The Watchmaker Revisited

[Polymath257]

IOW, the particle mode is a function of it's respective field.

'materiality': solidity

Well, if you use an outmoded definition of 'materiality', then you can make such conclusions. But by modern terminology, atoms are, for example, material. As are electrons, quarks, etc.

 

[exchemist]

This idea is on other sites as well. I have sent your response to Blaze Labs. We'll see what response we get, OK?

That could be quite funny: this Xavier Borg crank will probably be very angry, in which case it could be popcorn time for the other scientifically literate people on this forum.
But then again, as the guy merits his own entry at no. 511 in the Encyclopaedia of American Loons: Encyclopedia of American Loons: #511: Xavier Borg , he may be used it it by now. I do not promise to get into a protracted discussion with some internet crank, however.

If you can refer me to similar ideas on other sites I'd be most intrigued, as I find it hard to believe that the same foolish mistake about the (fictitious and artificial) classical radius of the electron can have been made by a lot of people. What seems to me more likely is that these others have said something rather different, which may have appeared on a casual reading to have looked similar. Borg seems to be an "electric universe" crank, of whom there are quite a number, so you may have come across some of these, I suppose. More about that general brand of nuttiness here: Electric Universe - RationalWiki

Coming back to real physics for a moment, as the Wiki link I posted explains, the electron is considered in QM to behave as a point particle - when it behaves like a particle. When it behaves like a wave, then of course that does not apply, but in those circumstances its wave function occupies a space with an amplitude related to the probability of finding the particle in that region of space. This wave function has no relationship at all with the rest mass energy, i.e. that of the EM radiation into which an electron can sometimes be converted (by annihilation with a positron for instance).

 

[godnotgod]

Well, if you use an outmoded definition of 'materiality', then you can make such conclusions. But by modern terminology, atoms are, for example, material. As are electrons, quarks, etc.

So what do you mean by 'material' as defined via modern terms?

Do physicists have a different meaning for it than that in general use, such as that of the word 'theory'? If something is of a material nature, it usually means there is something present having some solidity. You say the atom is 'material', but we know that it is over 99.9999% empty space.

 

[godnotgod]

... the electron is considered in QM to behave as a point particle - when it behaves like a particle. When it behaves like a wave, then of course that does not apply, but in those circumstances its wave function occupies a space with an amplitude related to the probability of finding the particle in that region of space.

So why can't we just say that a 'particle' is just a wave behaving as a particle, but it is not REALLY a particle, because what it actually is, is a standing wave? IOW, 'material reality' is an illusion.

 

[exchemist]

So why can't we just say that a 'particle' is just a wave behaving as a particle, but it is not REALLY a particle, because what it actually is, is a standing wave? IOW, 'material reality' is an illusion.

Because that would be a silly conclusion to draw.

I have taken part in discussions in the past in which people argue about whether a QM entity is "really" a particle, with some wave behaviour or "really" a wave with some particle behaviour. What nature seems to tell us is that it is neither or both, equally. QM brings the two aspects together in a model that is brilliantly successful. The real learning point, in my opinion, is the same one that Relativity teaches us: nature is not bound to behave according to everyday human concepts.

Regarding "material reality", the empty space in the atom came as a shock to Rutherford and his contemporaries back in 1909, after his famous gold foil experiment disproved the Plum Pudding Model, but ever since then our conception of matter has been one of mass and charge concentrated in subatomic QM wave-particle entities, with the "solidity" of matter being due to the electrostatic forces between them (with the extra constraint of the Pauli Exclusion Principle) that make it hard to deform or compress various states of matter. The fact that matter is "mostly empty space" does not mean it is not "really" there. This is pretty obvious, surely?

By the way I notice you keep referring to "standing waves". A QM entity in a bound state exhibits periodic behaviour, which is reflected in the standing wave idea. Examples are a rotating molecule or an electron in an atom. But an unbound, free entity, e.g an electron in space, is not in a "standing" wave state - the wave is travelling. So standing waves are not fundamental to QM: they arise where there is periodic motion. In such cases you can think of the wave as wrapping around and repeatedly passing over itself. If the phases of the wave in one pass are not aligned with the phases of the previous pass (as in a standing wave), they will progressively interfere destructively and cancel out the amplitude to zero. This is why in bound states the QM entity can only occupy certain states, at discrete energy levels, e.g. the "orbitals" of electrons in atoms or the discrete rotational states of molecules. But an unbound electron can have any energy it likes, because it is not in a bound, "standing wave"-like, state.

