Causality Violation

[Maddad]

One definition of causality says that a cause must come before any effect that produced that effect. That sounds reasonable, but must we take it as a law of physics? <br /><br />We think of certain rules as laws because we see them followed in every example without exception. In science, we always leave ourselves wiggle room by saying that should we find an example that does not follow the rule, then that rule is no longer a law. One example would be the conservation of matter and energy. In all cases we see an equality bound by the most famous of all formulas, E=mc². If we lose matter in a reaction, we gain an equivalent amount of energy. If we lose energy, then we gain that much matter. We know of no examples that do not follow this rule, so we say that the conservation of matter and energy is a law. <br /><br />Much more intuitively though than Einstein's equivalency of matter and energy is the idea that a cause comes before its effect. We do not see the football sail through the goal post first, and then see the place kicker swing his leg. All cases that we think of follow this rule, so we call causality a law. Is it though? <br /><br />How do we know that the kick came first and then the field goal? We know it because we saw it happen that way; it is the way that we perceived the events. Why did we perceive them that way though? The very nature of time as we normally think about it gives us that order to our perceptions. <br /><br />What would happen if we found an example in which an effect came first, and then the cause of it came second? Would causality no longer be a law, or should we instead say that we did not see the violation? Can anyone here think of such an example?

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="yellow">Can anyone here think of such an example?</font><br /><br />How about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity? If you traveled to Pluto faster than the speed of light, you'd make it there before you even left, violating the principle of causality. Hence, we believe that super-luminal speed is impossible.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bowlofpetunias]

Thiotimoline.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If you traveled to Pluto faster than the speed of light, you'd make it there before you even left, violating the principle of causality.</font><br /><br />Going somewhere does not cause you to leave it. You can always leave somewhere first (like your birthplace) and come back.<br /><br />Cause: Travelling faster than the speed of light<br />Effect: Making to destination B before leaving Departure Point A. ???

 

[alokmohan]

Here also we have law of casuality valid.But if future travel is possible then casuality is violated.At least we know future before hand.

 

[centsworth_II]

Quantum entanglement. Close but no cigar?<br /><br />When the spin value of one particle is determined, this <b>causes</b> the spin of the its partner, which may be light years away, to manifest. This cause/effect is really at the same time, but given the limitation of information travel to the speed of light, this is as mysterious as if the effect came before the cause.<br /><br />I guess experiments based on Bell's Theorem demonstrate this effect. Whether any of them show cause before effect, I don't know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

jcdenton<br />"<font color="yellow">If you traveled to Pluto faster than the speed of light, you'd make it there before you even left, violating the principle of causality.</font><br />You're only half-way to a causality violation. You haven't violated it yet because you're mixing two different frames of reference; the stationary observer on Earth and the spaceship traveler. However, consider what would happen if the spaceship traveler had an FTL radio. Could you get a causality violation out of that?<br /><br />Centsworth<br />I see entanglement as cause and effect being simultaneous.<br /><br />In determining the order in which events occur, you have to first compensate for their distance apart. If I see a star that is 100 light-years away go nova, I know that it is not happening now; it really happened a century ago because it took that long for the light to reach us. If next year I see a star that 1,000 light-years go nova, then I know that this event transpired first, even though I saw the other one first.

 

[alkalin]

Maybe I’m peculiar, but the big bang comes to my mind, that space and time ‘came’ forth, then we say the event ‘caused’ our reality. Mathematicians certainly like to feel this is the beginnings of ‘space’ and ‘time’, yet do not consider causality. Any other speculation is that God ‘caused’ the event of the big bang in the first place of imagination.<br /> <br />Fist cause is still running around us as wabbit hunters in the form of speculation, of course. ‘Reality’ is certainly more than the space/time restraints we add as mathematicians. There are matter and signal that are also important, but currently ignored because no one can put all this into any one simple equation.<br /><br />We should not ignore that there is a first cause to God. We do not know this first cause because God does not reveal it to us. Therefor right now we might be in the dark side of imaginings in this area. Given a lot more generations of thinkers, maybe we might come a little closer to these answers.<br /><br />I feel the human mind is a product of biological evolution that reveals the animal senses we have and has far more to go before we start to comprehend ‘other’ energy universes. Some of us might know a little, but yet are not sufficiently equipped. <br /><br />But do not think for a minute that math makes a connection to all reality. It does not and cannot because concepts such as time are not even closely captured in a dimension such as what space is thought to be, yet we try to stuff time in there anyway. Time is a separate entity and should be thought about in that way.<br /><br />Yet we delude ourselves into thinking we have answers for everything. Look at the Copenhagen convention, that when you look at something, it now makes it real!!!!! Come again??? <br /><br />When you apply a statistical equation to some particle, should it perform accordingly? This is where we are stuck because of mathematically accepted conditions of reality. <br /><br />Did you not comprehend that i

 

[Maddad]

alkalin<br />"<font color="yellow">We should not ignore that there is a first cause to God.</font><br /><br />I just changed my signature line two minutes ago.

