Cue the world’s most famous identity crisis.
The Metaphor Problem
-
Particles conjure up billiard balls: hard, discrete, countable objects.
-
Waves conjure up ripples in water: continuous, overlapping, spreading motions.
Both metaphors smuggle in intuitive images from human-scale experience and then insist reality conforms. The trouble is that neither metaphor fits once we step outside those familiar scales.
Why This Is Misleading
When physicists speak of an electron as “a particle” or “a wave,” they are not describing what it is, but how it behaves under specific experimental constraints. Treating these metaphors as ontological truths is like deciding Schrödinger’s cat is literally both alive and dead, rather than recognising that we’ve forced an incoherent metaphor onto a relational phenomenon.
The “wave-particle duality” metaphor distracts from the deeper insight: that at the most fundamental level, what we call “particles” or “waves” are events of relational construal, not self-contained entities. They are not little beads or ripples, but instances of pattern actualising from potential.
Relational Ontology Footnote
Relational ontology reframes the “duality problem.” There is no contradiction between waves and particles because neither exists as an ultimate category. What exists are cuts in relational potential: sometimes construed as discrete, sometimes as continuous, depending on how we engage. The paradox lies not in nature but in the metaphors we insist on using.
Closing Joke (Because Parody)
Imagine if humans worked the same way: sometimes you show up to a party as a solid, countable particle, other times you spread out across the dance floor as a wave. Friends would stop inviting you, not because you’re quantum, but because you can’t commit to a form.
No comments:
Post a Comment