Re: Atoms as complex systems.

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Hi Judith,

There are lots of books on quantum physics.  Frijof
Capra's "turning point" and "The Tao of Physics" maybe
good ones.

If we open an atom, there maybe particles. However
these particles are just another level of
interconnections of other particles that in turn are
interconnections.  Therefore we never endup with
"things".  What we see are patterns of probabilities. 
There are dances but there are no dancers.  What's
inside an atom is just a bundle of energy.

Complex systems are open systems that change their
structure through interacting with the environment. 
There is no selforganization inside an atom. The
organization is maintained by strong forces. 

I see quantum physics as the lowest level of the
hierarchy of emergence. Hence it is important to learn
the characteristics of the lowest level since those
characteristics will be inherited by all levels above.

Jerry

 

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> I agree with the statement that there's no
> "evolution" inside an atom 
> (although I don't know whether I would attribute
> evolution to 
> "symmetric breaking" or even asymmetric breaking...)
> My father saw a 
> big difference between evolution and other kinds of
> development.
> 
> I also agree with your assessment of the
> organization of an atom:
> Inside an atom there are interconnections of
> interconnections and no
> interconnection is more fundamental than the other.
> 
> You're speaking of relations, right? You're saying
> that the 
> "interconnections" are at least as important as the
> particles? Which 
> is basically the same as saying that, in spite of
> the fact that atoms 
> have all different sorts and numbers of various
> particles, we are able 
> to recognize them all as "atoms" because of some
> common aspect-- an 
> aspect which clearly plays the critical role in
> making atoms 
> "atoms"... namely; their organization. That sounds
> suspiciously like a 
> description of Rosennean complexity to me.
> 
> At the subatomic level, the
> system is neither simple nor complex.
> 
> I mostly agree with this, too: At the sub-atomic
> level, it's not an 
> "atom". It's just the parts. This is what we get
> when we fractionate 
> an atom. That's what sub-atomic means. It refers to
> the 
> pre-organization
> pieces/components/parts/ingredients....
> 
> But I would argue that we don't know anything about
> the nature of the 
> organization of any of those components other than
> that complexity is 
> built into the system of space/time/other(?) that we
> call "the 
> universe".
> 
> Judith
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Jerry Zhu
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:26 AM
>   Subject: [ROSEN] Quantum Physics
> 
> 
>   Judith said "an atom is a complex system"
> 
>   I disagree with this.  At the subatomic level, the
>   system is neither simple nor complex. There is no
>   things inside only tendency to exist.  it is
> statistic
>   system of potentiality governed by nonlocal
> variables.
>   There is no evolution inside an atom since no
>   symmetric breaking. Inside an atom there are
>   interconnections of interconnections and no
>   interconnection is more fundamental than the
> other.
>   Our understanding of it depends on what is in our
>   mind.
> 
>   Jerry
> 
> 
>   __________________________________________________
>   Do You Yahoo!?
>   Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
>   http://mail.yahoo.com
> 



        
                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail