Triple-Aspect Monism and the Ontology of Quantum Particles

doi:10.4236/ojpp.2013.34066

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Philosophy

2013. Vol.3, No.4, 451-454

Published Online November 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojpp) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.34066

Open Access 451

Triple-Aspect Monism and the Ontology of Quantum Particles

Gilbert B. Côté*

Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Email: [email protected]

Received August 22nd, 2013; revised September 22nd, 2013; accepted October 1st, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited.

An analysis of the physical implications of abstractness reveals the reality of three interconnected modes

of existence: abstract, virtual and concrete. This triple-aspect monism clarifies the ontological status of

subatomic quantum particles. It also provides a non-spooky solution to the weirdness of quantum physics

and a new outlook for the mind-body problem. The ontological implications are profound for both physics

and philosophy.

Keywords: Triple-Aspect Monism; Abstractness; Virtual; Timelessness; Non-Locality; Entanglement;

Quantum Particles; Ontology

Introduction

A recent analysis of the properties of infinity (Côté, 2013) led

to the conclusions that 1) infinity is abstract and real, 2) concrete

space-time is finite, 3) mathematical Platonism is a logical ne-

cessity, and 4) quantum particles lie at the interface between the

abstract and concrete aspects of reality.

I now intend to expand these conclusions with an analysis of

the properties of abstractness. This should help clarify the on-

tological status of subatomic quantum particles and shed some

light on the closely related mind-body duality problem.

Properties of Abstractness

On the premise of mathematical Platonism we affirm that in-

finity and mathematical statements constitute an abstract part of

reality and exist independently of rational observers. This im-

plies the reality of abstractness as a mode of existence distinct

from space-time, i.e. without any embodiment, in sharp contrast

to concrete reality. By definition, the existence of abstractness

apart from space-time not only means that it occupies no space

(and is therefore non-local), but also indicates that it is timeless.

Timelessness, or atemporality, is defined here as the absence

of time and should not be confused with eternity (endless time,

infinite time) or paused duration. In turn, the absence of time

entails the total absence of change (because change can only be

measured along a time scale). Abstract infinity, its mathematical

arrangements and its infinite amount of information are thus

unchangeable, immutable, fixed, permanent and unalterable.

From the point of view of timelessness, past, present and future

all exist together as one entity.

In abstractness and timelessness, abstract space is infinite and

continuous, contrary to concrete space-time which is finite and

discontinuous (Côté, 2013). Accordingly, in quantum field

theory, the answers to calculations of the density energy of the

vacuum have infinite values while astronomical measurements

of supposedly the same density in large expanses of curved

space-time yield small positive values close to zero (Rugh &

Zinkernagel, 2002; Baez, 2011). This huge discrepancy—a

long-standing unsolved problem in physics—is due to the fun-

damental difference between the properties of the continuous,

abstract space of quantum theory, and those of the curved

space-time of relativity. It is therefore important to examine the

physical implications of abstractness in greater details.

Virtual Particles

We already know that quantum particles lie at the interface

between the abstract and concrete aspects of reality (Côté, 2013).

Virtual particles, in particular, have a very elusive nature. They

are called virtual because they pop in and out of the vacuum so

quickly that they do not even last long enough to be directly

observed and hardly seem to exist at all. However, their exis-

tence has consequences that are physically measurable. One

example is the Lamb-Retherford shift of energy levels within

atoms of hydrogen (Lamb & Retherford, 1947) due to the in-

teraction between virtual particles and the hydrogen atom’s

single electron. Another example is the Casimir effect between

two metal plates (Casimir, 1948) due to the difference between

the restricted number of virtual particles that can pop into the

small space between the two plates and the larger number of

particles that freely pop up outside, thus resulting in a net pres-

sure on the plates. The physical reality of virtual particles more

recently received additional support when a dynamic Casimir

effect was used to extract real photons out of empty space

(Wilson et al., 2001).

In quantum field theory, virtual particles are viewed as tran-

sient fluctuations, perturbations, excitations or vibrations in

various quantum fields (e.g. photons in the electromagnetic

field). The fields themselves can also be understood in terms of

hybrid, virtual entities at the interface between abstractness and

concrete space-time: their mathematical formulation is abstract

but includes space-time variables. They appear to be neither

*Retired.

G. B. CÔTÉ

fully abstract, nor completely concrete.

