Instantaneous long-distance travel of LDS gods

[_Tobin]

very much doubt we are "knee deep in getting the proof" that the theorectical claims that antimatter, for example, are really particles moving backwards in time or any of the other claims along these lines in QM are useful in a practical sense.

Theoretical physics is theoretical due to experimental constraints, but, the entanglement stuff is real, experimental physics. If relativity holds, then changing the backward-causation mechanism for instantaneous communication from entanglement, something we can study, to tachyons, something we can't, will not make a difference. For the record, the one exprimental physicists working on time travel in your Wiki article does not believe relativity is violated in his expriment, my guess is that if he believed such a thing, he would abandon his experiment. But, my point is that most physicists aren't so "open minded", and hence, he's a lone crusader.

I don't think experimental results is as easy as that. Working with entangled particles or even antimatter (let alone entangling them) is not a trivial task.

I don't believe this makes sense. I believe the quantum world already presents us with challenges and the proposed solution is to use backward causation (ie time travel) as a viable solution. This in and of itself must necessarily carry with it the potential of paradoxes at the macro level and so using that to state the proposed solution is invalid seems silly to me. I don't think paradoxes are nearly as deadly as you and others seem to make them appear. After all, human beings are able to recognize them and they don't leave us in an endless loop drooling at our chairs when we recognize and consider them.

Let me ask you this: in mathematics, do you believe it is possible that one day in the future, a prodigy mathematician could perhaps arise who will prove that 2+2=4 and 2+2=6; with the understanding that 6 is not equal to 4?

I believe you are simplifying the case a bit much, but yes - that is the type of things I believe are being seen at the quantum level. For example, we can easily demonstrate quantum weirdness by sending a single photon through a slit and it will interfere with itself, as if it travelled through both slits at once OR imagine a light bulb filament gives out a photon, seemingly in a random direction much as a wave. Schrödinger came up with an equation that correctly predicts the chances of finding that photon at any given point. However, once you look at the photon, this wave-like behavior instantly collapses into the single point at which the photon really is.

Breaking down your paragraph:

-I believe the quantum world already presents us with challenges and the proposed solution is to use backward causation (ie time travel) as a viable solution

I think at least some theoretical physicists would agree with you here. (with the small exception that time travel and BC aren't precisely the same thing, explains this in the article I linked.)

-This in and of itself must necessarily carry with it the potential of paradoxes at the macro level

So you are saying that paradoxes happen at the micro level, and thus, this creates the potential for paradoxes at the macro level, as science learns how to apply QM? Where I think you are wrong here, is that a "paradox" or contradiction, is not acceptable at any level.

Backwards causation at the quantum level, in "relativistically invarient" scenarios is possible, precicely where it does not lead to contradictions, or paradoxes. Contradictions, by definition, are deadly in any theory that can be described with math.

And this is where we disagree. I think the paradoxes confronted in the quantum world directly contradict your assertion that they are unacceptable. Your view invalidates QM just by making that assertion because of the quantum weirdness or paradoxes I highlighted above. I just don't view your assertion as realistic or part of QM at any level as it is understood today.

Do you believe QM at any level is simple causation (or cause and effect) or even represented that way (ie if I do A then B will happen)? As far as I know, there is nothing like that at the quantum level, even when a photon strikes an electron and puts it in an excited state, everything is a probability as to when that electron will release that photon and we can't know for certain when that will happen.

Yes I do believe if A, then B will happen in QM. This is why scientists can measure precisely the amount of platonium they need to create a nuclear explosion, even if they cannot predict when each individual atom will decay. QM is an exact science, if there ever was one, Tobin. But let me ask you this, if causation is false at the quantum level due to indeterminancy, then how is it that backward causation is true? backward causality and acausality are two separate ideas. In the SEP article I linked, it explained a watch with the hands moving forward as an example of causation. Backward causation would be the hands moving backwards. But if "everything is a probability" and random, then that would be contra-causal or acausal, and that would be the hands of the clock jumping around randomly. No scientists from what I can see reject that causality is true in QM, but rather, some believe there are scenarios where backward causation is true. You yourself said "the equations work as well forward as backward", implying that both causation and backward causation can be true.

Your assertion that QM is an exact science is ridiculous. Your use of the term exact is patently absurd and I doubt any physicist would agree with you about that. Simple causation is exact. QM is anything but that. It is about rolling dice and probabilities. The problem with your assertion is this, there is a chance that with any amount of plutonium in a nuclear device that it will not trigger a nuclear explosion. That is hardly what I'd call exact.

What about transitioning to the macro world imposes causation when there is no causation in the quantum world?

There is causation in the quantum world, some have argued there is backward causation also. With that correction noted, the answer is relativity.

Can you give one example of a cause and 100% predictable effect in QM? I can't think of a single one. I think you have played fast and loose with what QM actually states and it isn't as exact as you pretend it is. It is more about what is likely and not likely, but it is NOT cause and effect or exact in any stretch of the imagination.

[_Chap]

Let me ask you this: in mathematics, do you believe it is possible that one day in the future, a prodigy mathematician could perhaps arise who will prove that 2+2=4 and 2+2=6; with the understanding that 6 is not equal to 4?

I believe you are simplifying the case a bit much, but yes - that is the type of things I believe are being seen at the quantum level. For example, we can easily demonstrate quantum weirdness by sending a single photon through a slit and it will interfere with itself, as if it travelled through both slits at once OR imagine a light bulb filament gives out a photon, seemingly in a random direction much as a wave. Schrödinger came up with an equation that correctly predicts the chances of finding that photon at any given point. However, once you look at the photon, this wave-like behavior instantly collapses into the single point at which the photon really is.

The example Tobin gives is one that shows that things happen at the quantum level that seem (as he puts it) "weird" if we try to apply concepts of waves or particles taken from the macro world to the tiny world of photons, or electrons for that matter. There is however nothing paradoxical about them in the sense of Gadianton's example, which is a logical paradox - quite a different kind of thing from mere weirdness.

[_Res Ipsa]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, but haven't had much to say that hasn't already been said. Tobin, have you looked at decoherence theory as a means of explaining the relationship between QM and classical mechanics? I have a tough time wrapping my brain around it, but I think it explains why trying to extrapolate from the QM world to the macro world doesn't work.

Also, I'm not sure you and Gadianton are using a common definition of cause and effect. Agreeing on some common definitions may help.

I don't see the things you describe as paradoxes being actual paradoxes. I simply see probability as part of what causation means in the quantum world.

I'll add my thanks to you guys for having the patience to thrash this out with each other.

[_Tobin]

I've been reading this thread with great interest, but haven't had much to say that hasn't already been said. Tobin, have you looked at decoherence theory as a means of explaining the relationship between QM and classical mechanics? I have a tough time wrapping my brain around it, but I think it explains why trying to extrapolate from the QM world to the macro world doesn't work.

Also, I'm not sure you and Gadianton are using a common definition of cause and effect. Agreeing on some common definitions may help.

I don't see the things you describe as paradoxes being actual paradoxes. I simply see probability as part of what causation means in the quantum world.

I'll add my thanks to you guys for having the patience to thrash this out with each other.

There are a number of competing theories trying to tie the macro universe and quantum universe. I'm unaware of one that that is overly compelling or successful to date.

I wasn't aware that there was another defintion of causation then causation is the act of initiating an action, a cause, which leads to a predictable result, an effect. The problem with Gadianton's position in my estimation is that in QM, that just isn't a reasonable position. Any action, may or may not lead to an effect depending on chance. And even more interestingly, depending on the type of action, you can get different and contradictory results, which is a paradox and an invalid result according to him.

[_Chap]

...depending on the type of action, you can get different and contradictory results, which is a paradox and an invalid result according to him.

You do different things and get a different result? And that is a paradox?

(And Gadianton did not express the view attributed to him. See my post above.)

[_Res Ipsa]

There are a number of competing theories trying to tie the macro universe and quantum universe. I'm unaware of one that that is overly compelling or successful to date.

I wasn't aware that there was another defintion of causation then causation is the act of initiating an action, a cause, which leads to a predictable result, an effect. The problem with Gadianton's position in my estimation is that in QM, that just isn't a reasonable position. Any action, may or may not lead to an effect depending on chance. And even more interestingly, depending on the type of action, you can get different and contradictory results, which is a paradox and an invalid result according to him.

Sorry if I made it sound more definitive than it is. I just found it helpful and thought I'd pass it along.

I'm not following your point about probability and causation. Can I use the cat? Whenever the radioactive decay takes place and the particle is emitted, the cat dies. The particle always causes the death of the cat. 100% causation. The only thing we don't know is when the the particle will be emitted.

I could do the same thing by using a slot machine instead of subatomic particles. If the machine comes up three lemons, the cat dies. 100% causation. The only thing we don't know is how many times I have to spin to get the lemons.

I know I'm missing something. Can you help me figure out what it is?

[Guest]

There are a number of competing theories trying to tie the macro universe and quantum universe. I'm unaware of one that that is overly compelling or successful to date.

