3 ms·
as water waves are 'epiphenomena'/emergent from the underlying form, are the 'waves' that are used to describe light also epiphenomena (i.e. emergent) or are li
by platz 10y ago
as water waves are 'epiphenomena'/emergent from the underlying form, are the 'waves' that are used to describe light also epiphenomena (i.e. emergent) or are light waves the EM field exactly ? If the latter, I don't see how to interpret the photoelectric effect.
- Retra 10y agoAll phenomena are emergent. That word means nothing. The photoelectric effect is not complicated any way you slice it. An atom absorbs some quantum of energy from the field. This doesn't require any understanding of what model you use to describe the energy in the field. The interaction is quantized either way.
- platz 10y agonot quite. 'emergent' in theoretical physics typically means 'arising from a composition of the more fundamental physical state'. 'All phenomena are emergent' with this definition of the word would mean you could always represent something with something else that is more basic, ad infinitum - I don't think that is the accepted view among physicists.
- Retra 10y agoI'm not sure the term "emergent" is a term in theoretical physics. I've certainly never seen it. >'All phenomena are emergent' with this definition of the word would mean you could always represent something with something else that is more basic, ad infinitum No, what it means is that at some point, you've broken your model down into something that is not 'phenomena' in any meaningful sense. Which is something physicists do all the time.