Background
Johan G, who is a commentator on this blog and who has been following the quantum economics series, posted this comment on Quantum Economics 7: The Photon Question — labour as the Quantum of Value:
I like the idea of labour as wavelength. The human-hour is easily recognisable as a quantum of effort, and its ‘energy', rather than intensity, is dependant on the H-H wavelength. I pedantically use energy, rather than intensity, because energy could be tied to specialism, whereas intensity would be the number of humans working on the same thing at once. Much like you can use a microwave to heat stuff up, but you couldn't give yourself sunburn with it, because the wavelength is too long to cause UV-esque damage.
The other thought that popped into my head, was that photons belong to a family of particles: bosons. Bosons are the exchange particles that are responsible for fundamental force interactions. In the photon's case, that is electro-magnetism. Maybe we could coin a term for the exchange particle of human labour? The labouron, or the workon. I'm not sure I really like either of these, but they illustrate the idea.
That set my mind racing - and exploring, because I am on a massive learning curve here.
This is the response I came up with:
Response
Let me offer this for now, generated by AI, I admit, but in a directed and generated fashion, as was this whole series.
1. Why this analogy is powerful
In physics, bosons are the mediators of forces – photons carry the electromagnetic force, gluons bind quarks, W and Z bosons manage the weak force, and so on. They don't constitute matter itself (fermions do that), but they make matter interact.
If we apply that metaphor to economics and society, human labour is not just “stuff” (like goods, capital, or even money) – it is the interaction that makes the economy cohere and function. Without labour, there is no production, no exchange, no organisation.
So: imagining a “labour boson” – a fundamental exchange particle that mediates human economic activity – has conceptual bite.
⸻
2. Possible names
“Labouron” or “workon” both convey the particle idea, but I see why you feel they don't quite land. Here are some alternatives:
• Ergon – from the Greek for work/energy (Aristotle used ergon to mean the characteristic activity of something).
• Praxeon – from praxis, meaning purposeful human activity.
• Doleon – from doleo, Latin “to toil.”
• Taskon – straightforward and modern, but carries the right sense of discreteness.
• Hieron – from hieros (sacred), suggesting the deep social value of labour.
Of these, ergon or praxeon might sit best: they link both to energy and to purpose.
⸻
3. What would the “labour boson” do?
If we extend the analogy:
• It mediates between human needs and material resources.
• It binds people into cooperative structures – firms, households, states.
• It transmits value, because labour embodies and expresses what people want to prioritise.
• It interacts with other “forces”: capital, land, technology, institutions.
In other words, just as photons make the invisible force of electromagnetism visible through interaction, the “labour boson” would make the invisible social force of work visible through action.
⸻
4. Extending the metaphor
We could build a small “particle table” of economics:
• Moneyon (currency as medium of exchange, a unit particle of trust).
• Crediton (the particle of deferred exchange).
• Labouron/Praxeon (the particle of human effort).
• Needon (the driver particle, representing demand or necessity).
You'd then have an economic “field theory,” where interactions between these exchange particles generate the larger structures we see as markets, institutions, and crises.
⸻
5. Why it matters politically
This is not just whimsy. By treating labour as the mediator of forces, you place people – their energy, creativity, and care – at the very centre of the economic model. That's a direct challenge to neoliberal economics, which sidelines labour in favour of abstract capital flows or equilibrium equations.
The metaphor says: without the “labour boson,” the system collapses. Without people at the heart, economics is sterile mathematics.
Reaction
Having mused on this last night, I could now comment further.
I am accepting the risk of becoming more than a little geeky in posting this particular exchange, rather than part nine of the series this morning (which will now happen tomorrow). However, I thought that this was particularly fascinating for a number of reasons.
Firstly, this idea puts human activity at the centre of economics, where it belongs. Economics is not about money, markets, or abstract mathematics. It is about human activity, and that has to be its focus. This series has highlighted the necessity of creating narratives around that fact to me.
More than that, though, the extension of the metaphor also made some sense to me. The other ideas noted, representing a range of particles within the economic sphere, implied that a multitude of factors need reconciliation within a successful economy, and that there is not one, as Rachel Reeves would have it.
Taking that idea, and putting it within the mathematics of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which I make clear, I only understand in very small part, at most) it seems that you come up with something for economics that looks more like matrix algebra than the standard differential equations currently used by most economists.
I very much doubt that this is something that I would develop at a theoretical level, and yet there is in that idea something that looks to me to be incredibly powerful. There are two reasons for that.
Firstly, matrix algebra is a form of mathematics which requires specific ordering, and so does the economy.
More than that, though, if you multiply two matrices together, the order in which you do so matters; then the implication is that the action does not work in reverse, and again, nor does the economy.
The implication is that the economy is not something on which to experiment, precisely because real lives are involved. Instead, it is something that you have to take seriously. I am not entirely sure that this is clear to all those who are policymakers at present.
I accept the possibility that I might have gone off on a significant tangent here, but there are ideas implicit in this that I think are worth recording, which is why I have chosen to put them out as a separate blog post.
Previous posts in this series
- Discussing quantum economics, accounting, money and more
- Quantum economics, part 1: Why Quantum Thinking Matters for Economics
- Quantum economics, part 2: Money as Particle and Flow
- Quantum economics, part 3: Entanglement and Double-Entry Bookkeeping
- Quantum economics, part 4: Quantum Uncertainty and Economic Forecasts
- Quantum economics, part 5: Speculation, Potential, and Energy
- Quantum economics, part 6: Infinite Promises, Finite Energy (MMT and constraint)
- Quantum economics, part 7: The Photon Question — labour as the Quantum of Value
- Quantum economics, part 8: Land as the Field
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
For me this suggests the possibility of a significant breakthrough. I asked ChatGPT to read the post and create the mathematical matrix, which it duly did, including pictorial representations and potential proxies for the various “particles”. Matrix maths is rather beyond me and I am not enough of an economist to be able to tell if the result is realistic or useful, but it does suggest that AI could do a lot of the legwork should this route be pursued. If not you, Richard, maybe someone else who reads this blog could run with this?
I am playing with this.
I started this direction….then youy suggested possibility
I can read the results with ease
I even get the maths (odd, how such things come back after a long time)
But I am not happy as yet…
Simple models produce weird outcomes, so far
Once done, this set of posts should go in a book/pamphlet. They ask a lot of a reader and, like all good ideas, are worthwhile coming back to to remind oneself of the ideas. As each of us learns more about the world around us, we will obtain more insights from ideas such as these each time we return to them.
I am planning this. But it will need design assistance.
Is it the exchange of labour that gives rise to credits and debts?
Yes, but I am nit sure that is the most relevant inference.
This has been an amazing series. Not one that I would have thought of. Although I have applied some of the theory in a different context. And had similar results in that it enabled a new view on older teaching.
But I take my hat off to you.
Thank you
And it is not over yet
The one related to quantum biology has not even started yet
“Firstly, this idea puts human activity at the centre of economics, where it belongs. Economics is not about money, markets, or abstract mathematics. It is about human activity, and that has to be its focus. This series has highlighted the necessity of creating narratives around that fact to me.”
I think you make a vital point here, and in fact I would suggest that the idea of “human-centred” economics is actually core to all your work. It’s certainly a major part of the reason I read your blog regularly. Discussions about “money, markets, or abstract mathematics” have never held my interest, but your writing always does (or nearly always!)
It makes me wonder if neoliberal economics is deliberately dry and abstract so that most people are put off even thinking about it, let alone considering whether it’s true or correct, or if things could be done differently.
Thank you
I feel the same way.
I found this blog after developing an interest in behavioural economics. After reading the work leading up to it’s creation and after it, it became blatantly obvious that human beings are nothing as described in economics (admittedly observable without nobel prize winning research).
I’ve enjoyed this blog and series because Richard has consistently hammered home the importance that both human beings and interdisciplinary input has on shaping an economy that is human. Economics cannot stay insular, opening ourselves up to even metaphors that we can grasp from other fields is a huge step to making sure that as many great minds as possible can collaborate and become educated on how to support the foundation of human civilisation.
Praxeon
In classical physics, “work” is the expenditure of energy to *effect a change*. Which implies productivity, to me.
Noted
I tend towards praxeon. There is value implicit in it.
I must admit that currently most of this is like a 747 for me…..going right over my head but it struck me that maybe ‘matrix algebra’ might draw the interest of ‘serious economists’ that value the kudos of a ‘scientific’ specialism and hence draw them in to human centric policy making. It might even provide a certain gravitas for University syllabus application?
It needs playing with
I did matrix algebra a long time ago, but would have to start again to make sure I got anything beyond my outline recollections right now
Differentials, those I can do
Before you allow your thought experiment to run away you might like to consider how a social sciences perspective could add to your theorizing. I offer this from Perplexity an AI provider:
Social science offers vital perspectives and methods that enrich and expand the scope of economic theory, challenging its assumptions and increasing its relevance to real-world phenomena.
Integrating Social Structure and Culture
Social science introduces the concept of social structure—the patterned relationships and roles among individuals—which is often overlooked in orthodox economic theory that prioritizes methodological individualism. This focus on structure allows economists to analyze how society influences market outcomes, preferences, and behaviors in ways that pure individual rationality cannot explain. Similarly, anthropology and sociology bring culture—the shared beliefs, norms, and practices of groups—into economic analysis, emphasizing that economic behaviors are not universal but embedded in specific societal contexts.
Behavioral Insights and Realism
Psychology, a core social science, has given rise to behavioral economics, which systematically studies how humans deviate from the rational-agent models of classical economics. Key insights such as bounded rationality, loss aversion, and social norms challenge the notion of perfect rationality and enable more accurate predictions and policy interventions. Behavioral experiments and field studies extend economic theory into areas like consumer choice, savings, and labor markets, increasing its practical relevance.
Expanding Methodological Pluralism
Social sciences encourage methodological pluralism in economics, advocating for multiple approaches and empirical methods beyond mathematical modeling. This includes qualitative research, direct observation, and the “double hermeneutic”—recognition that both agents and theorists interpret cultural realities. Such pluralism enables economists to better understand diverse societies and complex phenomena that traditional economic models may miss.
Policy Development and Impact
Social science research has been pivotal in designing public policies and tools, especially in areas like financial management, central banking, labor standards, and social welfare. The interdisciplinary approach allows for nuanced policies that consider psychological, cultural, and institutional factors—not just market forces. These contributions foster innovation and improve the effectiveness of interventions in government and business.
We are all imvolved in problem solving and the more strings to the bow available to understand and create solutions the better.
I find this slightly odd. Are you saying you think me unaware of this? I am a Fellow of the Academy of Scial Sciences.
No of course not.
But your discussion of quantum economics seems to be substituting one narrow view of whats going on for another if you are not careful.
I appreciate you are debunking the existing paradigm but dont set up another partial way of thinking about the world.
Might you read today’s?
There are more double analogies here, I think.
I’ll begin with a small critique, which is that I don’t think you need to invoke the uncertainty principle to involve matrix operations. But invoking the uncertainty principle opens up more avenues to explore… I’ll get to that.
Before I do: the non-commutability of matrix operations leads to the blindingly obvious outcome that it matters which order economics models, or maybe targets, are applied (as my boss sometimes says, great ideas are obvious, as soon as someone points them out 😉 ). There’s little point in maximising GDP, if the distribution is heavily unequal, to pick a topical example.
Now, the uncertainty principle. In physics you are taught that there is a minimum possible accuracy. In the case of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, this is h-bar/2, or h/(4*pi).
This value is in fact tiny, but the concept is useful: the more accurately you try to measure one parameter, the less accurate your knowledge will be regarding a separate, but intertwined parameter.
The classic pairings are: energy and time, and position and momentum.
I feel that there is an economic analogy and analogous pairing based on the uncertainty principle. Annoyingly, I can’t quite see it yet, but musing is ongoing.
I must also say, thank you for the hat-tip, Richard. It’s a great privilege for me to have contributed to your work, even in a small way
Thanks. And that pairing? Time and value?
Perhaps. I think time and value share an axis, which is why I hesitate slightly with the time/value pairing. Minimising the uncertainty in one doesn’t necessarily push up the uncertainty in the other.
Cynically: social value and speculative value? Or perhaps utility and gainz? (spelt deliberately ironically with a “z”)
Let me muse on that. There are so many ideas here this morning that even I am being pushed!
This ties in very well with the philosophical view that relationship is prior to relata. In other words, the web of relationship is what the objects of relationship come out of. It can seem somewhat wacky without walking the path to that conclusion but it lends further weight to your framing.
Thanks