Section VII: Do We Need Particles? From "Is Space the Only Substance in the Universe?"

 

VII.                   DO WE NEED PARTICLES WHEN WE HAVE WAVES, SPACE DELETION, AND QUANTUM FIELDS?

Is there Duality Between Waves and Particles, or Are there Just Waves?                                 

A major cause of complexity and potential confusion in physics is the intuitive belief in particles, with non-particulate space between them. This ancient concept has persisted since the age of Democritus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2016).  Modern humans retain the concept of particles, probably because it corresponds to our every-day subjective experience of solid physical matter. This article dares to take on the contentious issue of questioning an independent reality for particles.

            Light is generally believed to have the properties of both waves and particles. The wave-like properties have been proven by double-slit and other experiments since Huygen in 1690. Three particle-like are the absorption and dispersal of the energy of electron orbits in roughly discrete quantities, the converse ability of roughly discrete quantities of light energy to eject electrons, and the momentum exhibited when light hits electrons. Norton (2017) explained these in terms of “wave packets” rather than particulate photons, and noted that de Broglie’s equation, momentum = (Planck’s constant)/wavelength, requires only waves. He further noted that in quantum mechanics, particles are conceptualized as probability waves, and stated that ”quantum theory demands that we get some of the properties of classical particles back into the waves.”

            Not only light, but all sub-atomic particles of mass, have wave forms. Louis de Broglie first proposed a wave length for each particle in 1923 similar to light, with the algebraic adjustment of the equation given above to become wavelength = (Planck’s constant)/momentum. A wave nature for the electron was subsequently confirmed by experimentation (Lumen Physics 2022). According to LaFrenière (2009), de Broglie proposed that matter mechanics be renamed as “The Wave Mechanics.”

            Wolchover (2020, November) asked 12 particle physicists to define a particle, and got a different answer from each. Some of the interesting responses were “a quantum excitation of a field” or a “bit of energy in a field.” Such an excitation or energy in a field could be a wave in the medium of space. Another definition was “a point-like collapsed quantum wave function,” but waves should not need to totally collapse for discrete wave packets to occur. Still another answer was that particles might be vibrating strings, but strings are supposedly one-dimensional with no thickness, making them incompatible with the model presented here. This small survey suggests two things. First, physicists who spend their entire careers working with particle physics cannot even agree on what it is. Second, particle physicists are able to transcend the traditional sense of particles as small compact chunks of matter.

            Hobson (2013) went so far as to publish an article entitled “There are no particles, there are only fields.” He noted that at high energies, most quantum field theorists agree that relativistic quantum physics is about fields, and that electrons, photos, etc. are merely waves (excitations) in the fundamental fields. Despite this, he noted, at low energy levels, both non-relativistic quantum physics education and popular talk is about particles.

            Continued use of the particle terminology may help to perpetuate inaccurate impressions in the general public, confusion among students, and perpetuation of a subconscious attitude even among physicists, that they are the “real stuff,” and the space between them is not.  This can be a conceptual barrier to considering the possibility that the opposite is true,. a psychological barrier to re-conceptualizing physics and cosmology to be entirely based on waves and other processes in the medium of space, of which fields consist. Avoiding this duality and concentrating on that more useful concept could introduce helpful simplicity to physics.

The “Standard Model”: More Particles than Relevance

             Despite this, the “standard model” of modern particle physics was developed in the 1970s and continually expanded since. According to this model at present, there are at least 17 different types of so-called “fundamental particles,” not including the neutrinos and the anti-particle versions of most particles, which are nearly the same except for reversed charges, and/or “colors,” a quality proposed in quantum chromodynamics. One of the particles, the gluon, is often counted as 8 that differ by “color.” In addition, there are a multitude of combination particles in the model. Following is a brief review of the particles in the “standard model,” without reference to all the quantum numbers of each particle, disregarding the left and right-handed forms of fermions, and considering anti-particles only as noted (Wolchover et al. 2020, October). The purpose is to illustrate the complexity of the particles, and to question the relevance of most of them. The information comes from multiple sources, not cited in every paragraph.

            Of the “fundamental particles,” 12 are called fermions and have “spin” of 1/2, of which 6 are the quarks that join together to form hadrons like the protons and neutrons at the nuclei of familiar objects. However, only two of these, the “up” and “down” quarks, are stable; the other four only exist for extremely tiny fractions of a second and must be produced by high energy colliders. Quarks are never detected individually; they are confined by the strong force, usually in twos or threes.

            The other 6 non-combination fermions are leptons, the most familiar and stable of which is the common electron. The lepton group includes 2 other and much heavier types of electrons (muon and tau) that last for extremely tiny fractions of a second (muons’ life expectancy of about 2 millionths of a second being much longer than those of other unstable particles). Also in this group are 3 types of neutrinos, of which only the lightest (the electron neutrino) is stable (Strassler 2011). 

             That leaves 5 other particles (or 12 counting 8 different gluons), called bosons, which have integer or zero “spin.” Of these, 4 types (gluons, Z, and 2 oppositely charged W particles) supposedly carry three of the four fundamental forces (strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic) (Wolchover et al. 2020, October). Except for the photon, they cannot be isolated, and hence are considered as “virtual” particles (some photons also being “virtual”). The abstruse theory is that their postulated movement back and forth between other particles somehow produces those forces. The only familiar and stable member of this group is the photon in its non-“virtual” form. Photons are considered responsible for electromagnetic energy, even though their properties can be explained by waves as discussed above.

            Added to the boson category (but also classified as hadrons because they consist of quarks) are a large number of mesons, each consisting of a quark and an anti-quark. All of the mesons are unstable.

            The most recently discovered particle is the Higgs boson, which is somehow credited for having imparted mass to other particles after the “Big Bang,” via its supposed universal “Higgs field.” This theory too raises many questions, considering how difficult it was to even demonstrate the existence of such a particle, the high energy required, and that it is one of the most fleeting particles (decaying after 1.56*10^-22 second). The only observational evidence for its existence was through the detection in 2012 of immediate decay products and possibly some sort of incredibly brief resonance at the expected energy level in 2012 at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (Letzer 2020, Elert 2021). A theoretical additional particle, a graviton to carry the gravitational force, has been postulated but not found (Elert 2021).

            Only one out of over 200 hadrons, the proton, is stable on its own over long periods. Isolated neutrons decay after about 15 minutes but they last much longer inside nucleons together with protons, and are an essential component of the nuclei of familiar elements, so there are two relevant hadrons (Strassler 2011). Both belong to the sub-group called baryons, made up of 3 quarks, and each contains only three stable but confined up and down quarks. Other hadrons last only for extremely tiny fractions of a second and must be produced by high-energy colliders (Encyclopedia Britannica 2009; Elert 2021; Sutton & Invictus 2020).  

            It is reasonable to question whether any proposed particles that last only an extremely tiny fraction of a second have meaningful existence. Only 5 of the so-called “fundamental particles” (up and down quarks, electrons, photons, and electron neutrinos), and only two baryons (protons and neutrons) from among the multitude of hadron combinations, last long enough to be real constituents of our universe. The anti-particles of those quarks (antiup and antidown) and of the electron (positron), and electron neutrino (anti-neutrino) could be added, because they are potentially stable in a vacuum, but in usual conditions they rapidly collide with their ordinary versions and are annihilated. Ordinary particles survive, because they cannot all be annihilated, since for some reason there are many more of them than of anti-particles (Sutton 2021).

            Many of the other unstable particles seem to have been included in part to fill in otherwise empty cells and to create “symmetry” in particle tables created for the “standard model.” This raises the question of whether the “standard model” is more of an intellectual exercise than an essential tool for studying the truly significant building blocks of the universe. While most of the physics community seems to accept it as “gospel” for now, concepts may evolve over time.  Gomez (2018) identified five important physics phenomena that the “standard model” cannot explain: neutrino mass, dark matter, the paucity of antimatter, the acceleration of expansion of the universe, and gravity.

Waves, etc.: Matter and Energy as Processes in Space

Waves and other processes in space may be the essentials of matter and energy, and may create the illusion of particles. The impression that there are “solid” objects is intuitive and difficult for humans to think beyond.  Gaseous and liquid states of matter are less difficult to associate with the concept of waves, but impact of the human body with matter in the solid state creates a different sensation and can of course cause physical injury. This may be the most difficult conceptual barrier in getting past the concept of solid particles. However, concentrated electromagnetic repulsion and other wave interferences are proposed to be responsible for the phenomena of impact between solid-state objects.

             Over the coming years, it would be encouraging to see a gradual phase-out of references to particles and increasing characterization of quarks, electrons, photons, and neutrinos in terms of waves and other processes in space, except in historical contexts. The actual discrete units of the universe, rather than particles, may be the “volons” of space.

            Unstable and especially non-resonating waves can rapidly convert into other waves that are more stable. Two waves can easily combine into a third wave.  It seems more difficult to conceive of how particles can break apart in such a way that their components have exactly the right contents to recombine into other known types of particles. Particle reconstruction should require modifying energy levels, for which mechanisms seem lacking other than changing velocity. .In contrast, wave energy can be modified via amplitude, frequency, and/ or increased emission. 

            None of the unstable entities mentioned above must necessarily be treated as particles. They could all be considered as unsustainable wave forms of energy in the rapid process of converting to more stable wave forms. In the case of quarks, their inability to exist alone could mean that they are components of composite waves.

            The virtual bosons are particles that seem especially deserving of reconsideration. They are undetectable, so there is only circumstantial evidence for their existence. Their necessity would seem debatable, since waves can possess and exchange energy. In addition, the idea that by moving back and forth between other particles, the virtual bosons impart forces, is neither intuitive nor in keeping with other physical processes.

            Not all waves are transmitted through "empty" space, i.e., space that lacks a substantial presence of matter. Mechanical waves (such as sound) require matter as a medium (Flexbooks 2019), and common knowledge of this likely contributed to the belief that there must be an aether to serve as such a medium for the transmission of light and gravity in space. Considering each molecule of matter as a complex cluster of wavelets representing all of the sub-atomic components within it, the interpretation of mechanical waves could be that they have the specific magnitude and qualities to vibrate or oscillate such clusters. Since those clusters do not exist in space unless there is also matter present, mechanical waves are limited to the areas of space in which matter does exist.

            The properties of sub-atomic particles, derived by observation rather than deduced from first principles, are displayed in tables of the “standard model.” There might be more practical value in creating revised tables, limited to the relevant (stable) particles, and referring to them as wave forms and processes in space.