trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Certain macroscopic laws have not been derived from microscopic laws
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against

Peer-reviewed physics literature indicates that certain macroscopic properties and condensed matter laws cannot be fully reduced or derived from fundamental microscopic laws.

Evidence for · 2
2019 · cited by 8
This chapter argues that the physics of condensed matter, such as crystals, superconductors, magnets, liquids, cannot be fully reduced to the supposedly fundamental quantum mechanical theory for all the atoms of which the system consists. The author holds the view that there are in fact many reasons to reject the idea that the world of physics is causally closed with everything being determined bottom-up by fundamental microscopic laws. A considerable part of the chapter is devoted to showing how condensed-matter theory is done in practice. It is never done by starting with a microscopic theory for the interaction of all the atoms of the system. Instead, approximations, plausible assumptions, intuitive models, and phenomenological theories are used to mathematically describe and explain the properties of systems that consist of a macroscopic number of particles. The author argues that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but that there are fundamental and qualitative differences or even contradictions between the microscopic theory and the theory that is used in practice. These differences are in many cases due to the fact that the world is classical, with spatially localized objects, on the macroscopic scale, while quantum mechanics leads to superpositions of objects being in different locations. Concordantly, the theories used in condensed matter physics contain elements from classical physics as well as from quantum physics.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=2+0p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 1
2019 · cited by 3
Reductionism is a prevalent viewpoint in science according to which all physical phenomena can be understood from fundamental laws of physics. Anderson (Science 177:393 1972), Laughlin and Pines (PNAS 97:28 2000), and others have countered this viewpoint and argued in favour of hierarchical structure of the universe and laws. In this paper, we advance the latter perspective by showing that some of the complex flow properties—Kolmogorov’s theory of turbulence, turbulence dissipation and diffusion, and dynamic pressure—derived using hydrodynamic equations (macroscopic laws) are very difficult, if not impossible, to describe in microscopic framework, e.g. kinetic theory. We also provide several other examples of hierarchical description.
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Microscopic Laws vs. Macroscopic Laws: Perspectives from Kinetic Theory and Hydrodynamicspeer-reviewedno side taken
  2. Strong Emergence in Condensed Matter Physicspeer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt