A Is the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect an emergent property?

Cato
Messages
56
Reaction score
10
TL;DR Summary
I have heard that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is a true emergent property. I have never believed that emergent properties exist. Is this an example of one?
I do not think that true emergent properties -- as defined by behavior of matter that cannot be reduced to fundamental physical law -- exist. Yet I have been told that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is an example of an emergent property. What is the consensus?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cato said:
true emergent properties -- as defined by behavior of matter that cannot be reduced to fundamental physical law
This is not the common definition of "emergent properties" in physics. I think most physicists would say that "emergent properties" are properties that we have equations for, but we do not know how to derive those equations from the equations describing the fundamental laws. That in no way means such properties are not governed by the fundamental laws. It just means we don't understand how (yet).

Cato said:
I have been told that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is an example of an emergent property.
Where? And was whoever told you using the same definition of "emergent property" that you are using? Or were they using a definition more like the one I gave above?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Demystifier
Cato said:
TL;DR Summary: I have heard that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is a true emergent property. I have never believed that emergent properties exist. Is this an example of one?

I do not think that true emergent properties -- as defined by behavior of matter that cannot be reduced to fundamental physical law -- exist.
One should distinguish between strong emergence and weak emergence. Strong emergence is that something cannot be reduced to fundamental laws in principle. Weak emergence is that something cannot easily be reduced to fundamental laws in practice. In physics, by emergence, one usually means weak emergence. In particular, FQHE is weakly emergent, not strongly emergent.

Is there anything which is strongly emergent? It's hard to tell, some suspect that consciousness might be strongly emergent, but that's another topic.
 
Cato said:
TL;DR Summary: I have heard that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is a true emergent property. I have never believed that emergent properties exist. Is this an example of one?

I do not think that true emergent properties -- as defined by behavior of matter that cannot be reduced to fundamental physical law -- exist. Yet I have been told that the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect is an example of an emergent property. What is the consensus?
Quantum many-body theory is full of "emergent properties". This is of course a buzz word. What's usually meant by this are collective excitations of a many-body system. These can often be described as "quasi particles", i.e., with a formalism of many-body quantum-field theory where these excitations can be approximately described in a similar way as "particle states" are described. These "quasi particles" need not be in any way related to true/elementary particles though. E.g., there are quasi particles with a "fractional charge", although of course there are no elementary particles with charges different from integer multiples of the elementary charge, ##e##.
 
Demystifier said:
One should distinguish between strong emergence and weak emergence. Strong emergence is that something cannot be reduced to fundamental laws in principle. Weak emergence is that something cannot easily be reduced to fundamental laws in practice. In physics, by emergence, one usually means weak emergence. In particular, FQHE is weakly emergent, not strongly emergent.

Is there anything which is strongly emergent? It's hard to tell, some suspect that consciousness might be strongly emergent, but that's another topic.
By your definition something is "strongly emerent" simply, if it cannot be understood by contemporarily known physical theories. I think all of condensed-matter physics is pretty far from that, although there are phenomena which cannot be explained entirely "from first principles".
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top