 

[godnotgod]

Because that would be a silly conclusion to draw.

I have taken part in discussions in the past in which people argue about whether a QM entity is "really" a particle, with some wave behaviour or "really" a wave with some particle behaviour. What nature seems to tell us is that it is neither or both, equally. QM brings the two aspects together in a model that is brilliantly successful. The real learning point, in my opinion, is the same one that Relativity teaches us: nature is not bound to behave according to everyday human concepts.

Regarding "material reality", the empty space in the atom came as a shock to Rutherford and his contemporaries back in 1909, after his famous gold foil experiment disproved the Plum Pudding Model, but ever since then our conception of matter has been one of mass and charge concentrated in subatomic QM wave-particle entities, with the "solidity" of matter being due to the electrostatic forces between them (with the extra constraint of the Pauli Exclusion Principle) that make it hard to deform or compress various states of matter. The fact that matter is "mostly empty space" does not mean it is not "really" there. This is pretty obvious, surely?

By the way I notice you keep referring to "standing waves". A QM entity in a bound state exhibits periodic behaviour, which is reflected in the standing wave idea. Examples are a rotating molecule or an electron in an atom. But an unbound, free entity, e.g an electron in space, is not in a "standing" wave state - the wave is travelling. So standing waves are not fundamental to QM: they arise where there is periodic motion. In such cases you can think of the wave as wrapping around and repeatedly passing over itself. If the phases of the wave in one pass are not aligned with the phases of the previous pass (as in a standing wave), they will progressively interfere destructively and cancel out the amplitude to zero. This is why in bound states the QM entity can only occupy certain states, at discrete energy levels, e.g. the "orbitals" of electrons in atoms or the discrete rotational states of molecules. But an unbound electron can have any energy it likes, because it is not in a bound, "standing wave"-like, state.

Thanks for the explanation.

You used quotation marks around the term 'solidity', implying that there really is no such condition; that such a condition is actually due to electrostatic forces. As I understand it, electrostatic forces are not 'material' in nature.

re: 'empty space', Nasim Harramein talks about the idea that, because empty space makes up most of the atom, perhaps it is responsible for the tiny part of 'material' reality; that in reality, the material world as we perceive it, actually emerges from space. He explains this in this video:

BTW, 'space' to a mystic is the same thing as consciousness, and it is out of this all-pervading consciousness that the material Universe emerges. This consciousness is also referred to as Pure Abstract Intelligence; 'the Ground of all Being'; Brahman; etc., and even 'The Unified Field' by some physicists such as John Hagelin and Amit Goswami, people you probably see as quacks, unfortunately.

I just want to know, from a scientific POV, where the 'material' of this so-called 'material reality', actually exists, unless science is saying otherwise.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for the explanation.

You used quotation marks around the term 'solidity', implying that there really is no such condition; that such a condition is actually due to electrostatic forces. As I understand it, electrostatic forces are not 'material' in nature.

re: 'empty space', Nasim Harramein talks about the idea that, because empty space makes up most of the atom, perhaps it is responsible for the tiny part of 'material' reality; that in reality, the material world as we perceive it, actually emerges from space. He explains this in this video:

BTW, 'space' to a mystic is the same thing as consciousness, and it is out of this all-pervading consciousness that the material Universe emerges. This consciousness is also referred to as Pure Abstract Intelligence; 'the Ground of all Being'; Brahman; etc., and even 'The Unified Field' by some physicists such as John Hagelin and Amit Goswami, people you probably see as quacks, unfortunately.

I use quotation marks round "solidity" because it is term that you like to use, in a way which I think is a century out of date. I have been trying to explain to you what "solidity" signifies to any scientist born after 1910.

I am not a mystic, though I can respect some mystics. I have no time for consciousness woo at all. But where I agree you have a point is that physics models physical reality more and more in terms of fields. I only studied QM at university but physicists increasingly resort to QED, QFT, QCD etc nowadays. Even mass is modelled via something called the Higgs Field.

Fields are interesting things to contemplate, as they seem sort-of-disembodied and pervasive, yet we explain the material world in terms of them, so evidently they are not! I would not mind a thread on fields at some point. I could do with learning more about them myself.

 

[Polymath257]

So what do you mean by 'material' as defined via modern terms?

Do physicists have a different meaning for it than that in general use, such as that of the word 'theory'? If something is of a material nature, it usually means there is something present having some solidity. You say the atom is 'material', but we know that it is over 99.9999% empty space.

Well, the 'solidity' comes from the fact that electrons repel each other. To be material means simply that something is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Also, because of the nature of quantum mechanics, the atom is NOT mostly empty space: in each location, there is a probability of finding an electron.

 

[Polymath257]

So why can't we just say that a 'particle' is just a wave behaving as a particle, but it is not REALLY a particle, because what it actually is, is a standing wave? IOW, 'material reality' is an illusion.

Because a particle is NOT just a 'standing wave' of a field. The two are quite distinct. The wave, when detected, shows as a particle. The particles, when examined, have a wave character. The point is that quantum particles are NEITHER classical waves nor classical particles, but their own special combination.

Being material, being physical, is NOT an illusion. It is really out there and NOT made by our minds.

 

[Polymath257]

Even mass is modelled via something called the Higgs Field.
.

Just a quibble. The Higg's mechanism is NOT the primary way that ordinary matter acquires mass. That is a very common misconception. The Higg's interacts strongly with the more massive quarks (top, bottom, charm, and to a lesser degree, strange), but not so strongly with the up and down that show up in atoms (in the protons and neutrons). The mass of those is primarily from a different type of symmetry breaking.

 

[exchemist]

Just a quibble. The Higg's mechanism is NOT the primary way that ordinary matter acquires mass. That is a very common misconception. The Higg's interacts strongly with the more massive quarks (top, bottom, charm, and to a lesser degree, strange), but not so strongly with the up and down that show up in atoms (in the protons and neutrons). The mass of those is primarily from a different type of symmetry breaking.

Ah OK, I can't pretend I have followed this in detail. I'll have to look it up. Thanks for pointing out.

If you ever feel like a thread on fields, I'd be very interested, incidentally. But maybe it's too esoteric to attract many readers..............

 

[godnotgod]

I use quotation marks round "solidity" because it is term that you like to use, in a way which I think is a century out of date. I have been trying to explain to you what "solidity" signifies to any scientist born after 1910.

I am not a mystic, though I can respect some mystics. I have no time for consciousness woo at all. But where I agree you have a point is that physics models physical reality more and more in terms of fields. I only studied QM at university but physicists increasingly resort to QED, QFT, QCD etc nowadays. Even mass is modelled via something called the Higgs Field.

Fields are interesting things to contemplate, as they seem sort-of-disembodied and pervasive, yet we explain the material world in terms of them, so evidently they are not!

I used the term 'solidity' not because I have a personal attachment to it, but because that is how most non-scientists think about matter; that at its root, there is 'something' of substance there. And that is what I am trying to get at here: is there in fact a 'something' present when physicists drill down to the bottom layer of the atom, or not. My understanding is that there is not, and that is part of the reason there is now a shift of interest to the field.

So, if we explain the material world in terms of fields, we are obviously explaining it in terms of the non-material. To say that we explain it in terms of the field is to say that the non-material is the source for the material world.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, the 'solidity' comes from the fact that electrons repel each other. To be material means simply that something is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Also, because of the nature of quantum mechanics, the atom is NOT mostly empty space: in each location, there is a probability of finding an electron.

OK, there is the repelling force which accounts for what seems to be 'solidity', but where is the 'material' substance which protons, neutrons, and electrons are made up of?

If the atom is not mostly empty space, then it is mostly solid, or of a material nature?

