Interesting - as Dick says, chaotic systems the microscopic understanding
does not translate to a complete understanding of the macroscopic.
However, I read as you do Ray, the implication is that elementary particle
physics will not lead to an understanding of the 'universe'. Perhaps so,
but it's still worth trying to understand as much as you can with the
'reductionist approach'.
I think Anderson is a frustrated HEPhysicist.
--
Best regards,
Frank
Frank E. Taylor
CERN MIT
ATLAS Collaboration Bldg. 26 - Rm 569
40-2-C24 & 188-3-015 77 Mass. Ave.
Route de Meyrin 385, CH-1211 Geneva 23 Cambridge, MA 02139
Switzerland USA
Office: +41-22-767-1152 or -6373 Office: 617-253-7249
FAX: +41-22-767-8350 FAX: 617-258-6923
CELL: 857-891-8579 (USA & Europe) CERN CELL +41 76 487 3563
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www2.lns.mit.edu/~fet/atlas_mit.html
haut Thoiry residence +33 45 041 7144
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Ray F. Cowan wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Just for fun: I ran across this abstract on the preprint server today (from
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0151):
>
> > More Really is Different
> > Authors: Mile Gu, Christian Weedbrook, Alvaro Perales, Michael A. Nielsen
> > (Submitted on 31 Aug 2008)
> >
> > Abstract: In 1972, P.W.Anderson suggested that `More is Different',
> > meaning that complex physical systems may exhibit behavior that cannot be
> > understood only in terms of the laws governing their microscopic
> > constituents. We strengthen this claim by proving that many macroscopic
> > observable properties of a simple class of physical systems (the infinite
> > periodic Ising lattice) cannot in general be derived from a microscopic
> > description. This provides evidence that emergent behavior occurs in such
> > systems, and indicates that even if a `theory of everything' governing all
> > microscopic interactions were discovered, the understanding of macroscopic
> > order is likely to require additional insights.
>
> If I understand what they say, they are claiming that the usual reductionist
> view of physics (take everything apart into its fundamental constituents,
> find out how they work, then you know everything there is to know) is
> wrong. Do you get the same impression? Or are they saying something less
> weird?
>
> Thanks,
> --Ray
>
