Yesterday 05:24 AM
https://aeon.co/essays/anyons-the-two-di...me-reality
EXCERPTS: In recent years, evidence has been accumulating for a third class of particles called ‘anyons’. Their name, coined by the Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, gestures playfully at their refusal to fit into the standard binary of bosons and fermions – for anyons, anything goes. If confirmed, anyons wouldn’t just add a new member to the particle zoo.
[...] Philosophically, however, there’s a wrinkle in the story. The theoretical foundations make it clear that anyons are possible only in two dimensions, yet we inhabit a three-dimensional world. That makes them seem, in a sense, like fictions. When scientists seek to explore the behaviours of complicated systems, they use what philosophers call ‘idealisations’, which can reveal underlying patterns by stripping away messy real-world details. But these idealisations may also mislead. If a scientific prediction depends entirely on simplification – if it vanishes the moment we take the idealisation away – that’s a warning sign that something has gone wrong in our analysis.
So, if anyons are possible only through two-dimensional idealisations, what kind of reality do they actually possess? Are they fundamental constituents of nature, emergent patterns, or something in between? Answering these questions means venturing into the quantum world, beyond the familiar classes of particles, climbing among the loops and holes of topology, detouring into the strange physics of two-dimensional flatland – and embracing the idea that apparently idealised fictions can reveal deeper truths.
[...] First, maybe anyons aren’t real in a deep sense. For instance, some philosophers have argued that so-called ‘paraparticles’ – a whole other class of particles – are really nothing more than bosons and fermions in disguise. By the same reasoning, one could argue that anyons are simply familiar particles dressed up with extra labels. The difference lies in the notation, not in the physics. Mathematically, for the simpler cases, that might be enough. But in the more complex cases, in which particle paths wind around each other leaving a lasting memory on the system, it’s much harder to dismiss the new behaviour as mere convention.
Alternatively, then, maybe we need a new framework that captures the strange behaviour without relying on a structure that evaporates the instant we lift into the third dimension. If experiments definitively confirm the existence of anyons, perhaps there’s another way to explain them that doesn’t rely so heavily on the topological quirks of idealised, flat spaces.
Or maybe there’s a third possibility, one that flips the script... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: In recent years, evidence has been accumulating for a third class of particles called ‘anyons’. Their name, coined by the Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, gestures playfully at their refusal to fit into the standard binary of bosons and fermions – for anyons, anything goes. If confirmed, anyons wouldn’t just add a new member to the particle zoo.
[...] Philosophically, however, there’s a wrinkle in the story. The theoretical foundations make it clear that anyons are possible only in two dimensions, yet we inhabit a three-dimensional world. That makes them seem, in a sense, like fictions. When scientists seek to explore the behaviours of complicated systems, they use what philosophers call ‘idealisations’, which can reveal underlying patterns by stripping away messy real-world details. But these idealisations may also mislead. If a scientific prediction depends entirely on simplification – if it vanishes the moment we take the idealisation away – that’s a warning sign that something has gone wrong in our analysis.
So, if anyons are possible only through two-dimensional idealisations, what kind of reality do they actually possess? Are they fundamental constituents of nature, emergent patterns, or something in between? Answering these questions means venturing into the quantum world, beyond the familiar classes of particles, climbing among the loops and holes of topology, detouring into the strange physics of two-dimensional flatland – and embracing the idea that apparently idealised fictions can reveal deeper truths.
[...] First, maybe anyons aren’t real in a deep sense. For instance, some philosophers have argued that so-called ‘paraparticles’ – a whole other class of particles – are really nothing more than bosons and fermions in disguise. By the same reasoning, one could argue that anyons are simply familiar particles dressed up with extra labels. The difference lies in the notation, not in the physics. Mathematically, for the simpler cases, that might be enough. But in the more complex cases, in which particle paths wind around each other leaving a lasting memory on the system, it’s much harder to dismiss the new behaviour as mere convention.
Alternatively, then, maybe we need a new framework that captures the strange behaviour without relying on a structure that evaporates the instant we lift into the third dimension. If experiments definitively confirm the existence of anyons, perhaps there’s another way to explain them that doesn’t rely so heavily on the topological quirks of idealised, flat spaces.
Or maybe there’s a third possibility, one that flips the script... (MORE - missing details)
![[Image: proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fimg-s-msn-...ba7a0afc9c]](https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fimg-s-msn-com.akamaized.net%2Ftenant%2Famp%2Fentityid%2FAA1P7UTW.img%3Fw%3D768%26h%3D432%26m%3D6&hash=79c9af4e03b7c7103bacdbba7a0afc9c)
![[Image: proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.msn...27e68cba82]](https://www.religiousforums.com/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.msn.com%2Fstaticsb%2Fstatics%2Flatest%2Ficons-wc%2Ficons%2FMoreV2.svg&hash=8d950c0c0c7fd86cf8a03427e68cba82)