 

[Polymath257]

I used the term 'solidity' not because I have a personal attachment to it, but because that is how most non-scientists think about matter; that at its root, there is 'something' of substance there. And that is what I am trying to get at here: is there in fact a 'something' present when physicists drill down to the bottom layer of the atom, or not. My understanding is that there is not, and that is part of the reason there is now a shift of interest to the field.

So, if we explain the material world in terms of fields, we are obviously explaining it in terms of the non-material. To say that we explain it in terms of the field is to say that the non-material is the source for the material world.

I think most people realize that air is matter. But it is hardly solid. So your assumption that being matter requires some sort of solidity is very mistaken.

When we 'drill down', we find electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. So there *is* 'something present'. That it doesn't accord with your preconceptions concerning matter isn't the fault of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, there is the repelling force which accounts for what seems to be 'solidity', but where is the 'material' substance which protons, neutrons, and electrons are made up of?

Electrons are, as far as we know, an example of a 'fundamental particle'. Protons and neutrons are made from quarks (and gluons), which are again, as far as we know, fundamental

If the atom is not mostly empty space, then it is mostly solid, or of a material nature?

You are the only one caught up in the concept of 'solidity'. There are a great many things that are seen as being 'material' that are not solid: gases, liquids, plasmas, etc. If you are thinking of a little ball that is indivisible, however, your ideas about materiality are flawed.

 

[godnotgod]

Because a particle is NOT just a 'standing wave' of a field. The two are quite distinct. The wave, when detected, shows as a particle. The particles, when examined, have a wave character. The point is that quantum particles are NEITHER classical waves nor classical particles, but their own special combination.

Being material, being physical, is NOT an illusion. It is really out there and NOT made by our minds.

Well, I am not suggesting that. However, wave showing as particle and vice-versa is another way of saying that everything is really just energy. And if wave/particle is neither, then we are talking a different ball game. I would call these manifestations 'illusions'. There does not seem to be any kind of 'nitty-gritty' here, where we can say that something is definitely of a material character, because the moment that you do, the goal posts shift. It's not right or wrong; it's just the way things are.

Now isn't this shifting phenomena called 'a superposition of possibilities'?

 

[godnotgod]

Electrons are, as far as we know, an example of a 'fundamental particle'. Protons and neutrons are made from quarks (and gluons), which are again, as far as we know, fundamental

You are the only one caught up in the concept of 'solidity'. There are a great many things that are seen as being 'material' that are not solid: gases, liquids, plasmas, etc. If you are thinking of a little ball that is indivisible, however, your ideas about materiality are flawed.

Sorry, but these are not MY terms; they are how lay people think of the world they live in.

And the moment you use the term 'particle', you have implied something of a material nature being present. And as was pointed out, it appears that the particle is in reality a function of the field.

Gases, liquids, plasmas are composed of atoms, and it is to these atoms which I am referring that most people think of as having 'solidity', or 'materiality'. Let's toss 'solidity'. Provide another more viable term, then.

 

[godnotgod]

I think most people realize that air is matter. But it is hardly solid. So your assumption that being matter requires some sort of solidity is very mistaken.

When we 'drill down', we find electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc. So there *is* 'something present'. That it doesn't accord with your preconceptions concerning matter isn't the fault of reality.

What is present seems to be energy parading as 'matter'. If the idea of matter being composed of 'little steel balls' is flawed, then what, in fact, are we talking about?

 

[atanu]

...

Being material, being physical, is NOT an illusion. It is really out there and NOT made by our minds.

What is apparently out there is not separate from mind, not independent of awareness.

 

[godnotgod]

Just a quibble. The Higg's mechanism is NOT the primary way that ordinary matter acquires mass. That is a very common misconception. The Higg's interacts strongly with the more massive quarks (top, bottom, charm, and to a lesser degree, strange), but not so strongly with the up and down that show up in atoms (in the protons and neutrons). The mass of those is primarily from a different type of symmetry breaking.

The following excerpt and article (now dated) from New Scientist is saying that the Higgs Field, along with the Quantum Field, together account for all mass being virtual in nature. Is it wrong?

Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum....

...The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

It’s confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations