I am not offended. I am happy to be “in a state of ignorance.” It is said the “ignorance is bliss.” I am not a philosopher or a theologian. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a position in teaching in a University-neither field will put food on the table or eleviate the human condition. If the abstract makes you happy, than chase after it. As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that His death upon the Cross WAS his teaching of reality. Peace.As it was mentioned, a theory is acceptable if it is anomaly free. It was shown that Materialism and Idealism are not anomaly free hence they could not describe reality.
You don’t need to be God in order to find an error in a theory. You also don’t need to be God to understand reality because understanding everything is only a matter of time unless we are being who are not cognitively open to understand reality. That cannot be true because I don’t think a God who is Love leave us permanently in state of ignorance.
By the way, why Jesus didn’t describe the reality in His teaching?
No offense, but do you prefer to stay in state of ignorance?
What is the purpose of God to create intellectual beings, Human?I am not offended. I am happy to be “in a state of ignorance.” It is said the “ignorance is bliss.” I am not a philosopher or a theologian. Unless you are fortunate enough to have a position in teaching in a University-neither field will put food on the table or eleviate the human condition. If the abstract makes you happy, than chase after it. As far as Jesus is concerned, I think that His death upon the Cross WAS his teaching of reality. Peace.
Any scientific description of reality is an approximation.The reality is that scientific description of any emergent phenomena is an approximation of reality.
I agree with what you stated but I think you didn’t understand my statement well. I mean that any emergent phenomena can be explained with an approximation of laws of nature assuming the we can have the ultimate laws of nature. At the core there is no emergent phenomena because any behavior of matter can be explained by laws of nature. The main problem is that we can only sometimes find an exact solution to describe a state of matter.Any scientific description of reality is an approximation.
Do you consider superconductivity. or more generally phase transitions, to be an example of emergent phenomena. If so, there are various explanations given to describe it, for example, the theory of Cooper pairing.I agree with what you stated but I think you didn’t understand my statement well. I mean that any emergent phenomena can be explained with an approximation of laws of nature assuming the we can have the ultimate laws of nature. At the core there is no emergent phenomena because any behavior of matter can be explained by laws of nature. The main problem is that we can only sometimes find an exact solution to describe a state of matter.
The behavior of matter, so called response function, depends on its structure and external stimuli. We in principle can find the response function by laws of nature. We however cannot find the response function in most of practical situation because the system has many particles. This means that we need an approximation. The theory of Cooper pair is an approximation for example which states that pairing between a pair of electrons is the result of an effective interaction mediated by nucleus. Resistivity then can be calculated in this case which is zero below a specific temperature. They call this as an emerging phenomena because they claim that effective interaction between two electrons become attractive bellow a specific temperature. We in principle can get the exact result if we were able to calculate the laws of nature directly. There is no emergence in this case because the behaviour of matter can be completely defined by laws of nature.Do you consider superconductivity. or more generally phase transitions, to be an example of emergent phenomena. If so, there are various explanations given to describe it, for example, the theory of Cooper pairing.
Can you kindly give us the Hamiltonian which will completely describe the superconductivity phenomenon without the use of Cooper pairing. It is OK if you use a Bogoliubov transformation.The theory of Cooper pair is an approximation for example which states that pairing between a pair of electrons is the result of an effective interaction mediated by nucleus. Resistivity then can be calculated in this case which is zero below a specific temperature. They call this as an emerging phenomena because they claim that effective interaction between two electrons become attractive bellow a specific temperature. We in principle can get the exact result if we were able to calculate the laws of nature directly. There is no emergence in this case because the behaviour of matter can be completely defined by laws of nature.
I don’t remember that now. I found this for you from Googling.Can you kindly give us the Hamiltonian which will completely describe the superconductivity phenomenon without the use of Cooper pairing. It is OK if you use a Bogoliubov transformation.
But the GL theory was derived from BCS by Gor’kov. So you really have not done away with Cooper pairing.I don’t remember that now. I found this for you from Googling.
I have a Ph.D. in physics but I don’t remember the details well because of changing the branch of my study long time ago.But the GL theory was derived from BCS by Gor’kov. So you really have not done away with Cooper pairing.