Waves . and . Particles

In the mid 1960s, I studied physics at the university of Reading. I was fascinated with the world of atomic phenomena. Nevertheless, at that time I felt that physicists were going in the wrong direction in their attempts to understand this world. I felt that the focus on pursuing a seemingly-endless host of unstable and transient particles could only lead to a dead-end. This feeling has never left me. I always preferred the ideas of Arthur Eddington. My poor mathematical and analytical abilities did not allow me to pinpoint what I felt was wrong about particle physics.

30 years later my analytical ability has grown but not my maths. So I have managed to clarify qualitatively some of my disagreements, and that is the reason I have built this website.

One problem that has baffled scientists in the twentieth century is that of the contradictory way in which atoms and particles of matter can behave. In some experiments atomic particles can act as if they are discrete pieces of matter, like minute billiard balls. Their behaviour is not totally predictable and so probability equations have to be used in order to quantify the results. In other experiments, for example those involving diffraction, the particles act like a wave ; now it is almost as if the particles only have a group or relational existence. This group existence has been likened to a web of relationships.

Electrons and other particles are assumed to have ‘ matter ’ waves associated with them. Every piece of matter has its own wave. Why do some experiments highlight the particle (the piece of matter), and other experiments the wave ? . How can a particle behave like a wave, and how can a wave behave like a particle ? . If both forms of behaviour are legitimately real, which they seem to be, then how can we resolve the paradoxical behaviour ? . Where does the fault-line in theory reside ? . A paradox does not indicate a fault in reality, but a fault in the conceptual framework within which the paradox appears.

Consider consciousness as an analogy. It is binary in form, which means that we need a binary framework in which to understand all the experiences that happen to a person. A binary framework means that it has two axes of explanation or interpretation of phenomena : one axis being the perspective of the ego and the other one being the perspective of karma. [¹]. When both axes are rolled indiscriminately into one, that is, when thinking becomes one-dimensional, then we get the paradoxes of the antinomies. Conversely, we can solve the paradoxes by switching from one perspective to two perspectives. The meaning of a paradox is that we are not using enough perspectives or axes in our conceptual framework. [See article on The Antinomies of Kant ].

Now I return to the wave-particle paradox. When experiments give rise to contradictory results then the theory that attempts to explain these results needs to have more than one perspective. The contrariness in the results indicates that the experimental paradigm follows only one axis of explanation. The two axes of explanation that are needed have effectively been rolled into one. In order to make the results intelligible, the theorist needs to accept that one result arises from one axis of explanation and the other result from another axis. Within twentieth-century theories of science there is no room for two axes of explanation. Hence such contrary phenomena remain inexplicable.

Therefore, to remove the paradoxes from atomic theory, we need to put all relevant ideas within a binary framework.

The answer to the wave-particle paradox requires an understanding of my view of relativity. This view assumes that in any relative relationship, a subjective effect is always tied to an objective effect. [See section 2 for the meaning of relativity.]

The particles are part of a relative existence. The particles are tied to the wave by relativity. In this paradox, one factor is a relative subjectivity and the other is a relative objectivity. Which is which ? . The particle is an object, a piece of matter ; hence it is the relative objectivity. This leaves the wave as the relative subjectivity.

The objective component of relativity is the particle.

The subjective component of relativity is the wave.

The wave of a particle is its subjective component whereas the particle is the objective component. Within the atom the electron is objective and the diffraction waves indicate subjective relationships between the electrons. Wave and particle exist only in relation to each other – neither wave nor particle on its own can be real. When the wave ceases the particle ceases as well. Anything without a corresponding wave is purely objective and non-relative : it has never been seen and cannot be imagined. Any wave without a corresponding objectivity is purely subjective, and exists only in the mind of the thinker.

I give an analogy to demonstrate the reality of relative subjectivity. If I drop a stone into a calm pond, ripples will be created in the water. These ripples will travel across the pond surface. However, it is not water that is travelling across the surface but only the wave. The water just moves up and down to produce crests and troughs as the ripple passes over it. The water, by moving up and down, is acting like particles. Whereas the ripple is the wave ; the wave is subjective but it is real.

Language Problems

The difficulty for physicists in trying to understand what happens inside the atom or what happens between particles is due to faulty comprehension of terminology. They fail to understand the philosophical meanings of the terms ‘ objectivity ’, ‘ subjectivity ’, ‘relativity ’. And they fail to understand the way that these terms relate to each other.

A common failing is to assume that only something which is purely objective can exist. The physicist is forced to decide which is objective, the particle or the wave. In some modern interpretations (Capra) the wave is thought to be real, since it is more amenable to mathematical procedures, and so only systems of relationships are considered. Since the electron and other particles are treated as being subjective, so physicists assume that they cannot picture these particles as being real existents. Whereupon the phenomena occurring inside the atom cease to have any comparison to the everyday world of nature. Individual particles (though necessary for some mathematical operations and some kinds of experiments) become solely a product of the scientist’s imagination, and only a web or system of relationships seems to be real. Whence mathematics becomes the only way to handle particle reality. Particle physics becomes a mysterious, incomprehensible world beyond the powers of language to describe.

However, this view largely disappears once terminology is properly understood, once subjectivity ceases to be an insurmountable problem. Particles are the objective component of relativity. Relationships between particles are the subjective components. The point to understand is that the particles are not subjective but objective. It is the waves that are subjective ; but this subjectivity is a relative one, hence they have real existence. Particle physics becomes what it has always been – a game of high-energy billiards played with particles that actually exist.

It is no longer necessary to rely solely on mathematical equations in order to explain and describe atomic phenomena. Understanding the relativity of matter resolves the conflict within physics as to which is real : particles or a web of relationships. The web of relationships certainly exists, but so too, in my view, do individual particles.

The number in brackets at the end of the reference takes you back to the paragraph that featured it.

[¹]. My ideas on the binary nature of consciousness begin in the article Existentialism and Psychology. In this article, the two axes around which consciousness is constructed are called ego and karma. [1]

Books

Capra, Fritjof.
---- The Tao of Physics. 3rd edition. Flamingo, 1992.

---- Uncommon Wisdom. Flamingo, 1989

The articles in this section are :

The Antinomies of Kant

Charge & Feeling

Waves & Particles

Causality & Change

Copyright © 2003 Ian Heath
All Rights Reserved

The copyright is mine, and the article is free to use. It can be reproduced anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.

Ian Heath
London, UK

My email address is likely to change.
So if you want to write to me, go to the Home page and use the address at the bottom,

or click on http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/