The Law of Cause and Effect.

[blü 2]

Skwim

You may be familiar with Bell's theorem, which comes down on the side of the Copenhagen interpretation against EPR. It supports the view that some events in quantum theory have no cause, as distinct from no known cause.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim

You may be familiar with Bell's theorem, which comes down on the side of the Copenhagen interpretation against EPR. It supports the view that some events in quantum theory have no cause, as distinct from no known cause.

I'm real tempted to just say, "No it doesn't," but decided to listen to your explanation.

So, just how does Bell's theorem support the view that some quantum events are uncaused?

.

 

[blü 2]

Skwim

The emission of particles in the course of radioactive decay can only be described statistically, and there is no description of any sequence of cause&effect (classical physics) of the emission of any particular particle.

I was thinking this entailed the same 'hidden variables' as EPR, hence Bell's theorem.

Now you put it to me, I'm uncertain whether that's correct.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm real tempted to just say, "No it doesn't," but decided to listen to your explanation.

So, just how does Bell's theorem support the view that some quantum events are uncaused?

.

And this is part of why I started this thread. What does it mean to be 'caused'?

In radioactivity, we can say that the instability of the nucleus is 'caused by' the number of protons and neutrons. But the exact time of the decay and often the nature of the decay has no preceding event that 'causes' them. There is literally nothing different between a Co-60 nucleus that decays right now versus one that decays tomorrow versus one that decays in 10 years.

So, in what sense is the decay 'caused'? I would like a definition of the word 'cause' that applies to this situation.

 

[Polymath257]

Skwim

The emission of particles in the course of radioactive decay can only be described statistically, and there is no description of any sequence of cause&effect (classical physics) of the emission of any particular particle.

I was thinking this entailed the same 'hidden variables' as EPR, hence Bell's theorem.

Now you put it to me, I'm uncertain whether that's correct.

No, it is a different thing than in Bell's theorem. For one thing, there is no entanglement with another particle.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

There is a principle of causality in physics, but ultimately E=mc^2 describes a relationship not a cause and effect.

Mass-energy equivalence is certainly a relationship, but every experiment or technology based on it incurs a cause-and-effect which is a relationship.

Once you get down to fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics does not describe a cause and effect relationship like in Newtonian physics.

Of course, there's probability in quantum mechanics which is cause-and-effect.

Cause and effect is important in verifying the predictability of theories and hypothesis where events may understood in terms of sequences of causes and effects to avoid causal paradoxes but it remains unlike Newtonian physics, the behavior at the Quantum level in not based on cause and effect like in the macro world.

Yes, but there's certainly cause-and-effect at the quantum level and definitely at the macro level.

 

[shunyadragon]

Mass-energy equivalence is certainly a relationship, but every experiment or technology based on it incurs a cause-and-effect which is a relationship.

Experiments observe and are descriptive of the cause and effect relationship from which are the basis of the falsification of the theories and hypothesis

Of course, there's probability in quantum mechanics which is cause-and-effect.

All math like probability, which estimates the frequency and pattern, is descriptive of cause and effect, and not cause and effect itself.

Yes, but there's certainly cause-and-effect at the quantum level and definitely at the macro level.

True! So what?!?!?

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

@shunyadragon,

Many falsely refer to "the randomness of quantum mechanics" when it's the probability of quantum mechanics.

 

[Skwim]

And this is part of why I started this thread. What does it mean to be 'caused'?

It means to be forced into being.

In radioactivity, we can say that the instability of the nucleus is 'caused by' the number of protons and neutrons. But the exact time of the decay and often the nature of the decay has no preceding event that 'causes' them.

This is not borne out by any evidence. Nor is it asserted. The most that is said is that it is impossible to predict. As stated in Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.​

And please note that "impossible to predict" does not mean "without cause."

"Suggestions that quantum events occur in an indeterministic, or uncaused, manner are based on ignorance of their causes. One cannot precisely predict the rate of decay of a single radioactive isotope, and this has led some to wrongly conclude that radioactive decay is therefore random in the strong sense of having no cause. Similarly flawed conclusions included assertions that the inability to simultaneously measure the position
and momentum of a particle as prohibited by HUP means that such particle behavior is uncaused, and that ignorance of aspects of particle behavior in the double-slit experiment and in entanglement means that the behavior is uncaused. While the causal mechanisms of the above phenomena are, and may forever remain, unknown, this ignorance does not justify a conclusion that they are uncaused."
source
​

There is literally nothing different between a Co-60 nucleus that decays right now versus one that decays tomorrow versus one that decays in 10 years.

That has simply not been shown to be true, and because it hasn't the default explanation is: either there is a difference within the nucleus (a difference we're unaware of) or an external difference (again, a difference we're unaware of) that causes the decay when it does.

