LS Re: MOQ puzzles

Anders Nielsen (
Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:42:57 +0100

On Mon, 1 Sep 1997, Diana McPartlin wrote:

> Jason Gaedtke wrote:
> > I do believe that a definite distinction can be made between atomic and
> > subatomic phenomena. According to my second-hand interpretation, atomic
> > phenomena are for the most part static, observable, and measurable. Atoms
> > do not spontaneously appear and disappear. They do not exhibit
> > wave/particle duality. They are not spontaneously created and destroyed
> > (at least not under the conditions that we are most familiar with -- that
> > is, standard atmospheric temperatures and pressures). (These general
> > statements exclude radioactive elements, which do in fact spontaneously
> > decay.)
> >
> > The very essence of subatomic patterns, conversely, involve a constant
> > interplay between existence and nonexistence, creation and destruction,
> > being and becoming.
> Can we stop here because so far I'm with you. This seems consistent with
> what I understand about quantum physics. If you'll allow me to sum it up
> in very unscientific terms, subatomic patterns are variable while atomic
> patterns are constant.

unfortunately I don't have my books with me (Im at work) so I can't look
anything up, but I can say this:

All matter is not-completely-defined (or variable if you will).

You have Heisenbergs equation, and that works for everything...It's
just that a 12-person dining table is further in size from plancks
constant, than an electron.

And as for there being an atomic level, and a subatomic level:

I think it's more of a quantitative difference than a qualitative (not
in the Pirsig sense of the word) difference between an omega-pion (or a
photon for that matter) and a neutron...Both exhibit wave/particle
duality, but at very different energy levels.

(There have been experiments with electrons where they were shown
to behave like photons when put to a test, similar to the
well-known double-hole (danish=dobbelt-spalte forsoeg) experiment

              | | !
              | | !
              | !
[photons]== | !
              | !
              | | !
              | | !

(these things are in every popular quantum mechanics book)

This behaviour is a consequence of the Heisenberg equation, and
as I mentioned earlier, it works for all matter.

So I don't believe it's necessary to have a subatomic level as such,
but then again....I would surely like to read the EMM paper

How is it going with getting that up on the website (or posting
it to this mailing list)?

> However while I don't dispute the scientific evidence, as I see it this
> suggests that the atomic patterns are in violation of the MoQ.
> According to the MoQ everything is value. Atoms only behave the way they
> do because they prefer to. This implies that they are potentially
> variable. I realize this is against the evidence, but still isn't this
> what the MoQ says?

I don't think a conscious choice is involved (in "what atoms like").

- Anders Nielsen (

post message -
unsubscribe/queries -
homepage -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST