a discussion for the philosophy forum, I think.

I don't understand that.

EDIT: In between me reading your post and tapping the "Quote" button, you had edited in the last sentence!

It was the previous sentence to which my post referred.

I can understand it. I understand it as being back-to-front. :smile:

Evolving · **#11** by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 2:13 pm

Well, I've read the thread to which you linked, LucidFlight (fortunately it wasn't very long), but I'm not really any the wiser as to the connection between consciousness and particle physics.

I agree with some of what the OP there was saying, in that it is very obviously true both that the knowledge we have of physical reality and the subjective impression we have of it result from how that reality interacts with our bodies, including our senses.

For instance. We have the impression that most matter (at least below certain temperatures) is something very hard and unyielding: you can't walk through a wall (though you can walk through a shower); we don't fall through the surface of the earth towards its centre of mass (where the gravity is concentrated); and when I tap my fingers on this keyboard, the keys are impelled downwards by the impact. And this property of matter is something so obvious and fundamental that it doesn't even occur to most of us to wonder where it comes from. (Including me: I don't think I really realised there was something to wonder about until I had already been taught the solution!)

Now we know all sorts of things about nuclear forces, charge, mass (which seems in turn to come from a particle, as we have all been reading recently), the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from), and taking all these things together we can see why the matter surrounding us interacts with the matter constituting us in such a way that our impression is, as I said, of matter being hard, unyielding and all the rest of it. But we also know that, if you're a neutrino, it doesn't seem like that at all; why? because neutrinos only rarely interact with other forms of matter.

Obviously you can't really be a neutrino, nor can you be made up of them, for precisely the same reason: they don't interact enough to build anything up.

twistor59 · **#12** by **twistor59** » Dec 26, 2011 2:54 pm

Evolving wrote: the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from),

Yes, I'm not sure if anyone really understands the origin of that. I did enjoy Mike Towler's slides though...

Evolving · **#13** by **Evolving** » Dec 26, 2011 3:54 pm

twistor59 wrote:
Evolving wrote: the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from),

Yes, I'm not sure if anyone really understands the origin of that. I did enjoy Mike Towler's slides though...

I have had a look at those slides, and my considered opinion is now:

The Pauli exclusion principle. Goodness knows where that comes from!

Cito di Pense · **#14** by **Cito di Pense** » Dec 26, 2011 8:09 pm

Evolving wrote:
Now we know all sorts of things about nuclear forces, charge, mass (which seems in turn to come from a particle, as we have all been reading recently), the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from), and taking all these things together we can see why the matter surrounding us interacts with the matter constituting us in such a way that our impression is, as I said, of matter being hard, unyielding and all the rest of it. But we also know that, if you're a neutrino, it doesn't seem like that at all; why? because neutrinos only rarely interact with other forms of matter.

That condensed matter is experienced as hard and unyielding ('incompressible') is explained in some considerable degree by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP): Electron shells of neutral atoms and molecules strongly resist interpenetrating at energies equivalent to those applied by a few newtons of force, such as a slap in the face. You think of it as electrostatic repulsion, but a more technical treatment is given by PEP.

Incidentally, some (tiny) fraction of your atoms are briefly charged or polarized at any moment, but it's such a tiny fraction that we give a good approximation of electrical neutrality, except for all those fun experiments with static electricity rubbing our soles on some carpeting when the air is dry enough. It's easy enough to look up what potentials are discharged to find out how many electrons are involved.

The capacitance of a normal adult is about 160 pF. This means if we walk along a nylon carpet and pick up a static charge of a millionth of a coulomb we shall be at a potential of more than 6000 V! If we then touch something earthed such as a metal door handle we may feel a slight shock, but the charge transferred to Earth is so tiny that it will do us no harm at all.

[ http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co. ... estat.html ]

ETA: There are about 105 coulombs per mole of charges, so that's about 10-11 mole in the carpet, or 1013 electrons. 10 picomoles! I'll have a heisenburger with lattice and anions and a pico. Hold the ketchup. On a whole wheat bunsen. She'll be having the roast Dirac of lambda with special mintal sauce. And a solid of fresh Green's functions and femtometers. You say tomato and I say tometer. Get me offstage, I'm dyne in here!

LucidFlight · **#15** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 10:27 pm

Evolving wrote:Well, I've read the thread to which you linked, LucidFlight (fortunately it wasn't very long), but I'm not really any the wiser as to the connection between consciousness and particle physics.

You may have to ask Templeton about that.

Evolving wrote:I agree with some of what the OP there was saying, in that it is very obviously true both that the knowledge we have of physical reality and the subjective impression we have of it result from how that reality interacts with our bodies, including our senses.

For instance. We have the impression that most matter (at least below certain temperatures) is something very hard and unyielding: you can't walk through a wall (though you can walk through a shower); we don't fall through the surface of the earth towards its centre of mass (where the gravity is concentrated); and when I tap my fingers on this keyboard, the keys are impelled downwards by the impact. And this property of matter is something so obvious and fundamental that it doesn't even occur to most of us to wonder where it comes from. (Including me: I don't think I really realised there was something to wonder about until I had already been taught the solution!)

Now we know all sorts of things about nuclear forces, charge, mass (which seems in turn to come from a particle, as we have all been reading recently), the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from), and taking all these things together we can see why the matter surrounding us interacts with the matter constituting us in such a way that our impression is, as I said, of matter being hard, unyielding and all the rest of it. But we also know that, if you're a neutrino, it doesn't seem like that at all; why? because neutrinos only rarely interact with other forms of matter.

Obviously you can't really be a neutrino, nor can you be made up of them, for precisely the same reason: they don't interact enough to build anything up.

Oh, I agree. These are valid and well-considered points, as are the first few of that thread. My cautioning, upon reading the rest of the OP, would be to not so readily discard our current, working model of reality, just because we cannot know for sure that it is the true nature of it. As for the other points, that is, about atheism and understanding existence via the contents of our consciousness, well, I'll leave those to discussion in the other thread.

LucidFlight · **#16** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 10:30 pm

twistor59 wrote:
Evolving wrote: the Pauli exclusion principle (goodness knows where that comes from),

Yes, I'm not sure if anyone really understands the origin of that. I did enjoy Mike Towler's slides though...

Great stuff. Thanks. :cheers:

LucidFlight · **#17** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 26, 2011 10:37 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:That condensed matter is experienced as hard and unyielding ('incompressible') is explained in some considerable degree by the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP): Electron shells of neutral atoms and molecules strongly resist interpenetrating at energies equivalent to those applied by a few newtons of force, such as a slap in the face. You think of it as electrostatic repulsion, but a more technical treatment is given by PEP.

Quite so. Quite so.

Cito di Pense wrote:ETA: There are about 105 coulombs per mole of charges, so that's about 10-11 mole in the carpet, or 1013 electrons. 10 picomoles! I'll have a heisenburger with lattice and anions and a pico. Hold the ketchup. On a whole wheat bunsen. She'll be having the roast Dirac of lambda with special mintal sauce. And a solid of fresh Green's functions and femtometers. You say tomato and I say tometer. Get me offstage, I'm dyne in here!

Erm... thank you, Cito.