Causeless events

[Third Eye Open]

I've heard talk that the big bang may have been acausal. I've also heard that some quantum events appear to have no cause, and I suppose that at the beginning of the universe, it would have been small enough to be on the quantum level.

Can anyone give me some examples of causeless events, in simple terms?

 

[athon]

The rules of physics as we currently observe them break down in the environment from which the big bang proceeded. That doesn't mean it was necessarily without a cause, but rather we're blind to even speculate with confidence what that cause might be.

While there are plenty of events without known causes, I don't know of any event where it is possible to prove that no cause was responsible.

Athon

 

[drkitten]

I've heard talk that the big bang may have been acausal. I've also heard that some quantum events appear to have no cause, and I suppose that at the beginning of the universe, it would have been small enough to be on the quantum level.

Can anyone give me some examples of causeless events, in simple terms?

I don't think that anyone has a theory that accounts for which atom in a block of uranium will be "caused" to decay next. In that sense, most quantum-level events are acausal to the best of our knowledge (and the EPR equations suggest that they are actually acausal in fact; no local hidden causes).

 

[drkitten]

While there are plenty of events without known causes, I don't know of any event where it is possible to prove that no cause was responsible.

How do you interpret the EPR findings of "no local variables" underlying quantum entanglement? Are you on the side of the "there's a cause, but it's non-local" interpretation, or are you simply pointing out that science isn't very good at proving the non-existence of black swans and teapots orbiting Mars?

 

[athon]

How do you interpret the EPR findings of "no local variables" underlying quantum entanglement? Are you on the side of the "there's a cause, but it's non-local" interpretation, or are you simply pointing out that science isn't very good at proving the non-existence of black swans and teapots orbiting Mars?

Yeah, it occurred to me while writing the response that maybe quantum uncertainty could be evidence of 'no cause'. Yet as you then point out, I have trouble making assertions of there being no cause simply because we describe it as random. I'm happier simply saying 'we can't describe the cause' and leave it at that.

Now, all that said, I don't have a good grasp of the maths underpinning the uncertainty principles. My aversion to stating categorically that there is no cause to the timing of a particle's decay vs we cannot describe an underlying cause of the timing of a particle's decay arises from my understanding of science.

As with all things, I'm happy to have demonstrated where my understanding falls short.

Athon

 

[sol invictus]

How do you interpret the EPR findings of "no local variables" underlying quantum entanglement? Are you on the side of the "there's a cause, but it's non-local" interpretation, or are you simply pointing out that science isn't very good at proving the non-existence of black swans and teapots orbiting Mars?

Depending on precisely how you define it, neither nonlocality nor acausality is necessary to explain EPR (or anything else in QM). The wavefunction evolves according to a totally deterministic equation (the Schrodinger equation), and measurement (the only place where acausality might play a role) is merely the smooth but rapid collapse and decoherence of the wavefunction to a state where it is peaked around |device measured A and system is in state A> + |device measured B and system is in state B> +...

 

[blutoski]

Recent article in SEED: [The Reality Tests]

One goal of these experiments is to further test for causality.

 

[Soapy Sam]

There's the question of why I was in the kitchen a couple of minutes ago.
I presume there was a reason, but I'm damned if I know what it was.

 

[TMiguel]

Now here is a tricky subject. How do you know?
Why should it have no cause?
If there is a why there is a cause. If there is no why then how can you tell?
Your failure to find a cause doesn’t mean that a smarter one couldn’t come along and do it instead.

So No, if you give an example, such example is automatically wrong.

 

[blutoski]

Now here is a tricky subject. How do you know?
Why should it have no cause?

Related question: Why should it have a cause?

If there is a why there is a cause. If there is no why then how can you tell?
Your failure to find a cause doesn’t mean that a smarter one couldn’t come along and do it instead.

So No, if you give an example, such example is automatically wrong.

I think there's a language barrier here. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Einstein didn't like acausality either. He spent the rest of his life trying to locate hidden causes for events that were predicted by quantum mechanics to be acuausal and had been frustratingly shown to probably be so through experiment. Thus his famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe."

Max Born would respond to Einstein with, "Don't tell God how to run the universe."

 

[TMiguel]

Related question: Why should it have a cause?






I think there's a language barrier here. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Einstein didn't like acausality either. He spent the rest of his life trying to locate hidden causes for events that were predicted by quantum mechanics to be acuausal and had been frustratingly shown to probably be so through experiment. Thus his famous quote: "God does not play dice with the universe."

Max Born would respond to Einstein with, "Don't tell God how to run the universe."

The point is very clear. Your failure to find a cause doesn’t mean it has no cause.
You can’t do it, but maybe some one else can. That is why you can’t honestly say that there is no cause unless there is a extremely good reason for it (which there hasn’t been any as far as I can tell).

 

[blutoski]

The point is very clear. Your failure to find a cause doesn’t mean it has no cause.
You can’t do it, but maybe some one else can. That is why you can’t honestly say that there is no cause unless there is a extremely good reason for it (which there hasn’t been any as far as I can tell).

Of course it's impossible to prove a negative. Skeptics, however, tend to take the scientific approach and treat absence of evidence as evidence of absence. No bigfoot, no Loch Ness Monster, no causality. Nobel prizes for the person who shows otherwise, but right now, that's the way it is.

In any case, there are reasons to accept quantum-level acausality for all practical purposes: these quantum events are characteristics of quantum objects, and theorems show we are limited in what we can learn about them. Consequently, two objects that may very well be different in some manner cannot be distinguished by any observer, and have identical initial states for all intents and purposes. Yet, they will behave differently.

Specifically, I'm talking about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The implication from these theorems is that an underlying quantum universe appears to be unobtainable information.

ETA: The other complication for causal interpretation in post-Newtonian physics is the recognition that the time variable is not necessarily unidirectional. Consequently, causes could be in the future and therefore impossible to detect. eg: positron particle production could be annihilation of an electron traveling from the future.

 

[TMiguel]

Of course we all tend to be dismissive at first hand about UFO’s, bigfoot or whatever, because we honestly all know that it is a bunch of BS, even if we don’t dismiss it that way there are simply very good reasons to about it.

But when it comes on making real science, you have to be very careful on making such statements, and I bet there has been are very good examples on why you shouldn’t do it at all (despite being just directly bad science).
If for instance we where missing a concept such has entropy, we couldn’t explain why a state of a particular system should evolve in one way and not in any of the others possible solution, and it all would seam rather probabilistic and causeless. How do you know you are not missing a very important deterministic piece in quantum physics?

 

[blutoski]

Of course we all tend to be dismissive at first hand about UFO’s, bigfoot or whatever, because we honestly all know that it is a bunch of BS, even if we don’t dismiss it that way there are simply very good reasons to about it.

But when it comes on making real science, you have to be very careful on making such statements, and I bet there has been are very good examples on why you shouldn’t do it at all (despite being just directly bad science).
If for instance we where missing a concept such has entropy, we couldn’t explain why a state of a particular system should evolve in one way and not in any of the others possible solution, and it all would seam rather probabilistic and causeless. How do you know you are not missing a very important deterministic piece in quantum physics?

We don't. For the same reason we don't know if you're wrong about entropy. Maybe there's a missing piece. But since acausality is part of a model that is perfectly good at explaining what's happening, why are you bent out of shape about it?

 

[blutoski]

Of course we all tend to be dismissive at first hand about UFO’s, bigfoot or whatever, because we honestly all know that it is a bunch of BS, even if we don’t dismiss it that way there are simply very good reasons to about it.

"All"?

My point was that your reasoning - that lack of evidence shouldn't be interpreted as nonexistence - is unsound. It either applies to everything or it applies to nothing. What you're saying above is known as a logical fallacy of special pleading.

We don't dismiss Bigfoot "just because." The skeptics' rejection is a conclusion derived from the fact that it contradicts what we expect based on what we know, bolstered by a lack of evidence and the failure to find evidence when sought. The rejection of quantum causality is derived from the fact that it contradicts what we expect based on what we know, bolstered by a lack of evidence and the failure to find evidence when sought.

 

[TMiguel]

We don't. For the same reason we don't know if you're wrong about entropy. Maybe there's a missing piece. But since acausality is part of a model that is perfectly good at explaining what's happening, why are you bent out of shape about it?

Quantum physics is not my field of expertise, but by the look of it appears to me that it is something incomplete rather then complete but causeless. I personally don’t know enough if there is a necessary implication that tells that it must be random and causeless rather then just undetermined. I don’t see how you go around and prove that, or even make a good mathematical base for it, but then again I personally don’t know enough about itand so I will not make a deterministic statement on that.

 

[sol invictus]

Maybe there's a missing piece. But since acausality is part of a model that is perfectly good at explaining what's happening, why are you bent out of shape about it?

Acausality is not part of the model - it's added in by hand in a completely ad hoc way (if you don't believe me, try to define "measurement"). There is a perfectly good interpretation of QM - the so-called Many Worlds interpretation - which fits the experimental data just as well and is completely causal in a very precise sense (namely, all the physics follows from initial conditions and a set of differential equations).

 

[GreyICE]

Quantum physics is not my field of expertise, but by the look of it appears to me that it is something incomplete rather then complete but causeless. I personally don’t know enough if there is a necessary implication that tells that it must be random and causeless rather then just undetermined. I don’t see how you go around and prove that, or even make a good mathematical base for it, but then again I personally don’t know enough about itand so I will not make a deterministic statement on that.

Ah, the hidden variables theorem rears its head again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories

 

[TMiguel]

Ah, the hidden variables theorem rears its head again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories

Well one thing is for sure, they are not capable of coming to a consensus whit anything on this matter. Oh well we have to content whit sort of might be or not because we currently have nothing better.

 

[sol invictus]

Ah, the hidden variables theorem rears its head again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theories

As usual I have no idea what TMiguel is talking about, but hidden variables are not necessary in order to interpret QM as causal. Like I said, the evolution of the wavefunction is completely deterministic, and in the interpretation that (probably) most physicists accept today that's all there is - there's no need to any extra "measurement" postulate.