AlbertCory
8 hours ago
I'm reading "The Big Picture" (Sean Carroll) right now.
I'd love to have a real physicist explain this, but:
When we think of what a particle IS, we often think as though it were dirt, or a billiard ball, or something. As though there were some other substance of which it's made. At least I do.
But the definition is as low as you can go. It's hard to wrap your head around that. Unless you're trained to do so, I guess.
elbasti
5 minutes ago
This might sound tautological but a particle is, well, a thing that behaves like a particle.
Those behaviors are something like:
- it has momentum - it's state is uniquely defined by a position in space and a velocity
What's not a particle? A wave (well, until 1900 or so ...).
Sort of like asking "what is a number?"
A number is a thing that obeys certain rules. (You can add them; there's an `identity `, for every number there's a number which if you add together gives zero, etc).
That allows things like `(3 + 5i)` to be a number, for example.
divs1210
5 hours ago
Particle spin explained:
Imagine a ball that’s rotating,
Except it’s not a ball, and
It’s not rotating.
(popular particle physics meme)
From what I understand of QFT, the Universe is made of fields of different types, and a “fundamental particle” is just an excitation (wave) in the corresponding field.
For example, a photon is a wave in the universal electromagnetic field, A charm quark is a wave in the universal charm quark field, etc.
I’m not a trained physicist, so I might be wildly wrong.
binary132
4 hours ago
I get it but I still think these sorts of concepts are also just another level of mathematical abstraction that isn’t necessarily “really what it is” any more than a rotating ball or a math equation or any of the other ideas are “really what it is”
elashri
7 hours ago
> we often think as though it were dirt, or a billiard ball, or something
The problem lies that it is hard to imagine something that does have zero dimensions. You can get the example of ant walking into 2D and it is unaware of third dimension to explain we are have something similar for space-time 4D (although not the same picture exactly as time is different from spatial dimensions). But we don't have an idea how to approximate a mental picture of what a zero dimension could be. So you have something that does not occupy a volume in space (Talking strictly about elementary particles here) in the classical sense.
This does not mean they are abstract concept. According to QFT -Quantum field theory- you would think (by training) of particles are excitations or quanta of their respective fields. Fields are there always (vacuum is just filled with fields) and particle appears when they are excited (more complex processes occurs). So you would think of each particle as a manifestation of a quantum field that permeates the universe. What is interesting (and probably confusing to most people) is that these fields are not zero-dimensional, instead, they exist everywhere in space and time. But the quanta (particles themselves) are considered point-like with no spatial extension.
In practice physicists will think about particles properties (i.e charge, mass, interactions, spin) ..etc instead of what this particle actually is from that point of view. This is often for practical reasons. You are a working physicist and you learned from your training that you shut up and calculate (or implement if you are doing experimental particle physics as you spend most of your time coding) by this stage.
xanderlewis
5 hours ago
> The problem lies that it is hard to imagine something that does have zero dimensions.
Do you really think so? It’s not hard to picture the real number line, with the point zero (or any other single point) distinguished. Sure — if you draw it in the standard schematic way you have to give it some area, but it still seems quite intuitive that it’s ‘zero-dimensional’. Especially if you play around with converging sequences and open sets and stuff; you quickly develop intuition for what it means to be a point rather than something higher dimensional.
lisper
5 hours ago
Richard Feynman gave what I consider to be the best possible answer to questions like this:
aaa_aaa
5 hours ago
At first I was impressed with that video. Then I felt he does not have an answer and unnecessarily gets edgy with it, because question is valid.
johndhi
39 minutes ago
Hmm I think he's merely explaining what physics is and is not. Physics isn't really answering "why" questions, at least not ones with infinite scope.
AlbertCory
3 hours ago
I just watched it. I don't think he's edgy.
You can't explain it in terms of anything else, which was sorta my original point. Maybe he could have been more touchy-feely in his answer, but that wasn't his nature.
lisper
5 hours ago
> he does not have an answer
Well, yeah. That's the whole point.
__MatrixMan__
an hour ago
I've only got a physics minor, so hardly an expert, but I felt like quantum mechanics got a lot easier once I started thinking of a particle as merely a situation which has some probability of causing a state change in a detector of some kind.
mensetmanusman
5 hours ago
https://youtu.be/j2oSyAfPzWg?si=bwM2NAsORzkqLQLk
Fun fields discussion on what particles are…
danbruc
7 hours ago
I mean I can not speak for you, but I do not think that the problem necessarily is that people think of them as made from some stuff, I think what causes the most trouble is the desire to visualize particles.
The trouble is that an electron is an electron and it is nothing like anything you have ever seen in your macroscopic classical world. It shares some aspects with billiard balls and some with water waves but it is not like either. And it does not switch between being a billiard ball and a water wave, it always is the same thing, it always is an electron.
It just happens that in certain situations the billiard ball properties are more apparent and in others the water wave properties and in yet other situations neither of the two analogies will help. I think that is what trips people really up, they want to visualize their electron as one thing they know, as something they have an intuition for, but no such thing exists.
And electrons being electrons also means that they are not excitations in quantum fields. Those fields are mathematical models that describe the behaviour of electrons, they are not the electrons. Certainly not in the very direct sense of nature is just mathematics because I can differentiate, integrate, and square fields at will but I can not do this to electrons. And even the less direct interpretation, there are real entities in the universe that behave exactly like our mathematical fields, does not seem likely, what would the gauge symmetries mean?
criddell
7 hours ago
> And electrons being electrons also means that they are not excitations in quantum fields
You’re going against the dominant interpretation of QFT here, aren’t you?
danbruc
5 hours ago
I have no idea whether or not most physicist think that there are actually quantum fields in the universe. The Navier–Stokes equations provide a good description of milk mixing into my coffee, but should I therefore conclude that my coffee mug is filled with density and velocity fields and that what coffee really is, is a region in spacetime with a nonzero value of the coffee density field?
Quantum fields have gauge symmetries which means that they are a redundant description, i.e. any given physical situation is represented by an entire equivalence class of field configurations which makes me highly suspicious of there being real quantum fields. Quantum fields are a nice mathematical tool but I do not think we have any good reasons to think they are real, but I am not a physicist and I am certainly in dangerous half-knowledge territory here.
I have been wondering for years whether this might actually be a non-issue, could the universe secretly have fixed a gauge and just ran with it? Or would this somehow be inconsistent?
pgotibojgg
4 hours ago
Do you think photons are real?
Because according to QFT they only exist because of the gauge symmetries. Photons are the solution to the redundant symmetries. Remove those redundant symmetries and you also need to remove the photons.
Universe "fixing a gauge" means no photons and no electromagnetic field, because the electromagnetic field IS the gauge symmetry.
binary132
4 hours ago
I think this is why “shut up and calculate” is popular
User23
3 hours ago
Or as Newton more eloquently put it hypothesis non fingo.
auntienomen
5 hours ago
Yep. Also, ignoring all the ways in which an electron isn't an electron. Electrons can be created and destroyed, and they are both indistinguishable and exchangeable. We can't assign identity to them, thanks to their Fermi statistics. They're just methods of explaining clicks in a detector.
I worked in particle physics for years and never once saw an electron. :-)
binary132
4 hours ago
Joke: “birds aren’t real”
Woke: “electrons aren’t real”
at_a_remove
an hour ago
It's a useful fiction, but the map is not the territory. This sounds blithe but ... it is as close as you will get to the truth.
I only got the bachelors' version of physics, though I did take some grad classes, so here is what I will tell you:
The human mind learns from experience and it thinks of things in terms of the past experiences it has had. We are big assemblages which exist in a narrow range of temperatures (think in terms of Kelvin). Our experience is classical, in the Newtonian sense: we move at not a particularly notable fraction of c, we are too warm to note the strangenesses which happen below, say, twenty or four or a thousandth of a Kelvin (superfluids and BECs are out), we are too cold to have a great internal experience of plasma, leaving us to be creatures of solid and liquid, with a sort of inferred understanding of gas. We are too large to feel the quantum realm, in the sense that the uncertainty principle is not obvious to us from what we have felt.
So, we must make do with abstractions, with fictions, with approximations. Conscious that we are the epitome of the six blind men trying to understand the elephant through touch alone, we try to break our understanding, to search for flaws in our inferences. Yet this does not grant us true experience when we run across, say, the electron. We try to think of it like a billiard ball, but we can say that a billiard ball is this wide, yet we are fairly sure at this time that the electron has no radius, no diameter, that it might as well be a geometric point. Every time we try to measure, we can only establish a smaller and smaller upper bound for the confounded thing's radius. That's not like our lives at all!
The reality of this electron is that if we get it going fast enough, it stops getting much faster no matter how hard we smack it. That's not like our reality. If we try to pin down where it is, the more we do it, the harder it is to figure out how fast and in what direction it moves. And as we work to ascertain the velocity (and therefore momentum), we lose sense of this bit of weirdness' position.
You eventually have to develop an understanding based not on experience at all.
Perhaps this was unique to me, but the first time I understood integration in calculus, I had a brief moment of dizziness as I apprehended this new thing. You know how you are working a math problem and you have a good idea of what the answer is already, a sense of what the magnitude and direction might be? I had ground my way through vector and tensor calculus, and had been working a problem in gravitation and relativity class when I sensed what the resulting tensor would look like, the shape of it, in the sense that I would know if my figures were way off. I nearly fell off the chair, my head spun so.
If you care to, you can do this for a particle.
scotty79
3 hours ago
Particle is a cloudy, fuzzy thing that can fly and wobble through space. It can be more sharp or more fuzzy and when it overlaps with another fuzzy particle object they might exchange a neat portion of momentum, angular momentum and energy and violently reshape becoming sharper or fuzzier (that's the wave function collapse and expansion) then they go again on their separate merry ways.
Sometimes when particles meet or even spontaneously they can split or merge altering other parts of their nature (unrelated momentum, energy and angular momentum). This happens for example when neutron decays into proton and electron.
Sometimes they get stuck together because of electromagnetic force and they resonate in interesting harmonies and travel together. That's atoms. Interestingly when they are resonating in those harmonies they become quite fussy about amounts of energy they prefer to exchange and they do it only in a very specific quanta.
And there's a class of particles called quarks that travel together all the time as they are always tightly bound with each other and can never get free despite possessing incredible amounts of energy they continuously exchange. That's nucelus.
We really don't like this image because fuzziness is actually two dimensional in every point of our already 4 dimensional space-time and described by complex numbers so we prefer to focus on those brief moments when particles interact since if we have a lot of particles that are bound together to form measurement apparatus they are so sharp that the interaction they participate in squash other particles nearly to a point and we can declare that the measure particle collapsed to have some momentum, or location, or spin described by a single vector instead of a cloud. It neatly turns out that the square of complex number fuzziness describes the probability that a fuzzy particle will interact with a sharp one (one of those bound together in measurement apparatus) with a specific outcome.
bbor
5 hours ago
I’m not a physicist, but as an arrogant philosopher of science: isn’t it just field excitation? Like, every particle looks like a circle bouncing around a 2D piece of paper, but if you look reeaaaaally closely it’s just a localized 3D spike of energy in a usually 2D field of energy? So it’s made of the field/paper itself.
I must be under-thinking this, but that’s what’s worked pretty convincingly for me.
deanCommie
7 hours ago
The same is true about the terms "waves" and "fields" when it comes to quantum mechanics.
They're analogies. The concepts need names, but I think they do more harm than good because people then start with a mental model of a membrane or a surface - something they have experience seeing waves in. And then after 1 or 2 steps where the analogy helps, it breaks down, and people start being confused.
Of course the alternative isn't any better. If they had named it a "Wazoo function" and a "Quantum Flarg" everyone would've just kept asking "OK but what IS a Wazoo? What IS a Flarg" and not been satisfied with a "Yeah, it's a fundamental own thing".
Feynman, of course, has a pretty definitive response on the difficulty of this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4dpeJVDxs