Different particles obey one of three alternative rules of statistical dynamics, as inferred from three different distributions of energy states; they are called, after six great scientists, the Maxwell-Boltzman, the Fermi-Dirac, and the Bose-Einstein distribution. Whole atoms and molecules obey the Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, protons, neutrons and electrons the Fermi-Dirac distribution (and so are called fermions), photons and neutrinos (the bosons) follow the Bose-Einstein distribution.
The difference between the Fermi-Dirac and the Bose-Einstein distribution revolves around the principle of exclusivity: two fermions in the same ensemble cannot have all of their quantum numbers identical, which is equivalent to saying that they cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Bosons can. Fermions are the constituents of matter (which has the exclusivity property – a remnant of what philosophers thought of as “solidity”), while bosons are the carriers of forces, i.e. the embodiment of energy. There is some ambiguity in the distinction, because of the interconvertibility of matter and energy. Also in theories of supersymmetry, fermions and bosons can change places. Nevertheless the basic distinction remains. Both fermions and bosons have particle aspects and wave aspects, though I tend to associate fermions (constituents of atoms) more with particles and matter and bosons (e.g. light) more with waves and energy.
The distinction between Maxwell-Boltzman statistics and the other two kinds hinges on something else: Boltzman particles (everything from whole atoms up) have continuous identity: if we could in imagination tie a little red ribbon around one of them, it could be labelled and recognized through all its subsequent interactions and transformations as a distinct entity. With fermions and bosons this cannot be done, even in principle: they seem to wink in and out of existence like twinkling sparks, and we cannot know which is which or which was formerly which. They are all not only identical (except for different quantum states), but totally indistinquishable or exchangeable. This property is called “fungibility”. We could not name any of them “Peter” or “Mary” and greet them as such in future meetings.
While only elementary particles are fully fungible, atoms can be identical simply by being in the same energy state. We would still not be able to recognize Peter or Mary if we lost track of them (discontinuous observation), but we could if we tied that imaginary little red ribbon around them (continuous observation – not possible in an actual experiment, only in a thought experiment).
Molecules can have even more distinctiveness, because they can change shape by various internal rotations and twists: they can “rock and roll”. They are increasingly capable of doing so as they grow larger, so that macro-molecules like long fatty acids and polysacharides can do it quite well and proteins and nucleic acids even better. Yet this may not be too much help in “recognizing” each in a future meeting because all of them change so much and so quickly and in very similar though seemingly chaotic ways. The little red ribbons are still essential for recognition.
Living cells are quite another matter; they have fairly steady robust identities, because each is stamped to some extent by its previous history – a kind of primitive memory imprinting that gives each of them continuity.
Coming now to multi-cellular organism, we can clearly say “this is the violet I picked this morning”, “this is the rose you gave me”, or “this is the cat that scratched me”. Entities are acquiring more “reality” as they acquire more “identity” and more “continuity”. We might even begin to think of “individuality”. But not so fast!
In bee and ant societies, apparently each worker recognizes her sibling only as a member of an age-class or a function-class, not as an individual. (This is asserted in a book entitled “Animal Thinking”, (Griffin) quoting certain studies.) Actually, I wonder how they know? But let us accept this for the moment as a fact. Even though each bee or ant may be genetically unique, her siblings and workmates do not recognize her as such.
When we consider people, we do recognize them as individual persons. They have “individuality” and “personality”, in addition to identity and continuity, and because of this, I would consider them to have more “reality”. Cats, dogs and horses have individuality, but perhaps not personality. Personality in this sense of uniqueness and recognizability is the exact opposite of fungibility.
As we ascend up the ladder from fungibility to personality, there is more and more stress on “form” or “relationship” or “pattern” and less stress on matter. A flower or animal or insect, or even a cell, is a flow-through system in which the “identity” of separate atoms or molecules is not important – they come and go – but the metabolic and genetic pattern must be strictly maintained and the atoms and molecules closely directed to pass through according to the rules.
Thus, at least from a certain point on (in the Boltzman world, not the subatomic Fermi and Bose world), form predominates over matter, relationship over constituent elements, the whole over the parts. Hence come emergent properties, like identity, continuity, distinguishability, individuality, personality, consciousness, and mind. The very permanence implied by these terms emerges literally out of the flux of matter in process.
Yet in our social inventions, we sometimes revert to fungibility. This is the case of money. Physically and materially, each coin and bill is distinct (bills even carry identifying numbers useful in cases of theft or robbery – they are like those little red ribbons); but conceptually I can pay for my purchases with any coins or bills interchangeably, as long as I have enough of them in my pocket.
How much more valuable are our friends than our money, the beloved faces rather than the faceless symbols – how much more unique and real!
In tragedies when parents lose a child, they are sometimes advised to have another, as if that would console them. But the lost child was unique and can never be replaced, though the parents may be distracted by having someone else to care for. A child, or any human being, is definitely not fungible.
Later addition: In a book (referred to in a previous essay) entitled “Quantum Implications: Essays in Honor of David Bohm”, It is asserted that electrons, which are fermions, can form pairs in which their spins complement each other. (Electrons are fermions because they have spins of 1/2 or -1/2, while bosons have whole-number spins like 0 or 1 or 2.) These so-called “Cooper pairs” become like bosons, because their spins are now integer numbers. When this happens, it leads to superconductivity. To a lesser extent it also happens in ordinary metallic conductors, where some electrons are free to move (not bound to atoms). So even ordinary conductivity is due to this pairing up or coordination.
When a large number of electrons coordinate in this manner, we have a phenomenon called “macroscopic phase coherence” (MPC). It operates in plasmas and helium liquids, and so is a way for quantum phenomena becoming observable at the macro level. It is also similar to the “coherence” of laser light.
MPC may be an alternative way to achieve large-scale organized structures – alternatives to living systems. God or Cosmic Mind have other options for their manifestation. MPC seems to be radically syntropic, yet completely natural. The natural urge for togetherness – Love – is well manifested there.
Hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium formed in steeply decreasing amounts in the first few minutes of the universe after the Big Bang. These were the first 3 elements of the 92 in the natural periodic table, since hydrogen and deuterium are isotopes of the same element. The other 89 natural elements and their isotopes formed much later.
Carbon may have been present already in the interior of long-range functioning stars along the Russell-Hersprung main sequence, because it is needed to catalyze the fusion of H to He according to Hans Bethe’s scheme. But maybe in the first-generation stars, this thermonuclear fusion proceeded without carbon catalysis, because the first stars were hot enough.
In the usual view, all elements above boron were produced by dying stars whose cores had run out of hydrogen, just shortly before their explosion as supernovae. Beryllium and boron, and to some extent additional lithium, which are much scarcer in the universe than their predessors, H and He, or their successors, C, N, O etc., were probably produced slowly in interstellar or intergalactic clouds as a result of bombardment by high-energy cosmic rays. (A pale echo of Hoyle’s now-discarded hypothesis of continuous creation of hydrogen in such spaces as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, now generally accepted.)
First-generation stars were more massive than later ones, and burned out much faster, so that the first wave of nucleosynthesis at their deaths did not take too long, only millions of years after their births, not billions, as in later star generations. Later generation stars also already contained some of the heavier nuclei, like silicon, that could go into the formation of their planets, if they had any.
The formation of elements up to iron would produce energy, because iron is the most stable nucleus (its “mass defect” is least). For the formation of elements heavier than iron, energy would be absorbed, but a supernova explosion has plenty of surplus energy to do this. Thus all the natural elements up to uranium were formed, although those after lead tend to have only radioactive forms, no stable nuclei.
It seems that the first few minutes of the universe did most of the work of nucleosynthesis, i.e. producing all the baryons (protons and neutrons) and leptons (electrons and quarks) that compose matter (cumulatively all of the above are called fermions), as well as the much greater quantity of photons (which are one kind of bosons), that compose energy. All the rest of nucleosynthesis in stellar and galactic evolution was only an afterthought.
There is a much later afterthought yet: the production of artificial elements beyond uranium by humans, themselves the products of the earlier waves of nucleosynthesis. Humans are composed mainly of H,…C, N, O,…Na, Mg,…, P, S, Cl, K, Ca,… with trace amounts of Fe, Co,…Cu, Zn,… even I. The production of trans-uranium elements is like a third generation of nucleosynthesis, made not only by H and He, but by some of the next wave of nucleosynthesis in stars.
Where this will lead to, only the Prime Originator of the Big Bang fireball knows.