Field Quanta Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1989: 258-9):

When two particles interact, they do so, on the old picture, because there is a force between them.  This force can be expressed in terms of a field, and that field can in turn be expressed in terms of particles by means of the second quantisation.  When two electrons come close to each other, and are repelled from one another, it is because, in the new picture, one or more photons have been exchanged between them.  The energetic photon is a manifestation of the electric field around one or another of the electrons.  It borrows energy from the uncertainty principle, pops into existence, whizzes across to the second electron and deflects it before it disappears again.  The first electron recoils as the photon leaves it, and the result is that the electrons are repelled from one another.  One kind of field, corresponding to fermions [e.g. electrons], produces the material world; the other kind, corresponding to bosons [e.g. photons], produces the interactions that hold the material world together and sometimes break bits of it apart.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory:

• the "expression" of a field in terms of particles is the shift in perspective from potential (field) to instances (particles);
• as a "manifestation" of an electric field around an electron, an energetic photon is an instance of the electric potential of an electron;
• the "borrowing" of energy from the uncertainty principle by a photon is the instantiation of potential in line with the probabilities of that potential;
• the "production" of the material world by fermionic fields is the instantiation of fermionic potential as particles; and
• the "production" of interactions by bosonic fields is the instantiation of bosonic potential as interacting particles.

Field Quanta Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1989: 257):

But, as the discovery that electromagnetic waves must also be regarded in particle terms showed, a field can be directly responsible for the existence of particles.  Indeed, in the quantum world a field must give rise to particles.  Quantum physics says that the energy in the field cannot be smoothly changing from place to place, continuously, as in the classical picture.  Energy comes in definite lumps called quanta, and every matter field must have its own quanta, each with a definite amount of energy, or mass.  The particles are energetic bits of the field, confined to a certain region by the uncertainty principle.  A photon is a quantum of the electromagnetic field; in the same way, by applying quantum principles a second time to the matter field of electrons, we find that we recover the idea of the electron as a particle, as the quantum of the electron matter field.  This interpretation of particles as "field quanta" is known as second quantisation.  It tells us that there is nothing else in the Universe except quantum fields.  So the more we know about quantum fields, the better we will understand the Universe.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory:

• regarding electromagnetic waves in particle terms is modelling them as instances of potential;
• a field is responsible for the existence of particles in the sense that potential is "responsible" for instances of potential;
• a field "must give rise to" particles in the sense that potential "must give rise to" instances of potential;
• every matter field "must have" its own quanta in the sense that every potential "must have" its own instances;
• the electron as the quantum of the electron matter field is the electron as the instance of electron matter potential.

The claim that "there is nothing else in the Universe except quantum fields" is an instance of the epistemological error known as reductionism (a.k.a. "nothing buttery") in as much as it reduces an entire organisational hierarchy to what is believed — in this case: falsely — to be the fundamental level of that hierarchy.

Quantum Fields Through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Gribbin (1989: 257):

But the field is now the ultimate, fundamental concept in physics, because quantum physics tells us that particles (material objects) are themselves manifestations of fields. One of the first great surprises of quantum physics was the realisation that a particle, such as an electron, had to be treated like a wave. In this first application of quantum principles, we learn to treat these matter waves as fields, with one field corresponding to each type of particle.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, a quantum field is a reconstrual of quantum potential as an abstract space that is mapped onto the dimensions of space-time.  As a manifestation of a quantum field, a particle is an instantiation of quantum potential.

The Laws Of Physics Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1988: 285):

And resonance — a phenomenon purely of the quantum behaviour of atoms — is essential in understanding the basic structures of the molecules of life.  All of the processes of life operating inside the cell can be understood as the interaction of complex chemical substances in obedience to the laws of quantum physics.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, this:

1. misconstrues the laws of physics as modulation (obligation) instead of modalisation (probability); and
2. proposes that meaning of the first-order (the interaction of complex chemical substances) obeys meaning of the second-order (the laws of quantum physics), which is equivalent to proposing that a landscape obeys a map of it.

Molecular Resonance Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1988: 132-3):

In very many organic compounds the basic unit is not the carbon atom itself but a group of six carbon atoms holding hands in a ring.  This is called the benzene ring, because the simplest such molecule consists of six carbon atoms and six hydrogen atoms, a molecule of benzene, C₆H₆.  The structure can be written in two ways, each with double bonds between alternate pairs of carbon atoms …

By now, it should come as no surprise to learn that all chemical studies of the strength of the bonds in the benzene ring show that each 'real' bond has a strength of 1.5.  The actual benzene ring is another resonance hybrid.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the three single bonds and three double bonds between carbon atoms in the benzene ring C₆H₆ constitute the potential of the benzene ring as a whole, and so apply equally to all six chemical bonds, yielding the "hybrid" potentials of each bond.

Molecular Resonance Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1988: 131-2):

One very common substance whose structure depends on resonance and hybridisation is the carbonate ion CO₃⁻⁻, found in common chalk, the shells of sea creatures, and limestone. … How can you arrange four electrons from the carbon atom. six from each of the oxygen atoms, and the two extra electrons in the most stable state?

There are three possibilities, variations on the same theme like the two ozone variations on the tri-atomic oxygen theme. … The three possibilities are equivalent and have the same energy as each other.  Because the bonds are different, each of those three possibilities would be asymmetrical, and the asymmetry would show up in spectroscopic measurements.  Once again, however, the measurements show that the carbonate ion is perfectly symmetrical.  Three bonds, each equivalent to 1.333 normal bonds, are arranged at 120° to one another uniformly around the carbon atom.  The carbonate ion is a resonance hybrid.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the two single bonds and one double bond between one carbon atom and three oxygen atoms in the carbonate ion CO₃⁻⁻ constitute the potential of the carbonate ion as a whole, and so apply equally to all three chemical bonds, yielding the "hybrid" potentials of each bond.

Molecular Resonance Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1988: 130):

… spectroscopic studies show quite clearly that ozone molecules are held together by two equal bonds, each equivalent to a bond strength of 1.5 [instead of one single bond and one double bond].  The explanation is that the 'real' structure is a resonance between the two possibilities … a hybrid structure like the hybridisation which gives us the sp³ orbitals in the carbon atom.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the one single and one double bond between oxygen atoms in the ozone molecule constitute the potential of the ozone molecule as a whole, and so apply equally to both chemical bonds, yielding the "hybrid" potentials of each bond.

Molecular Resonance Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1988: 129):

The principle of resonance says that if a molecule can be described in two (or more)  equally acceptable ways (where 'acceptable' effectively means states with the same energy, different versions of the lowest possible energy state for that molecule) then the molecule has to be thought of as existing in both (or all) of those states simultaneously.  The 'real' molecule is a hybrid of all the possible structures with the same lowest energy, just as the 'real' carbon orbitals are mixtures of s and p states.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the possible molecular structures with the lowest possible energy states are construals of experience as potential structures.  An actual structure of a molecule is an instance of that potential.

Pauling's Hybrid Atomic Orbitals Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1988: 128):

Electrons in the spherical, s, orbital ought to behave differently from those in the perpendicular, p, orbitals.  But an atom like carbon forms four identical bonds.  Each of these is a hybrid, flavoured one part of s and three parts of p.  Such behaviour is only possible because electrons behave as waves, not particles, in these interactions.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the one spherical and three perpendicular orbitals constitute the interrelated potential locations of electrons in relation to the nucleus of a carbon atom.  It is because they constitute the potential of the atom as a whole that they apply equally to all four chemical bonds, yielding the "hybrid" potentials for each of them.

From this perspective, electrons do not "behave as waves".  The wave is a model of quantum potential (i.e. potential behaviour), whereas the particle is a model of instances of that potential (i.e. actual behaviour).

Pauling's Hybrid Atomic Orbitals Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [1]

Gribbin (1988: 127-8):

Casting aside any idea of little hard particles orbiting around the atom, and building from the concept of an electron as some hybrid of particle and wave, Pauling hit on the idea of each of the four symmetric orbitals in the [carbon] atom as a hybrid combination of the four fundamental orbital states.  These orbitals come in two different varieties, which were identified and labelled as s and p on the basis of spectroscopic studies long before anyone had any idea that such things as spread out electrons occupying volumes of space with distinct shapes existed.  Serendipitously, it happens that  that these initials provide a convenient mnemonic for remembering the shapes of the orbitals.  The spherical, or s, orbital had to be mixed in with the three perpendicular, or p, orbitals, to produce four orbitals denoted as sp³.  Just as it is impossible to say whether any electron is 'really' a wave or a particle, so it impossible to say whether a particular bond is 'really' s or p.  It is both, at the same time, in a ratio 1:3. … The symmetric state is, indeed, one with lower overall energy than a state of one pure s and three pure p orbitals.  If you want a physical picture of why this should be so, it is because the four hybrid orbitals keep the four electrons, or electron clouds, at the greatest possible separation from one another.  As you know, like charges repel; the electrons (harking back to the picture of little negatively charged particles) would 'like' to be as far apart from each other as possible, and hybridisation of the available orbital states allows them to achieve this.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, each electron cloud represents the potential locations of an electron, and the shape of the cloud represents the extent of those potential locations.  The 1:3 ratio of s to p atomic orbitals is thus a relation between potentials of the carbon atom as a whole, and this is why the ratio applies to all of the orbitals, making each of them "hybrid".

