Physics textbooks are filled with particles: electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons. These are presented as the basic building blocks of reality — tiny, discrete entities with well-defined properties.
But quantum theory complicates this picture. Particles behave like waves. They seem to lack definite position, number, or identity until measured. Some theories (like quantum field theory) suggest that particles are just excitations of underlying fields.
So what, exactly, is a particle?
This post argues that from a relational ontological perspective, particles are not fundamental entities, but local stabilisations of coherence within a relational field — transient configurations that emerge under constraint, not things that persist across time.
1. The Particle-Wave Duality Problem
Quantum mechanics presents particles as:
-
Exhibiting both particle-like and wave-like behaviour (e.g. in the double-slit experiment),
-
Lacking definite properties until measured,
-
Subject to exchange symmetries (indistinguishability) that defy classical identity.
These phenomena resist interpretation if we assume that particles are objects with intrinsic properties.
2. A Relational View: No Particles, Only Patterns
In a relational ontology:
-
There are no particles “in themselves” — only momentary concentrations of relational coherence,
-
What we call a “particle” is a local actualisation of potential — a stable enough configuration to be treated as discrete within a given context,
-
Outside that context, its discreteness dissolves; it is not the same thing in every circumstance.
Rather than being substance-like, particles are relational artefacts — indices of how the system is behaving under specific constraints.
3. Quantum Field Theory: Excitations, Not Entities
Quantum field theory already hints at this:
-
“Particles” are excitations of fields — not separate from the field, but expressions of its mode of vibration under constraint,
-
Creation and annihilation operators govern transitions, not the persistence of “things” over time,
-
Fields are fundamental; particles are emergent phenomena.
From a relational standpoint, these fields are structured spaces of potential — and what appears as a particle is simply a coherence peak: a temporary node of resonance in a dynamic field.
4. Identity and Indistinguishability Revisited
Quantum particles are:
-
Indistinguishable: swapping two electrons makes no difference to the system,
-
Non-individuated: they do not possess haecceity (thisness),
-
Context-defined: identity arises through interaction and relation, not intrinsic label.
This makes sense if we stop thinking of particles as objects, and start seeing them as relational modes — defined not by what they “are” but by how they constrain and are constrained within the system.
5. Implications for Measurement and Reality
Recasting particles this way helps us:
-
Dissolve the apparent contradictions of wave-particle duality,
-
Reframe “detection” events as punctualisations of potential — not revelations of pre-existing things,
-
View measurement not as “finding” a particle but as resolving a relational field into a stable event.
This also clarifies why particles appear in detectors: they’re not travelling objects, but outcomes of field restructuring under high constraint.
Closing
Particles are not the atoms of being. They are patterns within a field of relation, appearing when coherence becomes sharply constrained. The electron is not a thing that flies through space, but a mode of systemic transformation that manifests when the relational field punctuates.
In our next post, we’ll explore energy — not as a substance, but as a dynamic measure of system tension and actualisation rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment