The ‘WAVE versus PARTICLE ANTINOMY’ in Modern Microcosmic Physics – Toward a Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

 

The ‘WAVE versus PARTICLE ANTINOMY’ in Modern Microcosmic Physics –

Toward a Dialectical Synthesis Solution.

 

 

 

Dear Reader,

 

In contemporary “Particle Physics” theory, the objects of the theory – the “fundamental” objects that manifest the nature of ‘Microcosmic Objective Nature’ -- are taken to be BOTH “classical, linear wave-like”, and “classical” ‘[linear] point-particle-like’, sometimes manifesting as classical waves, sometimes manifesting as particles, sometimes manifesting as “both”. 

 

But this “complementarity” of these two classically mutually-exclusive models is far from a dialectical synthesis.

 

We suspect that better models would likely be more about ‘‘‘eventities’’’ which are NEITHER classical “waves” nor classical particles, and would be nonlinear models, as suggested by the somewhat recently discovered “solitary wave” and “soliton” closed-form solutions of many “weakly-nonlinear” partial differential equations.

We suspect that the ‘“Waves versus Particles Paradox”’ – perhaps even a latter-day example of a Kantianish ANTINOMY – is more a human, collective-subjective, psychohistorical, cognitive problem than an objective, ‘nature of Microcosmic Objective Nature’ problem.  

 

We suspect that this “paradox” arises from believing that real microphysical objects must conform either to our idea of a classical wave, or to our idea of a “point particle”, and “never the twain shall meet”. 

 

On the contrary, real microphysical objects may be, and may have always been, a tertium quid, something qualitatively, ontologically different from either of our opposing ideas of real such objects, but ‘‘‘containing’’’ an ‘intra-duality’ which makes them manifest, sometimes as somewhat fitting our idea of a “wave”, and sometimes as somewhat fitting our idea of a “particle”.

 

We need a conceptual dialectical synthesis whose concept of real microphysical objects better fits both their ‘wave-ish’ side and their ‘point-ish’ side, but as an integral unity, not as a syncretic “complementarity”.

 

The ‘dialectogram’ posted below begins to articulate this problematique.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For ongoing updates regarding F.E.D. content, please see -- 

www.dialectics.info .

 

 

 

 

 

For F.E.D. books, and for  partially pictographical, ‘poster-ized’ visualizations of many of our hypotheses -- specimens of ‘dialectical art’ -- see:

https://www.etsy.com/shop/DialecticsMATH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¡ENJOY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Miguel Detonacciones,

 

Voting Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.];

Elected Member, F.E.D. General Council;

Participant, F.E.D. Special Council for Public Liaison;

Officer, F.E.D. Office of Public Liaison.