Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in "Nature Communications".

Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum computing.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/uov-qcr100212.php

I suspect it would have profound impact on much more than just quantum studies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
In all this scientific

In all this scientific unknown, when you post stuff like this, which has nothing to do with superstition or god/s, there is going to be some retrofitting moron who will see this and go "see see see" this proves my god is a possible cause.

 

I think even with all the freaky stuff we know to be fact, like gravity affecting time, power of a black hole, the size of red giants, and the infintesmally dense spot that gave way to the big bang, is all incredible fact. So whatever implications QM might find and make us go "wow", there are still some things that even QM wont lead to. It wont lead to a non material magical comic book super hero. It wont magically turn me into a frog. It wont allow virgin births. It wont make fictional after lifes real.

It would not surprise me if QM science leads us to something being both capable of being a cause and being caused at the same time. Just like it would not surprise me if we could scientificall demonstrate what came before the big bang being either comming out of something, or nothing. What is not required in either case is super natural cognition, or any type of cognition.

Vaset, I am not posting my response to you. Just for any potential theist who might want to come in here and pull the old "AH HA" garbage to prop up their myth.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 At some point I really

 At some point I really need to study quantum mechanics, it seems like the field is starting to really be on the verge of some pretty spectacular breakthroughs. I try to read journal articles on it and such but I find myself quickly getting lost and completely unable to differentiate between those spouting complete bullshit and those with serious knowledge/plausible theories. I might have to go audit a few classes or something to give myself the motivation to sit and focus on the subject.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: At

Beyond Saving wrote:

 At some point I really need to study quantum mechanics, it seems like the field is starting to really be on the verge of some pretty spectacular breakthroughs. I try to read journal articles on it and such but I find myself quickly getting lost and completely unable to differentiate between those spouting complete bullshit and those with serious knowledge/plausible theories. I might have to go audit a few classes or something to give myself the motivation to sit and focus on the subject.  

Here is the way I look at it. QM as a science did not start in a vacuum. I learned fractions a a long time ago, but if you put one in front of me now, unless it was really simple, I'd be lost.

But just like you don't have to know how to build a car engine to know how to drive it, or understand the concept of a combustion engine. Method itself is an tool, not a feild. And the concept of scientific method is easy to understand, it is what everything grade school science to QM is based on. Simple obsersvation, collection of data, control groups, established formula, and independant peer review.

Without knowing much about QM other than it is an advancement of all prior iron clad science, it has a sold foundation compaired to supurstition, which has none. Just like I can't build a car, but damned well know that even though I cant build one, no car will ever run on pixie dust. I still know that the simple mechanics, gas(combustion of gas forcing the pistons in motion, turning the crank shaft, then the wheels). Electric(energy stored in a battery cell, becomming the same force turning the wheels).

QM will never be, no matter what fantastic things we discover with it, a venture based on superstition.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:In all this

Brian37 wrote:
In all this scientific unknown, when you post stuff like this, which has nothing to do with superstition or god/s, there is going to be some retrofitting moron who will see this and go "see see see" this proves my god is a possible cause.

Probably. But since it equally leaves open a window for the universe to be its own cause, I don't see a problem.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Brian37

Vastet wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
In all this scientific unknown, when you post stuff like this, which has nothing to do with superstition or god/s, there is going to be some retrofitting moron who will see this and go "see see see" this proves my god is a possible cause.
Probably. But since it equally leaves open a window for the universe to be its own cause, I don't see a problem.

I don't see natural law ever being replaced with the super natural. There is simply the known and unknown, but our history of discovery is consistent when we find an answer that answer is always natural.

I don't see superstion ever competing with science in a lab, so in that context I agree it isn't a problem. But we are not talking about rational people who go where the evidence leads, supertitious people always look to make information suit their superstitions. In that context it is a problem because it fucks up the very credible tool of scientific method.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Another Damn you HG!

The apparent problem arises because we assume there is a time sequence but there is no time in quantum phenomena.

Try it another way. Time appears wired into our heads by language. Every bit of evidence I have ever come across points to language and language alone. It is useful. It appears to be able to make rational projections in the macro world. We can even do a David (and Lisa) of regularity using certain very strictly controlled natural phenomena as in atomic clocks.

But anyone who has looked into language knows of its incredible imprecision such that when we talk to others communicating depends upon having shared imprecisions.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
space-time v∞.0

Vastet wrote:
One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in "Nature Communications". Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature, the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum computing. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/uov-qcr100212.php I suspect it would have profound impact on much more than just quantum studies.

But the authors use this concept for another reason, because it may suggest that "space-time may emerge from a more fundamental structure in a quantum-to-classical transition".