Wolv1's questions about causality and particles

i know you didnt call me stupid,it was RJBeery.so it's safe to say RJBeery was wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's safe to think that whenever he posts, yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i guees he is the one that does not know his stuff.lol,of course that does not mean i either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Slow down, Wolv1, you misread my post. I wasn't saying you are stupid. I was (mis)interpreting the answers you were being given. Can't you see the sarcasm in my question "Aren't forums like this great?"

rpenner, what does it mean to have "intuition violated", but not Causality nor Locality? The original foundation of Causality and Locality IS intuition! I'm not trolling, I sincerely want to understand an explanation of EPR that preserves Causality and Locality...

 

Then perhaps you should read all of the Wikipedia article as a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

Then continue to http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9802010

But you are not in the best position to appreciate this work.

 

Thread locked. See similar thread.

 

rpenner: Your excerpt from wikipedia answers the OP's question:

Wiki then says that [paraphrasing] locality in "a more general sense" is not violated because they have expanded the definition of "local" to include the entire system of quantum influence!

I guess it's up to Wolv1 to decide which definition of Locality he was asking about, but I'm guessing it is the former and not the "modified" one...kthxbye :mufc:

 

RJBeery:your the one who said causality is violated.of course you were wrong,rpenner said that particles dont violate causality, reiku told me the same i guess he was wrong too.

 

rpenner: can you explain what this mean's? "But as of this point our most widely accepted theories indicate that all physics is locally Lorentz-invariant and no experiment has contradicted this''.

 

Wolv1: Contiguity is a requirement for the traditional definition of Causality. If Locality is out, so is Causality. I'm not sure why you appear to be hostile, I thought I clarified that I wasn't insulting you. Again, maybe as Vkothii suggested, you should define Causality before anyone can give you the answer you seek.

 

i already defined causality violation, where first comes effect than comes cause.RJBeery im not being hostile, im just saying you were wrong in you saying "causality is indeed violated"

 

with 5000

5000?threads i think someones spendin thar time wrong well old school says im right
you inabiliity to decipher someone elses post is super ? just typifies how misinformation is dormant and resideing in confined quarters .Most peoples celebelum", by the way ...have we ? developd thought processeses that define the way to learn new concepts?,.. if you stick with the mainstream ideologys youl end up bored

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

one word" supposedly" dandy interpreter

 

Particles are really the only function of behaviour in quantum manipulation that we can contemplate as being able to defy the rules of cause and effect. Normal everyday objects do not do these things most possibly because a single system at macroscopic levels cannot make due for such actions.

Thes oscillations of quantum actions, can certainly defy cause and effect, due to mathematical contributions, however, it also makes sense it may not happen without any observable show.

So, if anything can defy these rules, quantum behaviour can, but even this behaviour is yet to be observed.

 

So in other words, macrosopic objects have rules, whilst the rules of microsopic objects have differential laws. These laws can allow the abstraction of rules working the opposite ways. So a particle can experience the effect before the cause.

 

I am not wrong. R penner neglects the fact that miscroscopic and macroscopic objects have differential rules guiding them. If she/he does not know this, then maybe his/her PHD is in trouble of not covering the quantum nature.

 

Schrodinger's cat is supposed to be the example that ties the idea of observing a classical outcome and quantum uncertainty (of a wavefunction collapsing or 'appearing').
There are two possible outcomes and one observation that then determines from an external pov, if the wavefunction caused the effect: cat's death.
But the cat's state is 'entangled' with a quantum wavefunction, from the external observer's or box-opener's view (from the cat's view it would die when the decay occurs, not before or after).
It shows us that we can't put observers like cats onto a wavefunction, or observe the collapse unless we hide it first (for a certain time, in the case of isotope decay).

You can model it as a probability with a randomly distributed outcome. In the case of the cat it has 2 possible outcomes, so it's like being given 1 chance to find something that's in 1 of 2 places.
Or playing a shell-game with 2 shells - you either find something under the first shell, or you know it's under the other (assuming no cheating).
The first outcome corresponds to a 'live' cat, the second is a 'dead' cat. You open the box once to find either outcome for the cat; you lift one shell to locate the hidden prize (a small plastic toy cat).

The only difference is Schrodinger's cat's state is time-dependent, where the shell-game only waits for the 'randomisation' of the variables, i.e. it's [position]-dependent. Both situations have 'entangled' outcomes that get processed in a probability 'phase-space'. Phase is conserved.

 

but there it's only mathematical,and there is no evidence or proof that this happens.

 

Exactly. My point to a ''T''.

 

I have already said this too.