Instantaneous long-distance travel of LDS gods

[_Tobin]

Gadianton,

I don't think anyone (other than crackpots) claim to have any practical results yet. It may be decades, centuries, or longer away. But, it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that such things exist and they seem plausible and helpful in certain situations even today despite the philosophical problems people seem to have with it.

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your position is that causality is an immutable law of the universe. If QM states otherwise, then it is wrong; or the results or wrong; and so on. And if that position isn't sufficient, it is your view that QM has nothing to do with the macro universe, even though the macro universe arises from the building blocks of the quantum universe and unless and until someone can demonstrate a macro universe application of such concepts - it is magic and non-sense. I believe that is fine if you wish to believe that, but it is not very enlightened and not necessarily true. I'm sure this is the exact attitude and skepticism that was expressed when atomic reactions were proposed. I'm sure it seemed just as improbable and just like magic that a handful of seemingly inert material could be utilized in such devastating results.

[_lulu]

Gadianton,

I don't think anyone (other than crackpots) claim to have any practical results yet. It may be decades, centuries, or longer away. But, it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that such things exist and they seem plausible and helpful in certain situations even today despite the philosophical problems people seem to have with it.

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your position is that causality is an immutable law of the universe. If QM states otherwise, then it is wrong; or the results or wrong; and so on. And if that position isn't sufficient, it is your view that QM has nothing to do with the macro universe, even though the macro universe arises from the building blocks of the quantum universe and unless and until someone can demonstrate a macro universe application of such concepts - it is magic and non-sense. I believe that is fine if you wish to believe that, but it is not very enlightened and not necessarily true. I'm sure this is the exact attitude and skepticism that was expressed when atomic reactions were proposed. I'm sure it seemed just as improbable and just like magic that a handful of seemingly inert material could be utilized in such devastating results.

The fact that some people were once skeptical of atomic reactions is not proof that entangled particles communicate at faster than light speed.

That's the 2nd time you've made such a move on this thread.

[_DrW]

Tobin,

You should be thanking Gadianton about now. He has worked very hard to help you understand some very basic science. He has done an excellent job. And I think you are making progress as well. Not far to go from here.

[_Gadianton]

Gadianton,

I don't think anyone (other than crackpots) claim to have any practical results yet. It may be decades, centuries, or longer away. But, it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that such things exist and they seem plausible and helpful in certain situations even today despite the philosophical problems people seem to have with it.

Hmm. I wouldn't draw the division this way. You seem to be saying backwards causation, superluminal communication, and perhaps time travel have a strong theoretical foothold, namely thanks to QM, despite philosophical disputes people have with these ideas, though we are not ready yet for the lab. I would say that Cramer is correct and we are ready for the lab. Experiments of the quantum erasure variety, mind blowing as they are, aren't anywhere near LHC-level sophisticated to construct. Cramer said he only needed about 20k more to close the deal. If we're on the eve of a revolution against causation, hell, you could rip out and hoc a single circuit board from the LHC and arm a dozen researchers with beam splitters, mirrors, optical cables, and the basic equipment to bring on the revolution. The problem is the huge question mark looming over the theoretical possibility, not the practical construction of devices for testing entanglement-related ideas that some believe allow backwards causation, time travel etc.. If the physics community were alive with belief in QM backwards causation, we'd be knee deep in getting the proof.

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your position is that causality is an immutable law of the universe.

No, that's not what I believe. I'm not satisfied with my explanation so far, however, but I'm too tired to get into it more tonight. Here is another quote from the SEP, and see the follow-up question after:

3. Paradoxes

Of all the philosophical problems to which backward causation (and time travel) gives rise, the paradoxes are those that have generated the most heat in both physics and philosophy because, if they are valid, they exclude backward causation from being both metaphysically and logically possible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causa ... ckwards/#4

Do you agree with what the SEP is saying here, that IF a paradox is rigorously demonstrated within a theory of backward causation, then it follows that the theory is not correct?

If QM states otherwise, then it is wrong; or the results or wrong; and so on.

I am not qualified to judge the merits of any QM theory. However, I think with some detective work I can figure out if online advocates of certain QM theories are properly representing the theories, or the scientific consensus surrounding the theory.

And if that position isn't sufficient, it is your view that QM has nothing to do with the macro universe, even though the macro universe arises from the building blocks of the quantum universe and unless and until someone can demonstrate a macro universe application of such concepts - it is magic and non-sense.

wave/particle duality applies to rocks and trees as well as electrons, even if the waveforms are small, so I do believe the universe built from particles is governed by the rules of QM. The disconnect enters the macro universe when relativity weighs in. The problem is, a macro application will include observation, and therefore the observer's frame of reference, and then any non-local effects if present, must contradict relativity. I found a good quote from that same SEP article that I think reinforces this idea:

Phillippe Eberhard and Ronald R. Ross (1989) have established a theorem which says that if quantum mechanics is correct, it is impossible to use quantum effects to generate a break in the chain of normal causation. Quantum field theory does not allow any superluminal communication between different observers. Indeed,this is not so strange, since quantum field theory is relativistically invariant whereas superluminal frames of reference are not. But Eberhard and Roos' theorem does not rule out all forms of backward causation. Two possible scenarios are still open: (1) entangled pairs exchange some form of superluminal information (and energy) below the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations; or (2) causation may be symmetrical so that the direction of causation in a physical system is determined by its boundary conditions.

I emphasized some key points. Notice, that backwards causation is ruled out as soon as there are "observers". But left in the micro realm, the authors of the theorem find plausible scenarios where backwards causation could be allowed. This is along the lines of what I'm trying to get at. In the micro realm, some weird crap is going on. But once you enter the macro world, the 800 pound gorilla is relativity.

I'm sure this is the exact attitude and skepticism that was expressed when atomic reactions were proposed. I'm sure it seemed just as improbable and just like magic that a handful of seemingly inert material could be utilized in such devastating results.

Improbable to whom? If the general consensus in the physics community is that superluminal communication is not possible, then why should I, a layman with zero physics qualifications, be more open minded than they are?

This is one of those issues we're contending on that we should be able to come to agreement on. I have been arguing that SLC is a fringe theory extrapolated from QM entanglement. You have been arguing that the theoretical foundation for SLC is latent in entanglement, and the physics community can help me understand this better if I sign up on some of these forums. This is one matter that I believe can be settled without controversy.

(sigh. I was abbrv. SuperLuminal Communication)

[_Tobin]

I don't think anyone (other than crackpots) claim to have any practical results yet. It may be decades, centuries, or longer away. But, it is within the realm of theoretical possibility that such things exist and they seem plausible and helpful in certain situations even today despite the philosophical problems people seem to have with it.

Hmm. I wouldn't draw the division this way. You seem to be saying backwards causation, superluminal communication, and perhaps time travel have a strong theoretical foothold, namely thanks to QM, despite philosophical disputes people have with these ideas, though we are not ready yet for the lab. I would say that Cramer is correct and we are ready for the lab. Experiments of the quantum erasure variety, mind blowing as they are, aren't anywhere near LHC-level sophisticated to construct. Cramer said he only needed about 20k more to close the deal. If we're on the eve of a revolution against causation, hell, you could rip out and hoc a single circuit board from the LHC and arm a dozen researchers with beam splitters, mirrors, optical cables, and the basic equipment to bring on the revolution. The problem is the huge question mark looming over the theoretical possibility, not the practical construction of devices for testing entanglement-related ideas that some believe allow backwards causation, time travel etc.. If the physics community were alive with belief in QM backwards causation, we'd be knee deep in getting the proof.

I 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. I think substantial work needs to be done in understanding space-time at the quantum level and generally (why is space-time expanding and how for example?!?), why do particles seem to and how do they change direction in time if that view is correct, and coming to terms with a unified view of the universe from both a quantum and macro level. Now, I hope I'm wrong about that and we are able to achieve these types of results in the lab, but I think we are still at the stage of noting odd effects and that we don't fully understand them or how to utilize them.

I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that your position is that causality is an immutable law of the universe.

No, that's not what I believe. I'm not satisfied with my explanation so far, however, but I'm too tired to get into it more tonight. Here is another quote from the SEP, and see the follow-up question after:

3. Paradoxes
Of all the philosophical problems to which backward causation (and time travel) gives rise, the paradoxes are those that have generated the most heat in both physics and philosophy because, if they are valid, they exclude backward causation from being both metaphysically and logically possible.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/#4
Do you agree with what the SEP is saying here, that IF a paradox is rigorously demonstrated within a theory of backward causation, then it follows that the theory is not correct?

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.

If QM states otherwise, then it is wrong; or the results or wrong; and so on.

I am not qualified to judge the merits of any QM theory. However, I think with some detective work I can figure out if online advocates of certain QM theories are properly representing the theories, or the scientific consensus surrounding the theory.

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.

And if that position isn't sufficient, it is your view that QM has nothing to do with the macro universe, even though the macro universe arises from the building blocks of the quantum universe and unless and until someone can demonstrate a macro universe application of such concepts - it is magic and non-sense.

wave/particle duality applies to rocks and trees as well as electrons, even if the waveforms are small, so I do believe the universe built from particles is governed by the rules of QM. The disconnect enters the macro universe when relativity weighs in. The problem is, a macro application will include observation, and therefore the observer's frame of reference, and then any non-local effects if present, must contradict relativity. I found a good quote from that same SEP article that I think reinforces this idea:

Phillippe Eberhard and Ronald R. Ross (1989) have established a theorem which says that if quantum mechanics is correct, it is impossible to use quantum effects to generate a break in the chain of normal causation. Quantum field theory does not allow any superluminal communication between different observers. Indeed,this is not so strange, since quantum field theory is relativistically invariant whereas superluminal frames of reference are not. But Eberhard and Roos' theorem does not rule out all forms of backward causation. Two possible scenarios are still open: (1) entangled pairs exchange some form of superluminal information (and energy) below the limits of Heisenberg's uncertainty relations; or (2) causation may be symmetrical so that the direction of causation in a physical system is determined by its boundary conditions.

I emphasized some key points. Notice, that backwards causation is ruled out as soon as there are "observers". But left in the micro realm, the authors of the theorem find plausible scenarios where backwards causation could be allowed. This is along the lines of what I'm trying to get at. In the micro realm, some weird s*** is going on. But once you enter the macro world, the 800 pound gorilla is relativity.

That doesn't answer why? What about transitioning to the macro world imposes causation when there is no causation in the quantum world? And there is a real problem when these two worlds collide in a black hole for example. I believe that view is too simplistic and I suspect the answer is as I've stated, that causation and the macro world rules aren't exactly what we think they are and there is much more to the story than that.

I'm sure this is the exact attitude and skepticism that was expressed when atomic reactions were proposed. I'm sure it seemed just as improbable and just like magic that a handful of seemingly inert material could be utilized in such devastating results.

Improbable to whom? If the general consensus in the physics community is that superluminal communication is not possible, then why should I, a layman with zero physics qualifications, be more open minded than they are?

This is one of those issues we're contending on that we should be able to come to agreement on. I have been arguing that Salt Lake City is a fringe theory extrapolated from QM entanglement. You have been arguing that the theoretical foundation for Salt Lake City is latent in entanglement, and the physics community can help me understand this better if I sign up on some of these forums. This is one matter that I believe can be settled without controversy.

(sigh. I was abbrv. SuperLuminal Communication)

Again, I don't think people are really advocating Superluminal Communication. I'll just repeat again, my two main points:

1) Conceptually in a 1 or 2-dimensional universe, it is easy to demonstrate the concept of folding or distorting their time-space to shorten the distance between two points through a higher dimension. Even within our universe, we know that the distance between objects are spreading out faster than the speed of light so it should be theoretically possible to contract that distance as well.

2) It has been noted that there are odd effects within QM that indicate that there may be ways to distort or shorten the distance between particles or perhaps even that particles such as antimatter are really particles moving backwards through time. The main criticism of distorting or contracting space-time is it means causation (and the paradoxes that result) is not necessarily true. That may be theoretically ok. I don't think anyone believes that physics equations (other than by convention) must move forward through time and there is no difference between cause or effect in physics (other than by convention). This may simply mean that causation is merely an imposition or convention only and is not a universal law.

[_lulu]

Tobin,

You should be thanking Gadianton about now. He has worked very hard to help you understand some very basic science. He has done an excellent job. And I think you are making progress as well. Not far to go from here.

Hell, I'm thanking Gadianton, you and Chap, Tobin for providing the foil. I've learned a lot off of this thread.

[_Chap]

Tobin,

You should be thanking Gadianton about now. He has worked very hard to help you understand some very basic science. He has done an excellent job. And I think you are making progress as well. Not far to go from here.

Hell, I'm thanking Gadianton, you and Chap, Tobin for providing the foil. I've learned a lot off of this thread.

Please make allowance for the fact that apart from Tobin we are all idiotic people without a high-school understanding of physics. Even then, we are mostly pretending to know less than we really do, in order to avoid having to concede the validity of the masterly and cogent points about the cosmos with which Tobin has favored us.

[_Fence Sitter]

Hell, I'm thanking Gadianton, you and Chap, Tobin for providing the foil. I've learned a lot off of this thread.

Me too. The thread has been quite interesting. Frankly I shared some of Tobin's imaginative thoughts regarding what might be possible and what was not. I can see I need to learn more about causality and paradox.

I hope Tobin has enough foil left over for his hat.

[_Gadianton]

Tobin,

I'm making some progress in understanding your concerns I think. thanks for answering the questions.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

[_lulu]

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.

Good point well illustrated with the jumping watch hands.