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the notion of what electrons 'would like' is an interpersonal metaphor of modality in which probability (modalisation) is incongruently represented as inclination (modulation).

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [6]

Gribbin (1988: 123):

When two hydrogen atoms combine to form a hydrogen molecule, one elongated electron cloud surrounds both nuclei.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the elongated electron cloud that surrounds the combined hydrogen nuclei represents the extent of potential locations of the electrons as particles.

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [5]

Gribbin (1988: 118):

The chemical nature of an atom depends on the number of electrons in the highest energy shell that is occupied at all; those electrons are best thought of as spread out, three-dimensional objects with a definite shape, attached to the nucleus and sticking out into space, each one covering a volume comparable to the size of the atom itself; full shells are particularly stable, so that atoms 'like' to arrange themselves to get filled outer shells; and electrons come in two flavours, up and down, which 'like' to pair up with one another.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the "spread out, three-dimensional objects with a definite shape, attached to the nucleus and sticking out into space, each one covering a volume comparable to the size of the atom itself" — that is: electron clouds — are construals of the potential locations of electrons at the various energy shells (atomic orbitals).  An actual electron, as an instance of quantum potential, is a particle at one of these potential locations.

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [4]

Gribbin (1988: 117-8):

There is one oddity here, which calls for a little explanation and which brings in the dual particle–wave nature of the electron once again.  Just when you thought it was safe to think of electrons as waves, there's a catch.  Why should there be room for two electrons in each orbital?  The explanation for this has to do with a property of the electron that has, unfortunately, been called 'spin', even though it bears little resemblance to the spin of an object in the everyday world, like a child's top or the Earth in space.  Electrons can be slotted into orbitals in one of two states, 'up' or 'down'.  Quantum mechanics — quantum maths — predicts that no two identical electrons can ever occupy exactly the same energy state at the same time.  But an electron with spin up is not in identically the same state as an electron with spin down.  So two electrons, paired with opposite spins, can occupy each orbital allowed by the wave equation.  Indeed, this is a particularly stable state.  Just as the atom 'likes' to have its outermost shell full of electrons, so it 'likes' to have two paired electrons in each orbital within that shell.  And, of course, it can all be explained in terms of waves, matched up to mesh in with each other in a state of minimum energy.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the wave perspective is a construal of experience as quantum potential, whereas the particle perspective is a construal of experience as an instance of that quantum potential.  Both perspectives are required, and this interpretation of the distinction between them provides clear thinking on wave–particle complementarity and on the relation between electron clouds and individual electrons in the quantum model of chemistry. 

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [3]

Gribbin (1988: 116-7):

The simplest [electron] clouds are spherical and centred on the nucleus.  The two electrons in the helium atom occupy these simplest orbitals, the lowest energy state.  At the next level up the energy ladder, however, things are a little more complicated.  The wave equation does indeed predict the existence of another spherically symmetrical state, into which two more electrons with slightly more energy than the two innermost electrons can slot.  But alongside it, at very nearly the same energy, there are three more standing wave patterns, shaped rather like short, fat dumb-bells, or hour glasses, at right angles to each other.  Two electrons are able to slot into each of these orbitals, giving a total number of eight (2 + 6) for the filled outer shell.  Things get still more complicated at higher energy levels.  But the quantum mechanical wave equation exactly predicts how many electrons can fit into each shell, and this explains the structure of the periodic table of elements.  The quantum maths also tells us that although some electrons do fit spherically around their nuclei, very many electron orbitals have a definite shape and a definite orientation with respect to one another.  In very many cases, electron orbitals stick out from atoms in certain clearly defined, and predictable, directions.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, differences in the shape and extent of electron clouds are construals of (experience as) differences in the potential locations of quanta.

Electron 'Clouds' Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [2]

Gribbin (1988: 115-6):

The [electron] standing waves are described by Schrödinger's equation.  This defines the shape and extent of the electron clouds, and they are different for different energy levels and different orbitals.  But instead of thinking of the electrons in different shells as neatly outside each other, like a series of onion rings, we have to visualise them all interpenetrating, like lots of ripples on a pool.  Every individual electron cloud extends down to 'touch' the nucleus, and all electrons come under the direct influence of the nucleus, but some more strongly than others.  There are many ways to picture what is going on.  The electrons that used to be thought of as further out from the nucleus do indeed 'spend more time' further out — their orbital clouds are concentrated further from the nucleus.  But the most important thing is that they are less strongly attached to the nucleus.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the standing waves described by Schrödinger's equations construe experience as quantum potential, quantified in terms of probability.  The shape and extent of electron clouds, therefore, construe the potential locations of electrons.  The interpenetrations of electron clouds are, therefore, overlaps of the location potentials of different quantum systems.