From our point of view in concrete space-time, one of the

basic characteristics of a real photon (as opposed to a virtual one)

is the significant amount of time spent between its emission and

detection (from less than a second to more than 13 billion years).

However, both types of photons are discrete packets of pure

energy without concrete substrate, both lie at the interface be-

tween the abstract and concrete aspects of reality, and both are

interpreted as excitations in the underlying electromagnetic field.

This prompts us to expand the notion of virtuality and consider

both types of photons as virtual (i.e. neither abstract nor concrete)

until they either 1) get annihilated with their antiparticles and

return to abstractness, or 2) get detected and integrate concrete

space-time. Once annihilated or detected, they no longer exist as

separate, virtual entities.

This expanded notion has significant philosophical implica-

tions, as illustrated below with Thomas Young’s (1804) famous

double-slit experiment.

Timelessness and Non-Locality

As it is performed today, Young’s double-slit experiment

starts with the emission of one or more real photons in the di-

rection of a screen where two parallel slits have been cut. The

well-known wave function of the electromagnetic field describes

photonic interference along all possible light paths before and

after the slits, as well as different probabilities of photon detec-

tion at various discrete points on a second screen positioned

behind the first screen. Whether photons are emitted singly or in

large groups, the predicted and observed distributions of de-

tected particles on the second screen show a pattern due to wave

interference. Photons therefore seem to be waves as well as

particles, a conclusion that stands as a flagrant contradiction.

This paradoxical state of affairs has now been baffling scientists

for more than a century (Gilder, 2008). However, the calcula-

tions of quantum physics are so accurate that physicists learn to

use them without asking too many philosophical questions. This

may be technologically sufficient, but it is philosophically and

scientifically unsatisfactory.

If we use the expanded notion of virtuality (as presented

above) to analyse these results, we view each photon as a virtual

excitation in a virtual field. Essentially, each photon becomes a

set of possible solutions to a wave function, and as such, it does

not physically travel in space-time during the experiment. The

eventual detection of a quantum of light on the second screen

corresponds to the random selection of a particular solution to

the wave function at the moment the experiment ends. The

photon then—and only then—integrates space-time and loses its

separate, virtual existence. Between emission and detection, the

set of possible solutions (i.e. the photon) remains timeless and

non-local (i.e. it stays out of space-time) in accordance to its

virtual existence. This interpretation retains the wave functions

as they stand today in physics textbooks, but it enhances the

philosophical status of mathematics. Physicists need not worry,

and mathematicians may cheer.

By recognising the distinct reality of abstractness and virtu-

ality, we avoid the historical paradoxes and weirdness of quan-

tum physics. We do not have to wonder how a single photon can

travel through both slits at once because it does not travel. We do

not have to be puzzled by its being both a wave and a particle

because it is neither. We are dealing instead with a wave func-

tion that describes how a quantum of energy changes locations

timelessly, from its location at emission to its location at detec-

tion, without any intermediate location. The double-slit ex-

periment is no longer mysterious and the wave-particle duality

no longer puzzling. This solution is a welcome consequence of

the logical necessity of mathematical Platonism.

Virtual Entanglement

Once subatomic particles are interpreted in terms of virtual

entities, it is easy to solve further quantum paradoxes. The next

example is that of the mysterious entanglement of elementary

particles, imagined by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (1935) to

claim the incompleteness of quantum theory, and derided by

Einstein as a “spooky action at a distance”. Their paradoxical

prediction was later confirmed by Aspect et al. (1982) as well as

several other groups: experimental results on pairs of entangled

particles emitted with opposite properties (such as polarisation,

spin or electric charge) show that the detection of one member of

the pair immediately fixes the indeterminate properties of both

members, even when they are separated from each other by any

distance. In terms of space-time, the consequences of entan-

glement can only be explained if information travels at least

10,000 times faster than the speed of light between the two

members of the pair (Salart et al., 2008). However, such a speed

is impossible according to the theory of relativity.

Results explained strictly in terms of space-time become even

more mysterious for delayed-choice experiments where the

decision on how and what to measure is chosen after the parti-

cles have taken a particular path along the experimental set-up.

In such cases, the measurement seems to show a retroactive

adjustment of the particles’ behaviour in the past (Peruzzo et al,

2012; Kaiser et al., 2012).

If we include the reality of abstractness, timelessness, and the

virtual nature of entangled particles in our interpretation, we see

again that the probability function that describes the system is

only solved (for all particles involved) at the time a measure-

ment finally takes place. The solution is then applied to all en-

tangled particles together, not only faster than the speed of light,

but in no time at all, i.e. timelessly (with no speed involved).

Until the measurement is made, the quanta under investigation

exist virtually (i.e. timelessly and non-locally) and do not phy-

sically travel through concrete space-time. According to this in-

terpretation, there is no longer any need for a “spooky” expla-

nation that endorses a speed faster than the speed of light, no

need for a backwards time influence or backwards causation

(Garisto, 2002), and not even a need for a backward correlation

or an Everettian many-worlds hypothesis (Gaasbeek, 2010). In

addition, the proposed interpretation is non-local, it preserves

causal order, and it holds whether the detection is made at ran-

dom or on purpose, by an instrument or a conscious observer,

whether it involves a single pair of particles or any number of

fields or particles. Einstein was right on at least one point in this

debate: spookiness is unnecessary.

Three Modes of Existence

To summarise so far, the detailed consideration of abstract-

ness in quantum physics has led us to define three distinct modes

of existence: abstract, virtual and concrete, each with its own

characteristics. Abstractness is infinite and timeless; this implies

that it does not change, does not evolve, plan, or make decisions,

and it contains an infinite amount of information. Concrete

Open Access

452

G. B. CÔTÉ

space-time is finite and discontinuous; it is subject to gravity; it

follows the rules of general relativity and evolves constantly.

The hybrid realm of quantum physics forms a virtual bridge

between the other two modes: it consists of abstract probability

functions that include space-time variables.

There are relentless exchanges between the three modes of

existence. We already saw above that abstractness contributes a

constant flow of particles to the virtual mode of existence.

(These particles can be interpreted as minute subsets of infinity.

Since abstractness does not plan anything, their production is

necessarily random and inevitable.) We also know that quantum

particles combine to form concrete objects. Interestingly, the

relation between the virtual and concrete modes of existence is

not limited to the subatomic level. For instance, migrating birds

seem to respond to the effects of the earth’s magnetic field on the

entangled electrons in molecules at the back of their eyes

(Gauger et al., 2011), and quantum energy transfer is used in

photosynthesis (Engel et al., 2007) at ambient temperature

(Collini et al., 2010). Quantum particles return to abstractness

when they get annihilated with their antiparticles; concrete stars

produce astronomical amounts of quantum particles; abstract

principles and the laws of physics determine the evolution of

concrete entities (such as galaxies and living animals), and

concrete people definitely have access to abstractness. In brief,

there are bidirectional exchanges between all three modes of

existence.

On the theoretical side, Hawking (1974) made the important

suggestion that concrete black holes could gradually lose their

mass and eventually vanish completely due to quantum effects

near their event horizons. From the point of view of the three

modes of existence, such black hole evaporation is a return of

space-time to abstractness or, to use a different but equivalent

wording, a return of concrete matter to abstract information. This

interpretation is in keeping with the increasingly supported view

in contemporary physics that the entire universe can be ex-

plained in terms of information, that information is never lost

and is mathematically related to energy (S = −Σpi log pi) (Seife,

2006; Umpleby, 2007; Vedral, 2010; Gleick, 2011), just as

energy is mathematically related to concrete space-time (E =

mc2). In other words, studying the inter-relationship between

abstractness, virtuality and concrete space-time is just another

way of looking at the known physical equivalence of informa-

tion, energy and mass.

In conclusion, the three modes of existence can be academi-

cally studied by both philosophers and physicists, all three

modes are real and interconnected, and all three are ontologi-

cally essential for the Universe to exist.

Triple-Aspect Monism

This world view has a direct impact on the famous mind-body

problem. Having defined three interrelated modes of existence,

we can no longer speak of two exclusive essences, like Plato and

Descartes did. In fact, the concept of dualism has gradually lost

most of its appeal among present-day philosophers, psycholo-

gists and neuroscientists who mainly support the idea of a

dual-aspect monism (Pereira et al., 2010) and perceive mind and

matter as two interdependent aspects of a single essence. Given

the conclusions reached above in this article, we must further

expand the notion of monism to include all three modes of ex-

istence into a triple-aspect monism.

This expanded framework has profound implications for

physics and philosophy. For example, it enhances the reality of

abstractness and timelessness, and will necessarily lead to the

formulation of updated definitions of mind and body, with sig-

nificant repercussions in science, philosophy, theology, religion

and ethics.

Conclusion

The analysis of abstractness presented in this paper reveals the

reality of three interconnected modes of existence: abstract,

virtual and concrete. It clarifies the ontological status of sub-

atomic quantum particles, it provides a non-spooky solution to

the weirdness of quantum physics, and it presents a different

outlook on existence and on the mind-body problem. It also

sends a clear message of co-operation to physicists and phi-

losophers who deal with ontological problems.

Acknowledgements

The constructive criticism and the encouragement of Prof.

Lucien Pelletier of the Department of Philosophy, University of

Sudbury (Ontario) are gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental realization

of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A new vio-

lation of Bell’s inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49, 91-94.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91

Baez, J. (2011). What’s the energy density of the vacuum?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

Casimir, H. B. G. (1948). On the attraction between two perfectly con-

ducting plates. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akade-

mie van Wentenschappen, B51, 793-795.

Collini, E., Wong, C. Y., Wilk, K. E., Curmi, P. M. G., Brumer, P., &

Scholes, G. D. (2010). Coherently wired light-harvesting in photo-

synthetic marine algae at ambient temperature. Nat ure , 463, 644-647.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature08811

Côté, G. B. (2013). Mathematical Platonism and the nature of infinity.

Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 372-375.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2013.33056

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechan-

ical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical

Review, 47, 777-780. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Engel, G. S., Calhoun, T. R., Read, E. L., Ahn, T.-K., Mančal, T.,

Cheng, Y.-C., Blankenship, R. E., & Fleming, G. R. (2007). Evi-

dence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in

photosynthetic systems. Nature, 446, 782-786.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05678

Gaasbeek, B. (2010). Demystifying the delayed choice experiments.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977

Garisto, R. (2002). What is the speed of quantum information?

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212078

Gauger, E.M., Rieper, E., Morton, J.J.L., Benjamin, S.C., & Vedral, V.

(2011). Quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass.

Physical Review Letters, 106, 040503.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040503

Gilder, L. (2008). The age of entanglement. When quantum physics was

reborn. New York: Knopf.

Gleick, J. (2011). The information. A history, a theory, a flood. New

York: Vintage Books.

Hawking, S. W. (1974). Black hole explosions? Nature, 248, 30-31.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/248030a0

Kaiser, F., Coudreau, T., Milman, P., Ostrowsky, D. B., & Tanzilli, S.

(2012). Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment. Science,

338, 637-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1226755

Lamb, W. E., & Retherford, R. C. (1947). Fine structure of the hydro-

Open Access 453

G. B. CÔTÉ

Open Access

454

gen atom by a microwave method. Physical Review, 72, 241-243.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.241

Pereira Jr., A., Edwards, J. C. W., Lehmann, D., Nunn, C., Trehub, A.,

& Velmans, M. (2010). Understanding consciousness. A collabora-

tive attempt to elucidate contemporary theories. Journal of Con-

sciousness, 17, 213-219.

Peruzzo, A., Shadbolt, P., Brunner, N., Popescu, S., & O’Brien, J.

(2012). A quantum delayed-choice experiment. Science, 338, 634-

637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1226719

Rugh, S. E., & Zinkernagel, H. (2002). The quantum vacuum and the

cosmological constant problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of

Science, Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Phys-

ics, 33, 663-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1355-2198(02)00033-3

Salart, D., Baas, A., Branciard, B., Gisin, N., & Zbinden, H. (2008).

Testing the speed of “spooky action at a distance”. Nature, 454, 861-

864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07121

Seife, C. (2006). Decoding the universe. How the science of informa-

tion is explaining everything in the cosmos, from our brains to black

holes. New York, Toronto, London: Penguin Group.

Umpleby, S. A. (2007). Physical relationships among matter, energy

and information. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24,

369-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.761

Vedral, V. (2010). Decoding reality. The universe as quantum informa-

tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, C. M., Johansson, G., Pourkabirian, A., Simoen, M., Johansson,

J. R., Duty, T., Nori, F., & Delsing, P. (2001). Observation of the

dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit. Nature, 479,

376-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10561

Young, T. (1804). The Bakerian lecture. Experiments and calculations

relative to physical optics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society of London, 94, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1804.0001