 

[kmarinas86]

If another dimension outside of space-time was completely seperated from ours, to travel to it would require an indefinite time period and cover an indefinite distance. Does such a indefinite time period and indefinte distance make sense? Is it possible for a particle to be without time and location? Is it possible for this particle's constitutent properties and constructs be without time and location? If the particle's constitutent properties and constructs do not have locations, then, like from a balloon and it's particles, the particle would not have a definite size. If the particles exist outside of space time, then they were never formed. Could a particle not have a size neither 0, infinity, or anything else? All the dimensions we know of today are relative to each other, so how would we understand a dimension that is not connected with any of ours? The only way to escape the Universe, in my opinion, is to die completely <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[Maddad]

Do you have to invoke another dimension, or can you get an effect before a cause within a single frame of reference in the known dimensions?

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Do you have to invoke another dimension, or can you get an effect before a cause within a single frame of reference in the known dimensions?</font><br /><br />I don't believe in the other "7 dimensions" that have been proposed. I do not believe in "invoking" another dimension. And I do not believe that the causality principle is violable. The Cause and Effect is simply summarized as "for every reaction there is a equal and opposite reaction." I believe that Newton's statement of the third law is unviolable for all purposes.

 

[Maddad]

Causality is a spot different than Newton's Third law. It just says that the cause must come first.

 

[kmarinas86]

eh i know... but i've haven't read much about time-travelling quantum so it seemed weird to me... anywayz

 

[alkalin]

When space and time began can be put in a simple math format of beginning, as well as the matter in whatever form it was at the time. This clearly falls under effect logically. Because we have expressed something mathematically does not relieve our obligation to consider cause.<br /><br />Unless i totally missed your statment here?

 

[alokmohan]

Since we are three dimensional and space has more dimensions I am sorry...Maths can help mpre.

 

[alkalin]

Yes, I have used the empirically derived variety of math for many years in design and am quite comfortable with it. What bothers me a lot, that’s why I say maybe I’m peculiar, is that certain math concepts can be misused, such as time dilation. If math leads into illogical situations, then be cautious you do not take the math expression too seriously, or more important, use the expression improperly.<br /><br />In the notion of time dilation an object traveling away from us at near the speed of light appears to have its clock slowed, due to the Lorentz equation: <br /><br />n(1-v2/c2)1/2<br /><br />This means that whoever is looking at the other guy, it’s the other guy that has the clock slowed. Is this logical? <br /> <br />I remember that Lorentz himself admitted the equation was a short cut to the apparent slowing of other clocks due to delay in signal. Now we look in a text book and it suggests dilation of the clock? Where did that come from? Perhaps from people looking for the simplest answer they can find.<br /><br />I believe the expression is correct. Just remember its limits and how it should be applied.<br /><br />Since logically time is not a variable, then it should rightfully be expressed as the delay in signal that is the culprit. If you can think about it, it means that signal has taken time to get to us about the other clock, but especially when we are accelerating relative to the other clock will we see it slow down. This phenomenon does not happen on the other clock. It comes from the fact that signal about the other clock takes time to reach us and makes it appear that the clock is slowing!! Is this total picture correctly expressed in the Lorentz equation?? NOT.<br /> <br />We can get our own information coming back to us in the past due to signal delay. Or perhaps related to our discussion, to look back in time to very distant past. But don’t for a minute think that because some event could go back in time and be the cause of something that ma

 

[averygoodspirit]

Maddad:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> What would happen if we found an example in which an effect came first, and then the cause of it came second? Would causality no longer be a law, or should we instead say that we did not see the violation? Can anyone here think of such an example?<br /><br /><font color="white"> Yes. If you play recorded visual media in reverse you will see the effect before you see the cause. One can say, “…but that is not a true representation of what actually happened.”, but they would be wrong. From the perspective of the observer, it is exactly what happened. A knowledgeable and informed observer would reason that what they saw was something shown in reverse, but a child or an uninformed and ignorant adult would think, “Wow! How did that happen?”<br /><br />This example is a clear violation of cause and effect, but it can still happen in effect. <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">This example is a clear violation of cause and effect, but it can still happen in effect.</font><br /><br />Yes, but it is not a violation of natural law.<br /><br />This is how I see it:<br /><br />Cause: Playing tape backwards<br />Effect: You see the tape playing in reverse showing the effect (in reverse) first before the cause (in reverse)<br /><br />Causality in this case is by no means violated.

 

[Maddad]

averygoodspirit<br />The appearance of effect before cause is not the same as actual effect before cause. In the example you gave us, the cause still comes before the effect. The cause is light shining through moving film; the effect is the movie screen image moving in reverse. We have not violated actual causality.<br /><br />We still have an unexplored opportunity for an actual macroscopic causality violation using the FTL radio equipment and a spacetraveler who has traveled FTL to get to another star.

 

[averygoodspirit]

Maddad:<br /><br />You’re right, of course, but I was giving you an example of a perceived violation from the perspective of an individual observer. Perceived violations of causality, on a macro level, are magicians’ and editors’ stock and trade. <br /><br />Actual violations of causality are much more difficult to achieve. If and when it is actually and not virtually observed, scientists will have to be very careful to make certain causal violations aren’t a matter of false perceptions. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> We still have an unexplored opportunity for an actual macroscopic causality violation using the FTL radio equipment and a spacetraveler who has traveled FTL to get to another star.<br /><br /><font color="white"> Maddad, there is no such thing, recognized by earthly science, as FTL radio frequency equipment or a space traveler traveling FTL to get to another star. That’s not to say that FTL communication or travel doesn’t exist; we know that it does. We just haven’t recognized it scientifically because there is so much we have yet to learn about it. <br /><br />You really do need to change your Sig line. It makes you sound like an atheist or an agnostic. That’s ignorant from my perspective. Even Uncle Albert believed in God and he has more game than you and I put together. <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Stevehw33:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> ON the quantum level, causality, time flow and the speed of light are probably all violated. <br /><br />Causality is clearly violated. Events can occur before their causes at the quantum level. Feynman stated an electron going backwards in time can be a positron. The same is true of anti-matter. It's matter which can be going back in time. <br /><br /><font color="white"> I think you might be reaching a bit Steve. I don’t see a violation of causality here. If a subatomic particle or true antimatter is moving on a reverse time line, it’s still not a true violation of causality. We would only perceive it as such. This is still an observational perception and not a true violation of causality.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">So causality on the quantum level is violated. On the macroscopic level, the odds of that happening are so low, it simply is not observed. <br /><br /><font color="white">If I’m not mistaken, a clearly observed violation of causality is when we see subatomic particles appearing, as if out of nowhere, and then disappearing from observation. This phenomenon may be the result of the subatomic particles traveling through our observable, space/time continuum into a fourth spatial dimension or reversing their track on the time line which implies a form change. <br /> <br /><font color="yellow"> Light may exceed light speed and other particles as well. If Hawking's surmise is correct that black holes evaporate due to quantum level fluctuations in photons and particles temporarily exceeding light speed, then BH's will evaporate. This has not yet been experimentally confirmed, however.<br /> <br /><font color="white">If subatomic particles travel FTL speed, we can’t observe them until we slow them down to sub light speed or collide them. If they accelerate to FTL speeds, they seem to disappear. I’ve read where this capability of subatomic particles has been proven at CERN and elsewhere. The fact that it’s possible implies the ex</font></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

averygoodspirit<br />"<font color="yellow">Maddad, there is no such thing, recognized by earthly science, as FTL radio frequency equipment or a space traveler traveling FTL to get to another star.</font><br /><br />I am not saying that there is. I am asking what would happen if there was. It's an important question for one thing because a causality violation is part of the reason that we say it cannot happen.

 

[Maddad]

averygoodspirit<br />"<font color="yellow">If I’m not mistaken, a clearly observed violation of causality is when we see subatomic particles appearing, as if out of nowhere, and then disappearing from observation.</font><br />Threre is another possibility. Another spatial dimension might exist in addition to the three spatial and one temporal dimensions. A rotating particle existing in all five dimensions during part of its rotation and only in the upper dimension during another part of its rotation would appear and disappear from our observation. It would be like a coin spinning near flatland. The Flatlanders would see point appear in their universe, expand to a line, shrink back to a point, and then disappear. This would repeat as long as the coin spun nearby. There is no causality violation because a cause exists; it just exists outside of our ability to observe.<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">If subatomic particles travel FTL speed, we can’t observe them until we slow them down to sub light speed or collide them.</font><br />There is another possibility. Consider a particle moving at twice c that is not on a collision course with us, but just set to pass by very closely. Our first observation would be the appearance of two particles, not one. We would see one moving on the expected course in the expected direction. We would also see a second particle moving away from us much faster than twice c.

 

[heyscottie]

One example is the large scale two slit experiment.<br /><br />We are all familiar with the two slit experiment, whereby all photons go through both slits and can therefore interfere with one another, causing an interference pattern on a screen. We also know that if we set up a photon detector through one slit, we 'force' the photons to 'choose' a slit to pass through (since we are observing them), and an interference pattern does not develop.<br /><br />I forget who proposed THIS thought experiment, but:<br /><br />Imagine a distant quasar (say, 10 billion light years away) that undergoes gravitational lensing due to a foreground galactic cluster. Imagine that we can form an interference pattern on a screen with two images of the quasar. This is similar to a very large scale double slit.<br /><br />Now imagine that we put a detector along one of the pathways, once again forcing the photons to 'choose' one path or the other. The interference pattern does not result.<br /><br />The interesting part of this is that the photons would have had to choose their path 10 billion years ago, long before the earth came into existance, and longer before we were there to set up a detector to force them to choose.<br /><br />Such an experiment has never, as far as I know, been actually run, of course, but the thought experiment does give one something to ponder...<br /><br />Scott