So, in what sense is the decay 'caused'? I would like a definition of the word 'cause' that applies to this situation.

"Cause" means to force into being.

.

 

[Polymath257]

It means to be forced into being.

And what does that mean? Is the decay of a nucleus 'forced into being'? How so?


This is not borne out by any evidence. Nor is it asserted. The most that is said is that it is impossible to predict. As stated in Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[/QUOTE]


This, by the way, was the total of the Wikipedia quote.
​

The following is a quote from a different source (which talks about free will and climate change).

And please note that "impossible to predict" does not mean "without cause."

"Suggestions that quantum events occur in an indeterministic, or uncaused, manner are based on ignorance of their causes. One cannot precisely predict the rate of decay of a single radioactive isotope, and this has led some to wrongly conclude that radioactive decay is therefore random in the strong sense of having no cause. Similarly flawed conclusions included assertions that the inability to simultaneously measure the position
and momentum of a particle as prohibited by HUP means that such particle behavior is uncaused, and that ignorance of aspects of particle behavior in the double-slit experiment and in entanglement means that the behavior is uncaused. While the causal mechanisms of the above phenomena are, and may forever remain, unknown, this ignorance does not justify a conclusion that they are uncaused."
source
​

That has simply not been shown to be true, and because it hasn't the default explanation is: either there is a difference within the nucleus (a difference we're unaware of) or an external difference (again, a difference we're unaware of) that causes the decay when it does.

"Cause" means to force into being.
.

This is a statement of faith and not a statement of science. In fact, quantum mechanics does NOT have any differences between the nuclei and there is no evidence for such a difference (either in the nuclei or in the environment). The side of ignorance is that that assumes that causality must always be the case in spite of a perfectly good description of the physical situation that is non-causal. And I want to emphasize that QM is the best description of the universe we have ever had: it has been tested extensively and has never been seen to fail (certain sub-assumptions have been, but not the over-arching theory).


Many people assume that the type of statistical behavior observed in quantum systems is like that of a pair of dice: it *appears* random, but actually has hidden variables that determine what will happen. This is *known* to not be the case in some (and probably all) quantum mechanical systems. That is one of the things that Bell's theorem (and the associated observations of real situations) tells us. To the extent it is possible to show something is truly random, this has been done for certain quantum systems.

Nothing is 'forcing' the nucleus to decay at a particular time. From *everything* we know, it really is random in the strong sense. Any claim otherwise needs, at this point, to provide a cause.

And no, in a quantum system, it is *not* the default to think there is a difference internally or externally. In fact, the decay of fundamental particles is just as random as that for nuclei.

 

[Polymath257]

Mass-energy equivalence is certainly a relationship, but every experiment or technology based on it incurs a cause-and-effect which is a relationship.

Of course, there's probability in quantum mechanics which is cause-and-effect.

Yes, but there's certainly cause-and-effect at the quantum level and definitely at the macro level.

Please describe the causality of, say, a muon decay.

 

[Skwim]

And what does that mean? Is the decay of a nucleus 'forced into being'?

Yes. It is caused.

How so?

Nobody knows, and just because they don't doesn't mean it isn't so.

This is not borne out by any evidence. Nor is it asserted. The most that is said is that it is impossible to predict. As stated in Wikipedia

"Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.

This, by the way, was the total of the Wikipedia quote.​

????????????
​

The following is a quote from a different source (which talks about free will and climate change).

This is a statement of faith and not a statement of science. In fact, quantum mechanics does NOT have any differences between the nuclei and there is no evidence for such a difference (either in the nuclei or in the environment). The side of ignorance is that that assumes that causality must always be the case in spite of a perfectly good description of the physical situation that is non-causal. And I want to emphasize that QM is the best description of the universe we have ever had: it has been tested extensively and has never been seen to fail (certain sub-assumptions have been, but not the over-arching theory).

Many people assume that the type of statistical behavior observed in quantum systems is like that of a pair of dice: it *appears* random, but actually has hidden variables that determine what will happen. This is *known* to not be the case in some (and probably all) quantum mechanical systems. That is one of the things that Bell's theorem (and the associated observations of real situations) tells us. To the extent it is possible to show something is truly random, this has been done for certain quantum systems.

Nothing is 'forcing' the nucleus to decay at a particular time. From *everything* we know, it really is random in the strong sense. Any claim otherwise needs, at this point, to provide a cause.

And no, in a quantum system, it is *not* the default to think there is a difference internally or externally. In fact, the decay of fundamental particles is just as random as that for nuclei.

Sorry, but I can't tell if this is entirely a quote from a different source, partly a quote from some from a different source, or none of it is a quote from anywhere.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. It is caused.

The science says otherwise. On what do you base your view?

Nobody knows, and just because they don't doesn't mean it isn't so.

And your belief that there is a cause doesn't mean there is. In fact, the best description we have, quantum mechanics, has no 'cause' for the timing of a decay. ALL it has is a probability of decay in a given time period.

Sorry,

but I can't tell if this is entirely a quote from a different source, partly a quote from some from a different source, or none of it is a quote from anywhere.

.

I was pointing out that *you* had a quote from a different source.

 

[Curious George]

OK, let's work with a specific example, the decay of a radioactive atom.

Let's be very specific and consider the decay of tritium (hydrogen-3). Tritium has a half-life of 12.32 years. That means that whatever macroscopic sample you start with, half of it will decay in 12.32 years. In another 12.32 years, half of what remains will decay (leaving 1/4 of the original). This process happens indefinitely (well, until the last atom decays).

Now, we ask if the decay of a specific tritium atom is caused. What does that mean?

Here is what we know:
1. All tritium atoms are essentially identical: there is nothing that distinguishes those atoms that decay now, versus those that decay in 12 years, or those that decay in 100 years.

This is true both observationally and theoretically.

2. Each atom has a probability of decay in any given time period. So, for a time period of 12.32 years, the probability is .5 (which is why half of a macroscopic same will decay in that time). The probability of decay in 24.64 years (two half lives) is .75. The probability of decay in one year is .0547.

Again, the probability is a well-defined thing for tritium atoms and depends on the composition of the nucleus of that atom (one proton and two neutrons).

So, from this, is the decay of a tritium atom 'caused'? If we cannot determine by any method when it will decay, if there is no difference between the atoms that decay now and those that decay in 100 years, in what sense is the decay 'caused'? Clearly the time of the decay event is not caused.

Discuss.

Only read to page 10... but u were on so i thought i would respond here...

How do we know that the tritium has decayed at all?

 

[Polymath257]

Only read to page 10... but u were on so i thought i would respond here...

How do we know that the tritium has decayed at all?

A neutron changes into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. We can detect the electron fairly easily.

The point is that the change of the neutron to the other particles is not a caused event.

 

[shunyadragon]

And your belief that there is a cause doesn't mean there is. In fact, the best description we have, quantum mechanics, has no 'cause' for the timing of a decay. ALL it has is a probability of decay in a given time period.

There is something missing here of claims of 'faith' and impossible predictable individual events that are not meaningful.

Regardless the probability is a predictable property of radiometric decay, and in observed events in Quantum Mechanics. The science of Quantum Mechanics is descriptive like all the sciences, based observations. There are of course unknowns, and things that resit predictability, but that is simple grounds for future research and advances in science.

Defining 'cause' is problematic, except that the descriptive science of Quantum Mechanics describes events as following the underlying Laws of Nature.

Patchwork of references to justify one position or the other does not change this.

 

[Curious George]

A neutron changes into a proton, an electron, and an electron anti-neutrino. We can detect the electron fairly easily.

The point is that the change of the neutron to the other particles is not a caused event.

How can we detect anything without cause and effect?

 

[Polymath257]

How can we detect anything without cause and effect?

Depends on what you mean. In the case of radioactive decay, there are many situations where the decay is a *cause* of later events, even though the decay itself is not caused. So, we detect the effects of the decay.

This is one way that we can have an 'uncaused cause' with no religious implications.

 

[shunyadragon]

How can we detect anything without cause and effect?

We detect the effects, and and develop the descriptive science of Quantum Mechanics based on predictability and probability of the observations. The only causal relationship is that there are underlying laws of nature. that determines the outcome.

 

[Polymath257]

There is something missing here of claims of 'faith' and impossible predictable individual events that are not meaningful.

Regardless the probability is a predictable property of radiometric decay, and in observed events in Quantum Mechanics. The science of Quantum Mechanics is descriptive like all the sciences, based observations. There are of course unknowns, and things that resit predictability, but that is simple grounds for future research and advances in science.

Defining 'cause' is problematic, except that the descriptive science of Quantum Mechanics describes events as following the underlying Laws of Nature.

Patchwork of references to justify one position or the other does not change this.

Well, causality in classical physics is fairly straightforward and does agree with the the intuitions. In this setting, we can say one event 'causes' another if the laws of nature, taking the first as an initial condition, inevitably lead to the second at a later time. So, event A causing event B requires both the action of a natural law and an interval of time.

In quantum mechanics, the laws of nature do NOT determine the subsequent development of most systems. So even if the initial conditions are perfectly understood, there is no way, even in thoery, to predict the subsequent events.