I just got off the phone with Stephen Hawking, and he told me he's never heard of you. :)

As to the rest of your post, I could just as well say that if one were to remove Jesus from Christianity, it too would 'fall apart'.

Too, you're not the first Religionist on the Internet to use Appeals to Ignorance in an attempt to neturalize what you percieve as a threat to your faith from science.

Extra credit research: Achimedes Plutonium.


-Kerry O.

Bomb The Big Bang!

Well of course it does.

Now what is your point exactly?

Not being an expert in the area, I could be way off base here. But it seems to me that the basic problem with this entire particle/wave “cause and effect” anomaly is that it ultimately leads to a deterministic paradox – “the effect is its own cause.” If so, wouldn’t that tend to discredit the entire concept of determinism, and thus the very foundation of the physical sciences?

Well this is a rather interesting conundrum.

Quantum mechanics does away with cause and affect and introduces pure random posiblities. The future of the universe is ill-defined in the sense of determinism.

This is actually a good thing.

If the future were already determined we'd have no free will at all. We'd be like pictures on a movie screen where we have no choice on how the movie is going to unfold.

On some very basic level that universe must be indeterminate (if we wish to believe that we have free will).

So that denies cause and effect right there.

That does not deny cause and effect. How would you think it does?

There are so many variables that the reason the effect can't be determined with any degree of efficiency (where events and outcomes are concerned) is because there is usually multiple causes at work in the course of each event.

What you do have are probabilities. If this and this happen, then this might happen. But if only this happens, then this may happen in a different way. All of this depends upon every measure of cause introduced into the event.

It is way too varied and complicated to predict outcomes with certainty, but outcomes can be predicted within the parameters of degrees of probabilities for certain outcomes.

Like the straw that breaks the camels back, it could be a very small thing that changes the outcome of an event. Small down to the quantum level. A single thought could change the course of history.... or not.

Sometimes an event has so much cause behind it, the probable outcome could be 90% or 99% and it may be difficult to change no matter what you do.

jb

Skyhook said:

Abracadabra said:

Jeanniebean said:
You’ve both skitted around the edges of what seems obvious to me….

If science is, in fact, looking for “prime cause”, then I think it has finally found its Waterloo in QM. It cannot go any farther with determinism. It must postulate some extra-physical determinant or forfeit it’s entire reason for being.

So what would be a better extra-physical agent than the one thing that is, by definition, indeterminant?

Duh!

Trying to find the next big thing is not going to happen from rationalizing from our (mine and yours) current understanding.

Scientists have spent 100 years and learned alot, but are still looking for the next big thing. Sadly we are out of the age that philosophers that do not specialize in the science can work out theories at the cutting edge.

Dont feel bad. I dont, It takes 6-8 years to educate about the basics of what we know now . . . . scientists like Nobel Laurette Stephen Wienburg have been learning cutting edge stuff every year for the last 30 and still feel behind.

A lay person like you or me is not going to riddle this one out im afraid, but I really jam on the ideas and where it seems to lead many times.

But remember that a lot of the paths we take could turn out to be mirages that you cannot see for what they are until you are trained to see them.

But again great and very interesting ideas!

Well one can only hope that one day they'll get their heads out of their ... trees so they can see the forest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s&feature=rec-fresh

Q tunneling, fun stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&NR=1

Ahh Doctor Quantum, I wish i had this guy when i was a kid.

The next big thing? I'm not sure what you mean, but I agree that our current understanding is not enough to know much of anything. But that is all we have for now.

I believe imagination rules the world.

Ditto!

Thank you to all who have been participating in this thread...

James,in response to yours...



Definitely at the atomic and sub-atomic levels the world looks much like the way QM describes it, but QM does not hold true at the macro-world's level. The displayed behaviour of particles or waves completely depends upon the experiments that are performed. There are experiments which have proven both beyond a reasonable doubt.



Here your attempt at intermingling Einstein's Relativity with QM causes issues all by itself, and as you already know, they are not compatible at that sub-atomic level.



Only if you believe that interpretation. QM does not include spacetime, does it???



I am becoming very familiar with the double-slit interference experiments, indeed the results are peculiar...


THE CAUSE of the collapse of the wave function is at the very heart of the incompleteness of the theory, is it not???



I am not quite following you here, James... Are you suggesting that particles do not interact with one another unless they are being observed?

I am not sure which interpretation you are using to base this statement on...



It again seems to me that should we find something that dismisses the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then we would have just gained knowledge, and lost all that Einstein did. It would not at all dismiss cause and effect. The only issue that we have with cause and effect concerning QM is the fact that we do not know what causes the state vector collapse, and we have no idea how we can come up with so many different answers for the exact location of atomic particles by performing nearly the exact same test.


The explanations of multiple universes do not hold water to me, neither does string theory's attempt at explaning it's strings as gravitons...

I will be back later...

Thank you all again!

Cheers!

How can different levels of probabilities even exist without cause for their existence at different levels???

Just a thought.

This thread has been a very interesting read for me. I have nothing to contribute though of any substance so I am just letting everyone know I am appreciating their efforts here.

I'm totally with you 100% on this point. I've argued this for years. If quantum phenomenon has such precise probability patterns, to me that suggests an underlying 'structure' and structure implies well-defined 'cause'.

This is a huge of a conundrum in itself. Owl come back to this at the end of the post. First let me address some of your other comments:



Well, according to QM it does hold true at the macro-world's level. It's just that Planck's constant is so small that the probabilities of quantum behavior showing up are extremely small. So it's not that it isn't there. It's just undetectable.

I think any experiment could be run to prove otherwise. For one thing we know that the real world is not perfect. Go into a lab and run a serious of experiments. What will you find? Well, if you do enough of them you'll find that some of them give totally erroneous results. We call those results 'outliers'. We just accept that something must have gone wrong during the experiment, but we can't say what it was that actually went wrong.

Well, maybe it was due to quantum effects? Who can say otherwise?



Well I wasn't really thinking about Einstein's Relativity (although I guess I implied that, by using the term 'spacetime'). QM does use the concepts of space (i.e. location) and time. And they also take into consideration the effects of time dilation due to extreme velocities. So they are considering Special Relativity in QM. It's only the General Relativity (or gravity) that is being ignored.




Well, like I already stated. QM most certainly uses concept of space (location) and time. They just aren't fully incorporating GR.

This does bring to light an interesting question. If according to GR time and space are an inseparable whole, and QM is still treating them as entirely separate entities this does bring up some interesting questions.

Does the wholeness of spacetime break down at the quantum level? I tend to believe that it does. Although time dilation is still going on at the quantum level which suggests that GR is still in effect. So that's also an interesting conundrum.



It's not so much the 'cause' of the collapse, but rather how the collapse itself takes place seemingly faster than the speed of light. I think the real heart of the problem has to do with the faster-than-light nature of the collapse itself.

Although, we can't seem to pinpoint the precise 'cause' either. In other words, we can't predict where the wave function will collapse precisely. We can only give probabilities. Then if we do the experiment enough times we see those probabilities unfold before our very eyes FOR NO APPARENT REASON!

What QM is saying is that the reason can never be predetermined!

It's basically saying that the universe itself doesn't 'know'.

In other words, there is no experiment that can be done to ask the universe because the universe itself doesn't know! Even God doesn't know the future!

That's what QM is saying.



Actually the very term "measurement" is misleading in physics. Any interaction in the universe is an 'measurement' whether it was observed by a conscious being or not.

Or to put that another way, a 'measurement' is nothing more than an observation of an interaction.

I might add here also, that this is actually quite significant. QM addressed the collapse of wave functions. That's basically what it is addressing. Well wave functions only 'collapse' when they interact with standing waves (particles). So all of QM is truly nothing more than the study of the interaction of standing waves with free waves.

So much of the 'quantum nature' of energy exchange has to do with the nature of the standing wave (much more than it has to do with the free waves).

At least his has always been my personal view. The quantum nature does not arise from the waves themselves, but from the stand wave configurations.

This is a deep topic in its own right as it has many implications.



I think you oversimplify here tremendously.

First, YES, finding something that dismisses the idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light would be crucial, and quite enlightening.

However, this would not destroy what Einstein did. Einstein only states that traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible within his spacetime as described by GR. His theory does not forbid faster-than-light travel outside of the his spacetime fabric.

In fact, cosmologists already accept that the universe has expanded faster than the speed of light (Inflation Theory), but this does not violate Einstein's GR because this was the expansion of the fabric of spacetime itself. There is nothing in GR that forbids that. GR only states that nothing can travel through spacetime faster than the speed of light.

Even wormholes allow for 'faster-than-light' travel between points within the spacetime fabric. Although the actual speed of the traveler relative to his immediate surrounding within the wormhole did not need to exceed the speed of light. That whole concept is based on a warping of the spacetime continuum.

