Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Laughlins theory of emergence?

  1. Jul 7, 2005 #1
    I'm having a very time finding any techinal papers on Bob's "theory" of emergence. I liken it to a interpretational aspect of QM and am very intrested to find more on the subject. Trying to find it on the net at least for me is next to impossible. Could anyone help me out here please? Thanks in advance :biggrin:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2005 #2
    Woops at the same time I should introduce myself. I've been studing QM independently for about 10 years and have collected about 4K worth in books. I consider my self fairly versed on the subject, and can tell y'all definitly are. I here both to learn and to possibly expand some of y'alls views at the same time.
     
  4. Jul 7, 2005 #3

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You may want to read my journal entry below. It has several links to Laughlin's references and more:

    [09-20-2004 08:01 AM] - The Theory of Everything?

    Secondly, this "emergence" idea is NOT an "interpretatonal aspect of QM". This would be wrong since it IS QM, only done at a many-body level.

    Zz.
     
  5. Jul 7, 2005 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    .. and oh, an addition to the references in that entry, you may also want to get his latest book

    "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down"
    by Robert B. Laughlin

    As Phil Anderson said in his review of this book, it is a welcome antidote to Brian Greene's books.

    Zz.
     
  6. Jul 7, 2005 #5
    My bad I liken it to interpretational cause it seems to go deeper into QM than almost anything I've ever read. Thanks
     
  7. Jul 7, 2005 #6

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I take it from your journal entry that there is no consensus that reducing the known universe to it's fundamental interactions will produce the emergent phenomena you mention above. Why is there no consensus on this? Your wording is very strongly in support of there being phenomena which can not emerge from these fundamental interactions. I'm not disagreeing, just wondering why, if this is such a glaring issue, that there seems to be so little consensus on it.

    I printed out the papers you mention. Many thanks for the comments!
     
  8. Jul 7, 2005 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Your best bet is to get the Laughlin paper from Rev. Mod. Phys... or go to the Nobel Prize webpage and get a copy of his Nobel Lecture.

    The reason why there is no consensus is because there is no way to test either conjecture, i.e. (i) that everything can be derived via reductionism, versus (ii) there are emergent phenomena that is as fundamental as any and cannot be taken apart to the single-particle scale. What we do have are indications. Particle physicists would say there's indications for Point (i) based on "historical reasons" while condensed matter physicists would argue for Point (ii) based on experimental evidence such as the fractional quantum hall effect, etc.

    I suppose, in the end, it is a matter of "tastes". While I don't have the "smoking gun" to point to Point (ii), my whole point here is to point out that Point (i) and the TOE are not a done deal and are not a unanimously adopted by everyone in the physics community. And considering that the condensed matter physicists make up the LARGEST percentage of practicing physicists, this is not a group to be dismissed or ignored that easily.

    Zz.
     
  9. Jul 7, 2005 #8
  10. Jul 7, 2005 #9

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    The irony in all of this is that S.C. Zhang started out as a high energy theorist. He made the jump into condensed matter physics and now he holds the same opinion as the rest of the CM community.

    Zz.
     
  11. Jul 7, 2005 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Haven't read Laughlin's book, but .... :approve:
     
  12. Jul 10, 2005 #11

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    A review of Laughlin's book by a high-energy theorist (whoa!) is available in this month's Physics World

    http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/18/7/1

    As expected, there are "disagreements". Compare this with Phil Anderson's review of the same book (Nature v.434, p.701 (2005), and one can see that there ARE disagreements on this issue.

    Zz.
     
  13. Jul 10, 2005 #12
    This review makes me want to get Laughlin's book.

    I was somewhat surprise to read that maybe Laughlin doesn't
    think too much of Big Bang cosmology. For a 'top-down' guy
    like Laughlin, I would think that a big bang expanding
    universe would hint at some answers to some basic
    questions regarding how and why the universe has
    emerged as it has.

    Regarding the review author's statement that the
    Standard Model works, I remember reading something
    by Michael Turner a while back that suggested that maybe
    there are some problems with the Standard Model in light
    of certain astronomical observations.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?