Live data from Hacker News

What Is a Particle? (2020)

quantamagazine.org

171–180 of 196 posts

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But - again - that is a mathematical construction, which a physical particle is not.

Yes, mathematical constructions are merely a model of reality It is interesting to note that (correct me if I'm wrong) perhaps our mathematical constructs are based on a classical intuition and perception of the universe? And here we are trying to fit that classical intuition into the quantum realm Perhaps that can be related to why shit gets complicated with particle physics?

That's certainly part of it. But part of it is we're not really terribly good at talking about the universe even with classical intuition.

That said, model-theoretic semantics go back to, at least, William of Ockham, who developed a formalized subset of Latin (which kind of reminds me of the Google C++ style guide in a way). We're clearly not utterly incompetent in this space, but it helps to stand on the shoulders of the giants to see clearly.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#172
post #4

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't go mad in certain fields. If I ponder for 10 minutes the inexplicability of the universe's existence, or the vastness of space, my mind starts to breaks down.

1.1 INTRODUCTION: THERMODYNAMICS AND STATISTICAL MECHANICS OF THE PERFECT GAS Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.

And away we go!

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#173

I'm reading "The Big Picture" (Sean Carroll) right now. I'd love to have a real physicist explain this, but: When we think of what a particle IS, we often think as though it were dirt, or a billiard ball, or something. As though there were some other substance of which it's made. At least I do. But the definition is as low as you can go. It's hard to wrap your head around that. Unless you're trained to do so, I guess…

I truly appreciate the discussion your comment has brought about. Some really great sibling comments.

There's also a lot of overlap with the article itself however. From the sibling comments too. At risk of breaking the rules, it's very much worth the read if you haven't read it!

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#174
post #4

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't go mad in certain fields. If I ponder for 10 minutes the inexplicability of the universe's existence, or the vastness of space, my mind starts to breaks down.

1.1 INTRODUCTION: THERMODYNAMICS AND STATISTICAL MECHANICS OF THE PERFECT GAS Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical mechanics.

That's from Goodstein's "States of Matter" [1]. The next paragraph starts "Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously".

That appears to be sufficient to allow non-fatal studying of statistical mechanics. Goodstein wrote that book 49 years ago and didn't die until a few months ago at the age of 85.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/States-Matter-Dover-Books-Physics/dp/...

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#176
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that physical reality cannot be made of something that doesn't exist physically, such as mathematical objects, abstract concepts or more generally ideas of any kind. Do you not agree that this must be true?

It is true, but also kind of trivial. More subtly, one can say that we tend to call what is real using the same words that we use for mathematical objects that model them.

I don't know that we do that. For instance, physicists are able to describe motion in physical terms and don't insist that it literally is a vector. It only happens with quantum fields.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#177
post #82

I'm reading "The Big Picture" (Sean Carroll) right now. I'd love to have a real physicist explain this, but: When we think of what a particle IS, we often think as though it were dirt, or a billiard ball, or something. As though there were some other substance of which it's made. At least I do. But the definition is as low as you can go. It's hard to wrap your head around that. Unless you're trained to do so, I guess…

This might sound tautological but a particle is, well, a thing that behaves like a particle. Those behaviors are something like: - it has momentum - it's state is uniquely defined by a position in space and a velocity What's not a particle? A wave (well, until 1900 or so ...). Sort of like asking "what is a number?" A number is a thing that obeys certain rules. (You can add them; there's an `identity `, for every num…

> a particle is, well, a thing that behaves like a particle

Except when they don’t

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But - again - that is a mathematical construction, which a physical particle is not.

I think I'm getting a glimmer of understanding on this now From what I gather, a set of possible transformations is a group in group theory Physical space is a type of group, i.e. a Poincare group, and is described by the set of all transformations on objects, or something (i.e. motion or lack thereof) An irreducible poincare group is a tinest example of physical space, i.e. a 'particle' So although it has no physica…

The Poincare group is the set of symmetries of spacetime (in special relativity), not spacetime itself. It characterizes the basic geometry of spacetime, so the dynamics of any physical system must be invariant under the action of this group, e.g. a physical system has the same dynamics as a rotated version of itself (as long as you rotate the whole physical system), and a physical system has the same dynamics as a version of itself with the velocities of all its components boosted uniformly in some direction (this is the principle of relativity). So the important things, like the dynamics, are invariant under the Poincare group, and the things that change are just dependent on the perspective of an observer.

Where the irreducible representations come in is in quantum mechanics, where physical systems are described by Hilbert spaces. These are spaces in the abstract mathematical sense of a vector space. They're used in quantum mechanics as a way to mathematically describe the fact that there are multiple possible outcomes of an experiment or interaction. The way this is done is by describing a quantum state as a unit vector in Hilbert space, each possible outcome corresponds to a dimension (a basis vector) in this space, and the probability of each outcome corresponds to the projection of the unit vector onto one of these dimensions. You can picture this as an arrow of unit length with its tail at the origin, and evolution of the state makes the arrow rotate about the origin, consequently changing its projection onto the basis vectors.

A representation of a group on a vector space is a way of describing the action of that group on the vectors in the space. Any vector space can be decomposed into subspaces which are invariant under the group action, meaning that if a vector starts off in that subspace, then the action of the group will not move it out of that subspace - these subspaces are the irreducible representations of the group.

So the irreducible representations of the Poincare group correspond to the components or properties of a physical system that are invariant under the basic symmetries of spacetime, i.e. that are independent of one's perspective, and in that sense they're considered basic or fundamental.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while I often wonder what part of today's knowledge will appear brutally obsolete for those born in the 2100s

As a physics (and SF) enthusiast, I've come to realize that we've discovered most of the physics that exists, and all of what we can use. This is disappointing for those who yearn for FTL or teleportation, but it's good news when you consider that it creates an impregnable defense against interstellar invasion. Within the limits of modern physics, there remains a great deal to understand and apply, especially in QM b…

You don't think there's an einstein jr that will come one day and change some fundamental model in the weirdest way that will flip physics on its head again ?

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is a field?

a thing that can have particle-like excitations

Historically, electrical and magnetic fields were discovered first. Then em-waves. Then photons.

This should tell us that fields are useful in their own right, without referencing particles.

Post reply on HN