Jump to content
Science Forums

What Is Below The Atom?


hazelm

Recommended Posts

This is going to be clumsy but I'll try.  In quantum physics, when study gets below the atom, do you have matter or do you have only waves, forms, interrelationships of wave patterns, etc.?   Is what you find beyond (below) the atom sub-atomic matter or is it simply energy in various interacting relationships?  Or, perhaps some of both?  Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be clumsy but I'll try.  In quantum physics, when study gets below the atom, do you have matter or do you have only waves, forms, interrelationships of wave patterns, etc.?   Is what you find beyond (below) the atom sub-atomic matter or is it simply energy in various interacting relationships?  Or, perhaps some of both?  Thank you. 

Hi Hazel. According to quantum theory all matter has wavelike properties as well as particle-like properties. De Broglie, who first came up with this idea, called them "matter waves". However the wavelengths are so tiny at the macroscopic scale that they have no practical effect and so we can safely model macroscopic matter in terms of particles only.

 

However wave effects become very important at or below the atomic scale. It is not that matter "dissolves" into waves or something. The waves ARE matter: matter waves. 

 

De Broglie's relation is: p=h/λ.

 

p is momentum, λ is wavelength and h is Planck's Constant. So the more momentum an entity has, the smaller its wavelength.

 

Planck's constant has a value of 6.6 x 10⁻³⁴ Joule-seconds, which is very tiny compared to everyday scales. So if p has the sort of values it typically does for macroscopic objects, λ has to be incredibly tiny as well. 

 

But for an electron or something like that, its momentum, p  is very small. This results in  λ often having values comparable with the distance between atoms. As a result,  one has to model electrons in atoms and molecules in terms of waves, not just as particles.

 

In chemistry, we flip-flop all the time between considering electrons as waves and as particles. We have to, in order to account for what we observe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hazel. According to quantum theory all matter has wavelike properties as well as particle-like properties. De Broglie, who first came up with this idea, called them "matter waves". However the wavelengths are so tiny at the macroscopic scale that they have no practical effect and so we can safely model macroscopic matter in terms of particles only.

 

However wave effects become very important at or below the atomic scale. It is not that matter "dissolves" into waves or something. The waves ARE matter: matter waves. 

 

De Broglie's relation is: p=h/λ.

 

p is momentum, λ is wavelength and h is Planck's Constant. So the more momentum an entity has, the smaller its wavelength.

 

Planck's constant has a value of 6.6 x 10⁻³⁴ Joule-seconds, which is very tiny compared to everyday scales. So if p has the sort of values it typically does for macroscopic objects, λ has to be incredibly tiny as well. 

 

But for an electron or something like that, its momentum, p  is very small. This results in  λ often having values comparable with the distance between atoms. As a result,  one has to model electrons in atoms and molecules in terms of waves, not just as particles.

 

In chemistry, we flip-flop all the time between considering electrons as waves and as particles. We have to, in order to account for what we observe. 

 

 

There went that balloon!  Thank you, exchemist. 

 

To start --- (quote):  According to quantum theory all matter has wavelike properties as well as particle-like properties.....The waves are matter.   (exchemist)  (Underlining mine)

 

To be sure I am defining your word "matter" correctly,  I'll ask if I can substitute the word "physical" which is how I've always thought of matter - something that, if large enough, could be  seen and touched.  I am having trouble seeing waves as physical entities.   I see - or did see before now - waves as an action, not a physical entity.  The first part of the quote brings to mind earthquake tremors.  The tremors are not physical.  Or?  Are they?

 

Do I need another book?  :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There went that balloon!  Thank you, exchemist. 

 

To start --- (quote):  According to quantum theory all matter has wavelike properties as well as particle-like properties.....The waves are matter.   (exchemist)  (Underlining mine)

 

To be sure I am defining your word "matter" correctly,  I'll ask if I can substitute the word "physical" which is how I've always thought of matter - something that, if large enough, could be  seen and touched.  I am having trouble seeing waves as physical entities.   I see - or did see before now - waves as an action, not a physical entity.  The first part of the quote brings to mind earthquake tremors.  The tremors are not physical.  Or?  Are they?

 

Do I need another book?  :-)

If they were not physical, they could not make your house fall down.

 

Regarding touch, that is mostly about electric charge, which is another property of the particles of matter. When your finger contacts an object, the atoms get pushed together a bit by electrostatic repulsion between the the surface of the object and the surface of your finger.  Electric charge is not a wave property. So I would not argue touch is due to a wave interaction, or not directly. But the size of the atoms is due to wave behaviour, because the size of an atom is the size of the standing wave pattern made by the electrons in motion about the nucleus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were not physical, they could not make your house fall down.

 

Regarding touch, that is mostly about electric charge, which is another property of the particles of matter. When your finger contacts an object, the atoms get pushed together a bit by electrostatic repulsion between the the surface of the object and the surface of your finger.  Electric charge is not a wave property. So I would not argue touch is due to a wave interaction, or not directly. But the size of the atoms is due to wave behaviour, because the size of an atom is the size of the standing wave pattern made by the electrons in motion about the nucleus. 

 

I think this is getting away from me now.  I need to go back to what started my thinking and re-read it, not only to get the sense of it again but to tie it into what you have explained.  I was having a pipe dream about consciousness but I think it has to be non-physical.  Today I am house-cleaning but I'll re-read the 32 pages and think again. 

 

As an aside, the tremors I was thinking of would never tumble down a house of more than cards - if that.  They are very small and light.  I once read a report on New Madrid.  The author said we have at least one tremor and hour all day long here (St Louis area) and never feel them.  They say we are due a big one but these little tremors are unnoticeable.  Not important to what I am asking about.  Just that it reminded me of those.

 

I want to eventually toss out what I was thinking between the above and consciousness.  But I must first get my facts straight. It might be that my idea is sound even if the wave is matter (physical). Be back later.  The dust is calling me.  Better go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be clumsy but I'll try.  In quantum physics, when study gets below the atom, do you have matter or do you have only waves, forms, interrelationships of wave patterns, etc.?   Is what you find beyond (below) the atom sub-atomic matter or is it simply energy in various interacting relationships?  Or, perhaps some of both?  Thank you. 

 

That is an excellent question, Hazel, and Exchemist has provided an excellent answer.

 

At the risk of punching above my weight, I would just like to point out that in Quantum Field theory (QFT), “particles” are considered to be nothing more than excited states of fields. In other words, just energy, sort of what you have surmised all on your own!

 

Quoting from the Wiki link:

 

"QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is an excellent question, Hazel, and Exchemist has provided an excellent answer.

 

At the risk of punching above my weight, I would just like to point out that in Quantum Field theory (QFT), “particles” are considered to be nothing more than excited states of fields. In other words, just energy, sort of what you have surmised all on your own!

 

Quoting from the Wiki link:

 

"QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles"

 

Thank you.  Yes,  exchemist's answers are always educational.  I look forward to them.  Part of my confusion is that I'm jumping in mid-stream, knowing nothing about physics other than its five (six in Britain?) simple machines.  Anyway,  I have something more to add once I re-read what I read last night that got me as excited as one of those dancing particles.  Of course, I am wrong.  Someone would have said it long before now if it made sense. 

 

Later.  hazelm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have said a lot of things that made sense at the time but don't to modern understand make sense anymore. An issue that often crops up is how most education in the 80's,90's and early 2000's tended to use "outdated" information. It's only in the past 15-20 years that the internet and smartphone google-power has become so ubiquitous that people en-mass CAN stay up to date if they feel like.

I mean, I had teachers (not usually science teachers) who thought of atoms along the Thomson model, others (yes, science and chemistry teachers)who didn't know what a quark was, etc... Even most "educated" people who got their degrees in sciences not too long ago can have trouble understanding that "negative" doesn't mean "anti." Half the time it's a failure of common English language, and it's a reason why there's specialist jargon that develops to describe things. "Spin" isn't Spin like a dreadel, Up, Down, and Strange are NOT bound by gravity. The words severely mutate their meaning and because of that it causes misunderstandings that are hard to get past.

Coming back around to "below the atom", There's quark combinations that make up each of the major particles. Quarks themselves seem to be made up of a standing-wave/loop. So yes, on that level, everything seems to be a "frequency" or "wave" vibration. For SOME REASON those frequencies like to hang out with each other in certain groupings more than others, while still staying just far enough away from each other they don't usually annihilate. On the smallest of scales a talented guitar player might understand physics better than a lot of physicists, since it seems to descend into chords and riffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have said a lot of things that made sense at the time but don't to modern understand make sense anymore. An issue that often crops up is how most education in the 80's,90's and early 2000's tended to use "outdated" information. It's only in the past 15-20 years that the internet and smartphone google-power has become so ubiquitous that people en-mass CAN stay up to date if they feel like.

 

I mean, I had teachers (not usually science teachers) who thought of atoms along the Thomson model, others (yes, science and chemistry teachers)who didn't know what a quark was, etc... Even most "educated" people who got their degrees in sciences not too long ago can have trouble understanding that "negative" doesn't mean "anti." Half the time it's a failure of common English language, and it's a reason why there's specialist jargon that develops to describe things. "Spin" isn't Spin like a dreadel, Up, Down, and Strange are NOT bound by gravity. The words severely mutate their meaning and because of that it causes misunderstandings that are hard to get past.

 

Coming back around to "below the atom", There's quark combinations that make up each of the major particles. Quarks themselves seem to be made up of a standing-wave/loop. So yes, on that level, everything seems to be a "frequency" or "wave" vibration. For SOME REASON those frequencies like to hang out with each other in certain groupings more than others, while still staying just far enough away from each other they don't usually annihilate. On the smallest of scales a talented guitar player might understand physics better than a lot of physicists, since it seems to descend into chords and riffs. 

Thank you.  You are so right about the meanings causing confusion.  Somewhere we had a big discussion about "falsifying".  In the common language, it doesn't come out right.  And that is why we, every once in a while, get a poster who is thoroughly mixed up over the illogic of the statement.  Those who answer start explaining to him what falsifying "really is" but they don't explain that this is "in science".   I had the same problem with "proteins" until someone finally said "different kind of proteins in biology".  

 

In this book I am reading about the two philosophies of what life is and how we deal with our universe the author has inadvertently revealed to me why we had no science in elementary or high school.  Only one - general science.  Algebra and geometry for math.  The big thing in our education was the humanities - history, literature, languages - and civics.  Do they still teach civics in high school?  Then it started changing - too late for my generation.  I do keep saying, though, that I don't regret that.  Why?  Because it leaves something very new for me to enjoy delving into now.

 

As for wrong information, it wasn't wrong when they learned it and then, as you say, they didn't keep up.  Too busy earning a living. I've told this before but it fits.  The teacher of that General Science course made a statement that "some people think they can split the atom but they cannot.  The atom is the smallest unit in the universe.  It cannot be split."  Obviously that was before August, 1945.

 

Oh, we could go on forever with examples.  I have a lot of patience with people not in the know because I have witnessed how they were taught.  Then shouldn't we add the fact that the disagreements among scientists and philosophers keep the lay people confused.

 

All right.  I'm still re-reading those 32 pages.  I want to put something here - an idea that hit me when I read the first time.  That is, if re-reading shows I mis-read.  But I don't think so.

 

Take care. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Coming back around to "below the atom", There's quark combinations that make up each of the major particles. Quarks themselves seem to be made up of a standing-wave/loop. So yes, on that level, everything seems to be a "frequency" or "wave" vibration. For SOME REASON those frequencies like to hang out with each other in certain groupings more than others, while still staying just far enough away from each other they don't usually annihilate. On the smallest of scales a talented guitar player might understand physics better than a lot of physicists, since it seems to descend into chords and riffs."  (GAHD)

 

Thank you for this.  That is the spot I am interested in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,  I cannot find the exact spot in the book that inspired me to wonder.  So I'll start with this and explain what I was wondering.

 

from Exchemist:  "According to quantum theory all matter has wavelike properties as well as particle-like properties. De Broglie, who first came up with this idea, called them "matter waves". However the wavelengths are so tiny at the macroscopic scale that they have no practical effect and so we can safely model macroscopic matter in terms of particles only.

 

However wave effects become very important at or below the atomic scale. It is not that matter "dissolves" into waves or something. The waves ARE matter: matter waves."

 

From this I suppose the particles ( quarks?) are matter.  But then I have this from Ocean Breeze:

 

<<At the risk of punching above my weight, I would just like to point out that in Quantum Field theory (QFT), “particles” are considered to be nothing more than excited states of fields. In other words, just energy, sort of what you have surmised all on your own!

 

Quoting from the Wiki link:

 

"QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying fields, which are—in a sense—more fundamental than the basic particles">>

 

.....which is what I was hoping -- that they were energy waves that interacted with and between all  subatomic particles.  I was hoping this might mean that we'd have the source of consciousness.

 

So, granting that I may be misunderstanding the whole thing, here is my thought.  I am reading The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra. Capra was saying that all matter interacts with all other matter, including humans - humans being part of nature and not, as had been claimed, masters of nature.  Then he got into quantum physics and wrote this:

 

"Ever since Newton, physicists had believed that physical phenomena could be reduced to the properties of hard and solid material particles.  In 1920, however, quantum theory forced them to accept the fact that  the solid material objects of classical physics  dissolve at the subatomic level into wavelike patterns of probabilities."

 

He also says that particles are not "things' but are interconnections between "things".  There is more but, in the interest of copyright privilege, I leave it to anyone who is interested to see pages 30-31.  As for my question, at the mention of wavelike patterns and his often-stated fact that all properties interact - plus his stressing that humans are an integral part of nature and not disconnected masters of nature as had been believed for some 400 years - I was suddenly wondering if  the wavelike patterns emanating from the atoms' particles could be the source of consciousness.

 

As I said before, I am sure I am wrong or somebody would have seen that possibility long ago.  Still, it haunts me.  There is so much discussion of what consciousness is/ where life comes from / what the mind is/ all the parts of our human (and sometimes other) living systems that cannot be pointed to on the material parts of the brain or anywhere else.  Is it possible that the non-material parts of our system are results of these wave patterns?  Or, perhaps life stems from those patterns and their interconnections and then the rest from life?  A gentleman once posted something like this about life on another forum.  I cannot quote it without his permission which I've not asked for but the idea seems to be the same only far-better-written.   

 

Enough from me - more than enough.  Be gentle.  :-)

Edited by hazelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not wrong, and somebody else did think of this a long time ago. 

 

So, first you come up with quantum field theory, and now Zen Buddhism.

 

Not bad for one thread, Hazel! :bow:

Thank you for that but no credit to me.  This is one of the things that makes me wish someone else had read the book and could talk about it.  You have pointed out exactly where I thought Capra was going with his philosophy.  Also I felt he is moving us backward into a more "spiritual" life style which included  a lot of superstition and blind faith.  As Capra himself says,  each system has good and bad.  Well, to my knowledge, there was a terrible lot of bad in that almost 2,000 years before 400 years ago.  We are back to a question of where is the happy medium.  And I don't think Capra would disagree with that.  I think, from stealing glances through the book that he gets into all these points.  But I don't want to skip ahead.  He feels they were following Aristotelian philosophy.  He refers to Aristotle quite often in many of his examples.

 

All of that is another story, though.  My real question wants a more modern scientific analytical opinion.  Is it possible that those quantum particle waves, vibrations, and interactions could maybe be the cause of consciousness?  Or, an afterthought, of life itself?   As of right now,  I am thinking it might be possible whether they are matter or  energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Is it possible that those quantum particle waves, vibrations, and interactions could maybe be the cause of consciousness?  Or, an afterthought, of life itself?   As of right now,  I am thinking it might be possible whether they are matter or  energy.

 

Or time waves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hazel, I wonder what you are looking for  :sherlock:

 

Consciousness is caused by complex interactions in your head, we have 5 senses, and maybe a sixth if you are watching sci-fi movies :)  :lightsaber2:  

 

The force be with you :)

All right.  If I can get those head-bashing characters out of my line of vision, maybe I can clarify.  You will see that I have removed much your quote here.  That is only because it in no way relates to what I was trying to ask.  At least, I don't think so.  That said, your last line  may mean there is no meeting of our minds on what consciousness is.  If that is true, none of what I am proposing will make sense.  But we can skip that, I think.

 

To start.  There are two constant questions being asked.  (1)  What is consciousness  (2)  What is the source of consciousness.  I think we are at a standstill because there are so many vastly different answers to the first.  I am not so much interested in #1 as I am in #2:  what is the source of consciousness? 

 

If you will please go back to my #11 post in this thread, you may see what - as you put it - I am looking for.  I posted the question on the vague hope that I might meet up with someone who has read The Web of Life by Fritjof Capra.  Someone with scientific knowledge could explain what Capra is saying.  On pp 30-31,  he speaks of the interconnections of everything both the "micro" and the macro world.    All of the components are interconnected.  He also talks of the vibrations, connections, waves, etc.

 

From there, my imagination took over.  Because of how I see "consciousness",  I am wondering if those waves, interconnections and vibrations could possibly be the source of consciousness.  "Vibrations" especially say "action" which say "life in action" - to me, that is. 

 

It is that simple.  I am simply picking up words, connecting them to signs of life and wondering.  If Capra is right about the interconnectedness,  what effect does the action in the quantum world have on the classical world and our life (our consciousness).

 

Does that explain what I am asking about?  I know it is vague if you haven't read the book and his theory of the interconnectedness of all components of the universe and life, but it's the best I can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read the "web of life". ? I dont know what level of understanding you are at, so forgive me if I am teaching you to suck eggs, and correct me if you think I have something wrong.

 

There are a lot of different theories bandied about above, they are all describing the same thing in different ways. All things/energy can be described as a disturbance in a field at the quantum level, some disturbances form particles, others form photons. It does not matter that you describe the field as a vibration, a particle or a wave. They are all field disturbances which have different characteristics, giving them different properties.  

 

I like using analogies, maybe the following analogy might help, you can view the field of space as a liquid. This liquid can be viewed as boiling, producing quantum foam/bubbles(Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, proven by Casimir effect ). If you move your hand through it, you see all manner of whirlpools and waves form.   

 

I wonder if Capra's  interconnections of everything both the "micro" and the macro world  is referring to space time interconnections of fields, or if he is going deeper to include entanglement. All things may be entangled to a certain extent, and in fact the curvature of space time and gravity may be due to entanglement. See Holographic principle, and Emergent gravity, two similar but slightly different variations on a theme arising from string theory and quantum theory.

 

For me entanglement can only be explained by at east one extra dimension, that can connect all points in space time (See the holographic principle)  (wave particle duality) 

 

Ref vibrations the many versions of string theory assume everything is made up of vibrating strings which can occupy a number of different dimensions. This does not mean that everything is made of vibrating strings, it just means that everything/energy can be represented as a vibration operating in different dimensions and having different shapes, with either open or closed ends on the strings. For example a photon(solitron wave) is represented by an open string, whereas a particle is represented as a closed string(whirl pool, smoke ring :) ). 

 

I do not know if this helps or confuses you, but it is considered all things may be entangled to a certain extent, likely this is certainly(most likely(maybe)) true with gravity.  

 

Edit: one final thing in case you missed it, the electrical signals in your head all are affected by gravity ie are entangled to a certain extent with everything else in the universe:). Perhaps I should take up Zen or maybe Theravada(spooky) Buddhism :) .  

 

Edit 2 I dont think anyone has mentioned the ideas of additional dimensions has been around for donkeys years, einstein considered reformulating his field equations in 5 dimensions, and in fact Kaluza Klein theory uses 5 dimensions to unify gravity and electromagnetism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory 

You have given me a lot of ideas to look for.  But his index is useless on all terms.  I'd almost have to re-read the book.  Anyway, let's just say it was a wild thought that danced through the electrical signals in my head (stealing your phrasing).  From a scientific point of view, not worth thinking about.  

 

Thank you for trying, though.  As a good cosmologist of my acquaintance once said to me:  Keep dreaming.  I shall do so.

 

By the way,  it is a good book if you are gifted with strong imagination.  Better, I think,  than his "Tao of Physics".   A rigid, dogmatic scientist might not enjoy it.  But someone who likes to wander into the many ways of thinking would appreciate it even if he disagreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...