A thought came to mind a long time ago and it was asked to a few of my friends with some odd answers and I'm wondering what the nexus makes of this question too.

Do particles have the ability to "love" one another, and is this "love" the strong force that keeps them together or "attracted" to one another?

Love = The Casimir Effect ?

I think I literally mean, the "weak force" that keeps particles together being attributed to love

Hmmm!
I suggest you stare at a glass with utter hatred and see if it falls apart...

Now that would be a WMD if ever there was one..

Seems like as good an explanation for quantum entanglement as any.

Well, I think the more practical question is: If you reinterpreted the motion of all particles as being attributed to some form of quantum love, and developed a complete theory of physics based on this new interpretation, would it result in any new predictions about the motion of particles? If the answer is no, then the interpretation pointless from a physics point of view. If the answer is yes then, first of all, the predictions of your theory better agree with what we already know to be true about the motion of particles.

Anyways, I think that this kind of question might one day be asked by physicists and the like, but only AFTER we've developed a complete understanding of what consciousness and love actually are in the first place, which we don't seem to even be remotely close to as of yet. Without a rigorous definition and explanation of consciousness and its various states, how can we possibly compare consciousness to things like subatomic particles? Without such an explanation for the use of the word "love" to describe subatomic forces, it seems to me as though our word choice is completely arbitrary.

Does a rock love the ground because it falls toward it when dropped?

I agree with Citta and I think that science and emotion do not mingle like this.

They do, if you redefine love like "attraction".

According to our dictionaries, no they don't.

Is a rock falling to the ground science?

Well I wouldn't say "a rock falling to the ground is science" I would say "the reason the rock fell towards to ground is because of gravity."

the gravitational pull of love

Although I think the Op,s idea is more novel than actual id just like to point out that your talking about love being a force not an emotion. So before anyone could hypothosize about love being the weak force that hold a particles nuclei together you would first have to show that love is a force when currently its not recognized as anything other than an emotion.

Also just for arguments sake lets say it was love that holds particled together. That wouldnt change anything other than just re naming the weak nuclear force love.

And what would that now mean for the emotion of love. That would have to be re-named as well since the new love can not be both. We dont feel the emotion gravity or electromagnetism because they are forces not emotions...right?

I think the nthinking here is that the emotion love is a binding attracting element to our human experience so its a novel thought to thnk that maybe it binds and attracts particles as well. Its really just loose associationon of characteristics but fun to think about.

"Do particles have the ability to "love" one another"

well to play devils advocate; we are made up of particles..and we can love one another..so.. sort of

Short answer #1: No.
Short answer #2: If you think they do.



Long answer: To suggest that particles - which is a pretty vague descriptor given quantum hilarity and suchlike - might experience "love" is ridiculous. Sorry to be blunt, but even from a mystical perspective it makes no sense to suggest that this could be the case, although some of the heavy non-dualists and New Age-types would maybe argue the point here.

While they may exhibit behaviour which, due to the nature of their movement we could label "attraction" or "repulsion", to conceptualize it in terms of "love" would be overlay it with an affective tone that cannot be found in the basic process of their visual observation. Also, to think in this way posits a love/not-love duality, i.e. love/hate since, at their most basic level, one requires the other to exist; we're talking about the "love" experienced during a peak experience in the OP, yes?

If that's the case, then words such as "love" are impotent in the face of such an experience since, even in their most sublime and poetic forms, they fail to express the pure, direct, non-conceptual, non-dual awareness one exists as in those paradoxically timeless moments.

"Love" is, and not to sound cynical or anything, a pattern of mental sensations which trigger physical sensations that are recognized, packaged and labelled according to certain predefined criteria. To attribute it to an object which does not have the same cognitive faculties as our species would be an error since, by its very nature as being something which is not that which observes it, a particle cannot experience the world in that way.

Or something...

i kinda totally agree ,

Love is a feeling that goes much deeper than our physical actions. I can conceive of a person who acts as though they love somebody when they actually do not. I can conceive of a person being in denial of their own love for somebody else.

So love is a very tricky concept, and I think it's unfair to claim that we have a concise definition for what it is and a complete understanding of how it works on a subjective level. Likewise, I think it's premature to say that particles cannot love until we fully understand how it is that we can love, be conscious, have psychedelic experiences, etc.

What I'm trying to say is that love is a completely subjective phenomenon, and thus it is not for me to decide whether or not other people or particles love. Only from a particle's subjective viewpoint can it's ability to love be evident. I am the only being that bears witness to my consciousness, and the same is true of particles with respect to their consciousness, whatever that may consist of.

I know many writers and spiritualist like to make statements about love being this or that creative force ext. But we do know what love is. Love is an emotion until there is anything to show otherwise. You speak of that we don't yet fully understand love and it being a concept as well as a phenomenon. I'm not sure where your getting that from. We don't fully understand how consciousness works but that surely doesn't mean we don't know that love is an emotion.

Can we prove definitively that particles don't have a subjective experience aka qualia? No. But we can say its highly, highly, highly unlikely. So to me its quite a of s stretch to say things like "we don't know if particles can love". Particles are particles.

I often like to think that something like love is the guiding force of creation and our existence. I mean what would be better but we just dont know do we?

If nothing else, the word "Love" is at least as appropriate, and nicer to use than "weak nuclear force"! Especially when you get into quantum mechanics and there thinks like gluons and quarks and spin and flavor..... and so on....

I suppose love could be an elemental force, and our minds simply tap into that pervasive force.

Aren't ideas neat?