I wasn't aware that there was another defintion of causation then causation is the act of initiating an action, a cause, which leads to a predictable result, an effect. The problem with Gadianton's position in my estimation is that in QM, that just isn't a reasonable position. Any action, may or may not lead to an effect depending on chance. And even more interestingly, depending on the type of action, you can get different and contradictory results, which is a paradox and an invalid result according to him.

Sorry if I made it sound more definitive than it is. I just found it helpful and thought I'd pass it along.

I'm not following your point about probability and causation. Can I use the cat? Whenever the radioactive decay takes place and the particle is emitted, the cat dies. The particle always causes the death of the cat. 100% causation. The only thing we don't know is when the the particle will be emitted.

I could do the same thing by using a slot machine instead of subatomic particles. If the machine comes up three lemons, the cat dies. 100% causation. The only thing we don't know is how many times I have to spin to get the lemons.

I know I'm missing something. Can you help me figure out what it is?

In QM, there is a chance the particle won't emit or the cat won't get hit and so on so the cat won't die as a result OR sometimes it will kill a dog instead.

In QM, there is also a likelihood that instead of a ball rolling down an inclined plane, it rolled up the inclined plane instead. There is no way in classical physics for this to happen. It is simple causation. Einstein had a similar gripe about QM as well. He stated famously that God does not throw dice!

[_Res Ipsa]

In QM, there is a chance the particle won't emit or the cat won't get hit and so on so the cat won't die as a result OR sometimes it will kill a dog instead.

In classical physics, this would be like instead of a ball rolling down an inclined plane, it rolled up the inclined plane instead. There is no way in classical physics for this to happen. It is simple causation. Einstein had a similar gripe about QM as well. He stated famously that God does not throw dice!

I don't think your first statement is correct at all. There is no chance of a dog being killed. There is no chance that, if the particle emits, the cat doesn't die. There is a chance that the particle won't emit over a specified period of time. The longer the time, the less the chance that the particle won't emit. But, once it's emitted, the cat dies.

In your second paragraph, you are reversing the arrow of time. Nothing about the random nature of the particle's emission involves the reversal of time's arrow.

And Einstein is like anybody else -- he get's to be wrong, too.

[_Chap]

In QM, there is a chance the particle won't emit or the cat won't get hit and so on so the cat won't die as a result OR sometimes it will kill a dog instead.

In classical physics, this would be like instead of a ball rolling down an inclined plane, it rolled up the inclined plane instead. There is no way in classical physics for this to happen. It is simple causation. Einstein had a similar gripe about QM as well. He stated famously that God does not throw dice!

I don't think your first statement is correct at all. There is no chance of a dog being killed. There is no chance that, if the particle emits, the cat doesn't die. There is a chance that the particle won't emit over a specified period of time. The longer the time, the less the chance that the particle won't emit. But, once it's emitted, the cat dies.

In your second paragraph, you are reversing the arrow of time. Nothing about the random nature of the particle's emission involves the reversal of time's arrow.

And Einstein is like anybody else -- he get's to be wrong, too.

Brad - I don't think Tobin has got the classical 'Schrödinger's cat' set-up in mind, which you seem to: you know, with the cat in the box, which also contains a vial of cyanide which is only released if a particular nucleus decays and hence triggers a geiger counter. He seems to think the cat is killed by being hit by the emission product of the nucleus, and hence that another animal might be killed if the emission went in another direction.

At least I think that is what he is confused about in part of his post.

[Guest]

In QM, there is a chance the particle won't emit or the cat won't get hit and so on so the cat won't die as a result OR sometimes it will kill a dog instead.

In classical physics, this would be like instead of a ball rolling down an inclined plane, it rolled up the inclined plane instead. There is no way in classical physics for this to happen. It is simple causation. Einstein had a similar gripe about QM as well. He stated famously that God does not throw dice!

I don't think your first statement is correct at all. There is no chance of a dog being killed. There is no chance that, if the particle emits, the cat doesn't die. There is a chance that the particle won't emit over a specified period of time. The longer the time, the less the chance that the particle won't emit. But, once it's emitted, the cat dies.

In your second paragraph, you are reversing the arrow of time. Nothing about the random nature of the particle's emission involves the reversal of time's arrow.

And Einstein is like anybody else -- he get's to be wrong, too.

As I've stated already, in QM things get weird and there is a chance a dog will die instead. That is a possibility in QM. And I agree, there isn't a way in classical physics for that to happen because it is based on a convention of simple causation nor is there a way to express that. Also, as I pointed out to Gadianton too, sometimes it is necessary to represent particles as moving backwards as in time to resolve certain difficulties. This is as if a ball moved up an inclined plane instead of down it in the macro universe. Again, there is no concept of this nor is it presently acceptable in classic physics.