Particle-Wave Duality
Girls demonstrating wave-particle duality by James Guppy
The so-called “particle-wave duality” refers to the apparent contradiction that arises when we try to understand the nature of light.
Light may be understood as a wave phenomenon (i.e. energy) or as matter (i.e. a particle), depending on the experimental conditions under which we observe it.
Philosophers of science say the duality is bound up in the way we use language. And the conflict might be reconciled if we consider what language is and does.
Language, they say, not only describes but also informs our understanding of things spoken and written about. In short, our descriptions of the world around (and within) us shape our worldview.
Consider the moon, for instance. To an Apollo astronaut it might be taken as something to walk on. For an ancient Roman citizen believing in the state religion of old Rome, the moon might be seen as a somewhat mysterious place where the goddess Luna resides.
In ancient Iran, the moon was believed to be “The Great Man” who incarnates on Earth from time to time. And in the fairly recent past, the moon was whimsically said to be made of blue cheese.
In each of these cases, the words and the semantic context within which they’re placed shape the understanding of the thing described.
Although we might overcome the particle-wave duality by maintaining that it’s informed by current modes of describing and categorizing reality, this still doesn’t tell us much about the actual essence of light, energy and matter–or even if these observable phenomena have a ‘true essence.’
At some point language becomes inadequate. And many believe that sciences which use a symbol system, such as mathematics and physics, are equally as imperfect and incomplete to the task of describing reality.
Along these lines, the holistic thinker Peter Russell suggests that we should not confuse the map (i.e. scientific concepts and theories) with the thing mapped (i.e. supposed fundamental aspects of the universe).
The debate around describing and the described gets complicated, however. Some maintain that language is, in fact, adequate and is an integral part of reality. But this argument falls short when we consider how meanings have changed and continue to change throughout human history.
» Berkeley (George), Brahman, Einstein (Albert), Hume (David), Kant (Immanuel), Locke (John), Poststructuralism, Schrödinger (Erwin), Semiology, Tao, Young (Thomas)
Posted on March 4, 2010, in P and tagged concepts, energy, language, matter, physics, science. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
![stair [Explored]](http://static.flickr.com/3816/8759107922_83a8ef3fd1_m.jpg "stair [Explored]")
![Surveillance aérienne [Explored]](http://static.flickr.com/3741/8758811602_919aa5ed57_m.jpg "Surveillance aérienne [Explored]")
After studying physics (among other things) at university, I became a software developer. A common concept here is “interface” (cf. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_interface), which provides exactly the kind of thinking needed here:
A cannon ball implements the “particle” interface, a wave on the ocean the “wave” interface, and, e.g., a photon both. This is very illustrative when a class diagram is drawn (more so than in this brief statement), but such a diagram would be hard to understand for the reader without previous knowledge.
(Arguably, the cannon ball, too, implements “wave”; however, the effects are too small for practical observation.)
Thank you for your interesting comment. If you can find the time, could you please explain a bit more how the cannon ball implements “wave”, albeit with negligible effects?
The world is full of effects (e.g. relativistic changes, Heisenberg’s uncertaintity principle) that are valid in general, but are not observable in every day life (we move too slowly compared to each other, objects are too large).
In my recollection, this applies to the wave-particle duality too: Canon balls, e.g., behave like waves. For example, they would cause an interference patter similar _in principle_ to that of photons in a two slit experiment. However, they are so large that this pattern is not detectable.
I have to make a reservation, however: I last had contact with the wp duality around 1996, and I could be wrong. (Not counting the odd popular-science discussion—these are often too oversimplified to be trusted.)
Thanks for your reply. I guess we could say that even though some macro effects are not easy to observe, they are conceivable.
There’s also the issue of a possible continuity between micro and macro but with only some individuals equipped to perceive it. I’m talking about intuitives, sensitives, contemplatives, etc. Their interior perceptions might not be demonstrable in a lab. But they might be demonstrable in some other way.
Amit Goswami says:
The possibility wave of a macro object spreads between measurements, but it spreads very slowly–so slowly that it is appreciable only at time scales comparable to the age of our universe…Macro objects are quantum possibility waves. They do spread. Recently, thanks to the accuracy of measurement possible today with laser technology, a one-ton apparatus was found to spread in a short time by one hundred thousand trillionth of a centimeter.
from _The Visionary Window_
That’s quite interesting!