Recent content by Deepak K Kapur

You may feel annoyed, but... Sometimes, rigorous tends to mean 'accepted'.

Thanks everyone for their answers... A thing comes to my mind here... 'Everything is debatable'... Maybe this line is also debatable☺️☺️

So, I ask further... To my mind, if we come to know everything about all the particles at equilibrium (just suppose), we wouldn't call it disorder AT ALL. Then the entropy at equilibrium would be zero. So, it seems our 'inability' is translated as disorder... Hope, there is some sense in...

If icing is to be spread on a cake and we do it in lumps (boundaries), it is disordered.. But, if we spread the icing evenly(uniformly), it is 'ordered'...

I think 99.999999% of people on this planet only acquire stuff along the way... It's only a miniscule minority that ever says something new...

OK. Fine. But, I have a problem regarding this. When the ice cube melts completely an equilibrium will be reached i.e a state of highest entropy will be reached. Isn't equilibrium itself a kind of 'ordered state' (a state where there is perfect balance). Why to call such a 'balanced'...

Any experimental proof for this statement.

Our universe is considered a closed system. Law says that the entropy of a closed system is bound to increase. Then how could living beings evolve when they are an extremely ordered system?

Pressure of a gas is an emergent property. The notion of pressure is not attached to a single molecule/atom. Suppose, I keep on adding a molecule one by one in a jar. So, pressure (an emergent property) comes into existence over time.

I am a nobody to coin any kind of definition... It's just my curiosity that may be getting annoying for people here. I think emergence does not /should not mean the same numbers and same types of fundamental particles... It means /should mean the occurrence /creation of something/some...

I have checked the standard definitions. These call turbulence, temperature, pressure Etc. as emergent properties. I am just a layman but I think I am also saying the same thing. I think 'something happening' to the quantum field is the 'fundamental' emergence. All other cases of emergence...

I think these also would be called emergent properties because something has happened to the quantum field that was not there before.

I have thought of an experiment (unless you rubbish it) Let's take a quantum field. There is no excitation in it (suppose). Then someone observes it and the excitation of the quantum field gets manifested in the form of an elementary particle. To my mind this is the experimental proof of...

Thanks for a brilliant answer... But in physics also we surely talk about emergent properties that are related to structure of atoms /molecules. And they ain't philosophical questions.

I can't think of any such experiment. So, do you mean to say the answer is unknowable?