Now, if you could come up with a field that exists 'outside' of spacetime, but can still interact with spacetime, then you can have faster-than-light communications without violating GR. In fact, many proposals along these lines have already been suggested. See "pilot waves".

However, you'd be wrong about the idea that this would 'preserve' cause and effect. The reason it doesn't preserve 'cause and effect' is because once it is permissible to communicate faster-than-light, then the cause can precede the effect! In other words, it suddenly becomes impossible to determine which was the 'cause' and which was the 'effect'. In fact, depending on the observers both can be true 'simultaneously'.

Of course to even speak about 'simultaneity' becomes an oxymoron because then we need to ask who's experience of 'simultaneity' are we taking about?

It can truly lead to craziness.

In any case, is it truly desirable to reinstate 'cause and effect'?

If 'cause and effect' are the true workings of the universe, then free will goes out the window. Nothing could be done that isn't caused. And therefore no true original thoughts would be possible.

So quantum randomness is actually inviting, I think, because it opens up the door to genuine free will. A firmly established 'cause and effect' universe totally denies any free will at all. All effects could only be actuated by a previous cause then. That would ultimately mean that everything was predetermined at the Big Bang (or maybe even before that!) And therefore there can be no free will.

How could you have free will if everything you do is only an effect of a previous cause? At what point could you 'jump in' and change that chain of 'cause and effect' and if you did, then who the hell were you? You must have been something OUTSIDE of the system.

That, of course, could be very true! It could be that the physical universe is a self-automated system, but we are not merely biological robots within that system. Instead we are spirits who possess bodies within that system. Then we could be the 'cause' of our own free will.

But then you've taken a giant quantum leap from pure science into pure spirituality without proof.

Note: I was going to discuss more about the patterns of probabilities, as I had stated at the onset of this post. But alas I'm too tired right now. Maybe another time.

The Higgs-Bosun particle is the key to ascending to the higher density levels.

How about this analogy.

1. there is the machine (The universal mind stuff is the computer.)
2. there is the program (This holographic reality, ~the Matrix or program.)
3 there are the end users or game players. (Us)
4. there are the programer(s) (The creators of the program/game)

We determine the outcome of events. Events come in many levels, perhaps an infinite number. Personal, game related, and universal for example, and many many others.

While a person (player) might learn a certain amount of control over his personal life and reality within the game, he might not be able to "save the world" from its own destruction if it is headed that way. But he may be able to influence a multitude of other people to help him change the course of events enough to guide the game to a certain outcome.

There all levels of players. The power players have the most control over world events and the game overall.

This complicated program is self propagating and a learning program that grows and changes according to input by conscious players but the rules of the game are automatic like a computer program.

The law of cause and effect most of the game works automatically. That is not to say there are not those who know how to get around those laws, and even the laws of physics, but generally the players do not know how and are not allowed.

Then there are the watchers of the game. They are the controllers and the judges who make sure the rules are not broken.

jb

I know this much about quantum mechanics….they are rude and obnoxious and poor judges of character.

I told one of them that

THE ANGLE OF MY DANGEL IS EQUAL TO THE MOTION OF THE LOTION ON THE TIP OF MY WICK.


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Well, the bottom line is that science is still making progress.

Why quit when the train is still moving?

They may not be making apparent progress in QM per say, but they are definitely making progress in other areas, such as the study of Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

Not to mention that there are bound to be surprises springing from the LHC experiments.

In fact, if there are no surprises, that would even indicate that our current theories are right on the money.

No surprises = seeing what we predict

In other words, what are you suggesting that science should do?

Just toss up their hands and say, "Ok it's all magic"?

I'm sure that even if they came to that conclusion they'd want to keep moving forward. They'd just want to exlain how the magic works.

In fact, isn't that truly what science has always been? Nothing more than an explanation of how the magic works?

I think if they move on to some kind of new postulate it's not going to destroy what they've already done (just like Einstein's Special Relativity didn't truly destroy all of Classical Mechanics). It just showed us that there was more to it than we had originally thought.

I think that's the way that QM will be solved. Nothing is going to destroy Einstein's General Relativity completely. We have already witnessed that time dilation does indeed occur!

The universe can't very well change it's behavior midstream just to fit a new theory.

I think any discovery in quantum mechanics would be like the sudden discovery that there is a large catacomb of tunnels beneath a great metropolis. It's not going to change the metropolis, but it might change the way people get from place to place within the metropolis.

At least we have a problem to solve!

In other words, we found the great catacombs, now how do we enter them?

What's the magic word to open the doorway?