[Background: Someone told me they couldn’t imagine popularizing Quantum Field Theory in the same flashy way people popularize String Theory. Naturally I took this as a challenge. Please don’t take any statements about what “really exists” here too seriously, this isn’t intended as metaphysics, just metaphor.]
You probably learned about atoms in school.
Your teacher would have explained that these aren’t the same atoms the ancient Greeks imagined. Democritus thought of atoms as indivisible, unchanging spheres, the fundamental constituents of matter. We know, though, that atoms aren’t indivisible. They’re clouds of electrons, buzzing in their orbits around a nucleus of protons and neutrons. Chemists can divide the electrons from the rest, nuclear physicists can break the nucleus. The atom is not indivisible.
And perhaps your teacher remarked on how amazing it is, that the nucleus is such a tiny part of the atom, that the atom, and thus all solid matter, is mostly empty space.
You might have learned that protons and neutrons, too, are not indivisible. That each proton, and each neutron, is composed of three particles called quarks, particles which can be briefly freed by powerful particle colliders.
And you might have wondered, then, even if you didn’t think to ask: are quarks atoms? The real atoms, the Greek atoms, solid indestructible balls of fundamental matter?
They aren’t, by the way.
You might have gotten an inkling of this, learning about beta decay. In beta decay, a neutron transforms, becoming a proton, an electron, and a neutrino. Look for an electron inside a neutron, and you won’t find one. Even if you look at the quarks, you see the same transformation: a down quark becomes an up quark, plus an electron, plus a neutrino. If quarks were atoms, indivisible and unchanging, this couldn’t happen. There’s nowhere for the electron to hide.
In fact, there are no atoms, not the way the Greeks imagined. Just ripples.
Picture the universe as a pond. This isn’t a still pond: something has disturbed it, setting ripples and whirlpools in motion. These ripples and whirlpools skim along the surface of the pond, eddying together and scattering apart.
Our universe is not a simple pond, and so these are not simple ripples. They shine and shimmer, each with their own bright hue, colors beyond our ordinary experience that mix in unfamiliar ways. The different-colored ripples interact, merge and split, and the pond glows with their light.
Stand back far enough, and you notice patterns. See that red ripple, that stays together and keeps its shape, that meets other ripples and interacts in predictable ways. You might imagine the red ripple is an atom, truly indivisible…until it splits, transforms, into ripples of new colors. The quark has changed, down to up, an electron and a neutrino rippling away.
All of our world is encoded in the colors of these ripples, each kind of charge its own kind of hue. With a wink (like your teacher’s, telling you of empty atoms), I can tell you that distance itself is just a kind of ripple, one that links other ripples together. The pond’s very nature as a place is defined by the ripples on it.
This is Quantum Field Theory, the universe of ripples. Democritus said that in truth there are only atoms and the void, but he was wrong. There are no atoms. There is only the void. It ripples and shimmers, and each of us lives as a collection of whirlpools, skimming the surface, seeming concrete and real and vital…until the ripples dissolve, and a new pattern comes.
I have two ways of looking at the wave particle duality.
1) imagine swimmer swimming in a pool. If another swimmer also swims in same pool, then each will feel the wave effects of the other swimmer
2) imagine extremely high frequency waves colliding around in a swimming pool. Then from a distance the points of interference appear/behave like particles.
LikeLike
That’s really beautiful! Thanks for writing it.
LikeLike
What do you think of all the experiments by Couder, and modeled by Bush, etc that look to explain QM itself as ripple interaction? http://math.mit.edu/~bush/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bush-PHYSICS-TODAY2015.pdf
This makes things ‘even more ripply’ to put it in the precise language of physics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not something I’d seen much about before. The analog experiments look cute, and perhaps instructive, but it’s not clear to me that this really addresses the usual objections to pilot-wave-type models. It may be a little more “well-motivated” to start with a hydrodynamic system, but even then I had the impression the objection was not just “your math is unnecessarily complicated” but “your math is unnecessarily complicated and doesn’t let us calculate anything new”.
LikeLike
Reminds me of this explainer about “virtual photons.”
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
LikeLike
Pingback: Part I: Response to Bob Felts on the topic of Applicability of Mathematics to Physical Reality – Too Late for the Gods
There is a poetic, probably unintended, connection from the song Ripple to quantum field theory:
Ripple in still water
When there is no pebble tossed
Nor wind to blow
Not technical, not even very deep, but somehow satisfying and in the spirit of both.
http://artsites.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/ripple.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Big Bang: What We Know and How We Know It | Later On