Are Particles 'Physical Things' or 'Abstract Ideas'?

[AFTT47]

This whole question seems odd to me. There is no question at all that particles exist. It is only a question of the nature of that existence, if it is an existence we can conceptualize in everyday terms. So what if it isn't? That hardly makes them any less real. They are just so different from what we experience in the macro world that mathematics is the only tool we have to precisely describe them. So what?

[Alex K]

This whole question seems odd to me. There is no question at all that particles exist. It is only a question of the nature of that existence, if it is an existence we can conceptualize in everyday terms. So what if it isn't? That hardly makes them any less real. They are just so different from what we experience in the macro world that mathematics is the only tool we have to precisely describe them. So what?

That whole wave particle duality can be a bit disconcerting, but I agree. I see particles as a collection of phenomena and behaviors which we associate under the label "particle". I'm not 100% sure what else one would want.

[Surgenator]

Maybe one shouldn't say that the text is too long (it is not very long). You should have added two paragraph breaks at points that make sense, because those are very encouraging to the potential reader and can make a text that looks very daunting en bloc appear much more manageable.

---

Hmm, I'm lazy and it's late.

Also, I wanted to make a quick correction on what I said. We interact with ~19 fundamental particles in our everyday life, not 28. I accidentaly included all the quarks instead just the first three. Hence the mistake.

Good night.

Do you count color multiplicities separately there? 3v+e+mu+3u+3d+8g, right...

I was thinking more of 3v+e+mu+3u+3d+3s+8g+2W = 24. Damn, I cannot do math when its late.

[Faith No More]

I'm confused. How can particles simply be ideas if they are fundamental pieces of what comprises physical objects?

[Mudhammam]

I'm confused. How can particles simply be ideas if they are fundamental pieces of what comprises physical objects?

Basically, one might (justifiably?) look at it like "physical objects" are more or less patterns created from a sea of energy fields in which there is no distinct "this" or "that," and which only "collapse" into definite position (dependent existence) when interacted with by their environment (i.e. other collapsed probabilities), including us.

[Faith No More]

Basically, one might (justifiably?) look at it like "physical objects" are more or less patterns created from a sea of energy fields in which there is no distinct "this" or "that," and which only "collapse" into definite position (dependent existence) when interacted with by their environment (i.e. other collapsed probabilities), including us.

That seems more like a redefining of what we see in the macro world than particles being abstract ideas.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't them being an abstract idea mean they would have no physical properties?  I'm just not sure I'm understanding the concept too well.

[Mudhammam]

Basically, one might (justifiably?) look at it like "physical objects" are more or less patterns created from a sea of energy fields in which there is no distinct "this" or "that," and which only "collapse" into definite position (dependent existence) when interacted with by their environment (i.e. other collapsed probabilities), including us.

That seems more like a redefining of what we see in the macro world than particles being abstract ideas.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't them being an abstract idea mean they would have no physical properties?  I'm just not sure I'm understanding the concept too well.

Sure, it's a redefining but it's totally abstract in that we can't even imagine a physical object existing as such. I would imagine it like this: in the same way that time seems to have a timeless aspect, perhaps at its core, so too do physical objects have an abstract aspect. To connect them seems to pose the same problems as wedding the unmoved with the moved.

[Faith No More]

I guess maybe it's something that can't easily be explained in a forum post? Either way, I'm not really following.

[bennyboy]

What, though, is the difference between describing something and using mathematical expressions which represent things? Would you like to have your description in plain English? And if yes, using which words?

That's an interesting question. I suppose that discrete objects must be identifiable in some way. For example, are there really a gazillion different photons, or does the same exact photon exist in a practically infinite number of places?

What if in the end it's all relationships and interactions that are the real deal, and  "objects" are just a construct to describe them? I don't even know what the difference would be.

The difference would lie in the nature of those things which have not been described, and the expectations you'd hold about any new things you might discover.

So in practical terms, I'd say that you DEFINITELY have abstract ideas at work, and you MIGHT have actual things which they represent, or might not, and will probably never know which is the case due to the limitations of making observations.

Is the cup of coffee standing in front of me right now real? How do you describe this cup, and aren't you just using a set of abstract ideas to describe it and there is no actual thing there? My point is, you act as if the problems you raise are somehow special to fundamental physics, and I wonder whether not the ordinary notions of what is real or not are pretty much on the same footing. That wouldn't mean that the question is not interesting, but it would not be criticism that needs to be specifically levied against modern physics. I find the notion naive, that objects in every day experience are somehow more well-defined and more real just because we can describe them using words drawn from experience. It might be an illusion that those are more real and more concrete than our descriptions of electrons using fields or wave functions.

Two things about that: 1st, I agree about the lack of definition of ordinary objects; 2nd, I'm not trying to criticize physics, but to explain why I think particles are best though of as abstract ideas rather than as "physical things."

[bobkolker]

How many people were killed by radiation a Fukishima or Chernobyl?: More than 1. All done to death by those "unreal" particles.

Bob Kolker