Did quantum mechanics kill cause and effect?
- Thread starter hlreed
- Start date
Of course it does. If it were a machine, and it is, then b + c causes A. That it is equal is true, but b and c have to happen first in a machine, so why not say it causes A.
And you did not answer my question.
I know I am on your bad list, but if you gonna comment, answer
Harold
And you did not answer my question.
I know I am on your bad list, but if you gonna comment, answer
Harold
I never said all things. I said this thing.
I know how to do algebra, you don't have to tell me that. What I don't know is quantum mechanics and I am reading that cause and effect are not preserved but momentum and energy are.
I knew a guy like you in college. Could not talk to him either.
I know how to do algebra, you don't have to tell me that. What I don't know is quantum mechanics and I am reading that cause and effect are not preserved but momentum and energy are.
I knew a guy like you in college. Could not talk to him either.
"The rest of the world is nuts -- not me -- no, I'm the sane one, and they're the ones who are nuts." -- Lunatic
The truth is that cause and effect are still in full splendor in quantum mechanics. Could you provide an example of how cause and effect are 'broken?'
- Warren
Prosoothus
Registered Senior Member
chroot,
Isn't randomness a violation of cause-and-effect???
Tom
Isn't randomness a violation of cause-and-effect???
Tom
Prosoothus
Registered Senior Member
chroot,
I look at randomness as an effect without a cause. This seems to violate the principle of cause-and-effect.
Tom
I look at randomness as an effect without a cause. This seems to violate the principle of cause-and-effect.
Tom
In fact, QFT is constructed in such a way to explicitly preserve causality. any QFT textbook devotes 10 pages of chapter 1 to explain why the square root of the Klein gordon equation does not make a good wave equation for a QFT. it cannot preserve causality.
the goal of using the square root of the klein gordon equation is to eliminate negative energy solutions. but it can be shown that you cannot both restrict yourself to positive energy solutions, and preserve causality. since causality is pretty useful (understatement), we have to infer the existence of negative energy solutions. hence, antiparticles exist.
the goal of using the square root of the klein gordon equation is to eliminate negative energy solutions. but it can be shown that you cannot both restrict yourself to positive energy solutions, and preserve causality. since causality is pretty useful (understatement), we have to infer the existence of negative energy solutions. hence, antiparticles exist.
aren't you just using different notation? I think both cases are valid.. I think you have to be carefull about the context that you're using A = b + c. that's the problem. Warren is saying "you're making a mathematical statement" and hlreed is saying "i'm using mathematical symbols to say something about a mechanical system". it seems to me that either are correct, but it's important not to be confused about which you're referring to right?
cause and effect seem to be violated by the slit experiment right? there are a lot of other things about quantum mechanics (which I barely understand) which seem quite weird and it's easy to say "cause and effect" are violated when you're not sure how the whole thing works to begin with. though a lot of people know a lot of things about QM, I would imagine that most wouldn't say cause and effect are violated, just that they might not be as we once thought they were. make any sense?
cause and effect seem to be violated by the slit experiment right? there are a lot of other things about quantum mechanics (which I barely understand) which seem quite weird and it's easy to say "cause and effect" are violated when you're not sure how the whole thing works to begin with. though a lot of people know a lot of things about QM, I would imagine that most wouldn't say cause and effect are violated, just that they might not be as we once thought they were. make any sense?
Prosoothus
Registered Senior Member
chroot,
I believe that the cause-and-effect principle is based on two rules:
1) Every effect must have a cause.
2) A cause will always precede an effect.
I don't think that anything violates rule two, but I think that randomness violates rule one.
Tom
I believe that the cause-and-effect principle is based on two rules:
1) Every effect must have a cause.
2) A cause will always precede an effect.
I don't think that anything violates rule two, but I think that randomness violates rule one.
Tom
Well, your rule 1 is not associated with the scientific meaning of 'causality' at all -- only rule 2.
According to rule 1, every physical law 'breaks causality.' Why are there two kinds of electric charge? Goodbye causality. Why does light appear to travel with the same velocity in every frame of reference? Goodbye causality.
It's kinda meaningless to apply your rule 1.
- Warren
Prosoothus
Registered Senior Member
chroot,
Are you sure that there isn't a reason (a cause) why there are only two kinds of charge (I'm assuming that your ignoring quarks)?
And as far as I know, relativity states that time dilation and length contraction is the reason (or cause) behind the principle of invariance of light.
Tom
Are you sure that there isn't a reason (a cause) why there are only two kinds of charge (I'm assuming that your ignoring quarks)?
And as far as I know, relativity states that time dilation and length contraction is the reason (or cause) behind the principle of invariance of light.
Tom