3 ms·
I wonder if all the things we think of as particles, like electrons and protons, are actually quasiparticles on top of more fundamental mechanics.
by oofabz 11y ago
I wonder if all the things we think of as particles, like electrons and protons, are actually quasiparticles on top of more fundamental mechanics.
- simcop2387 11y agoFrom my limited understanding that's largely how things work out with some (most or all?) string theories. The fundamental mechanics are those of vibrating stings and the particles/quasiparticles are emergent behavior off of the different types of vibrations and different types of strings.
- ZeroFries 11y agoAccording to holon theory, everything that can be considered a "whole" (eg: a particle) emerges from a stack of parts which in turn can be considered wholes which emerge from their own stack of parts. This goes all the way up and all the way down. Eg: A cell emerges from proteins (among other parts) which emerge from amino-acids, which emerge from molecules, which emerge from atoms, which emerge from particles, which emerge from more fundamental particles, which emerge from probability fields, which emerge from probability fields, etc...
- mathgenius 11y agoThis is Laughlin's thesis in his book [1]. The idea is that the mathematics of renormalization as used by the particle physicists, is the same mathematics used to describe quasiparticles. It seems physicists in general have not had much to say in response to this idea. [1] http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm
- tfgg 11y ago> It seems physicists in general have not had much to say in response to this idea Huh? My impression is that the notion that the current laws of physics are an effective field theory of some more fundamental theory is pretty widespread and mainstream.
- mathgenius 11y agoSure, maybe I am not channelling Laughlin very well. Perhaps it was his general pessimism that any deeper theory could be derived from the emergent phenomenon. It was a while since I read that book.
- selimthegrim 11y agoThey've had plenty to say. Laughlin's only acolyte is a fellow named Chapline who is known for his unusual theories about black holes. Laughlin has nothing to say about Lorentz invariance. For a real stab down Laughlin's direction, done 100,000 times better with testable predictions, check out G. Volovik's book "The Universe in a Helium Droplet"