Wave-Particle Duality Through Systemic Functional Linguistics [7]

Gribbin (1988: 103-4):

It is no use asking whether a photon, an X-ray or an electron is 'really' a particle or wave.  The names 'photon', 'X-ray' and 'electron' are simply labels which we attach to certain natural phenomena.  When we make certain measurements of those phenomena — perform certain experiments — the results we get can be interpreted, for convenience, in terms of the behaviour of particles in the everyday world.  When we make other tests, the results we get are most conveniently interpreted in terms of the laws of physics that describe waves, such as ripples on a pond.  The answers we get from nature depend not just on the questions we ask, but on the kind of questions we ask.  Ask particle questions and we get particle answers; ask wave questions and we get wave answers.  But the natural phenomenon itself is not 'really' either a wave or a particle.  It is something we have no everyday experience of at all, something which is sometimes called a 'wavicle'.

Blogger Comments:

From the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistic theory, the names 'photon', 'X-ray' and 'electron' are construals of experience as wordings, and the natural phenomena they label are construals of experience as meanings.  That is, the names are wordings that realise meanings construed of experience.

The construal of experience as particles is the construal of experience as instances of quantum potential, whereas the construal of experience as waves is the construal of experience as quantum potential, of which the particles are instances.  The word 'wavicle' realises meaning that combines the potential and instance perspectives on the quantum.