I Does it make sense to speak about the Grandfather paradox in QM?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter jordi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Qm
jordi
Messages
197
Reaction score
14
Since QM is not deterministic, the future state B is not determined by the previous state A (at time A, B was only a possibility, not a certainty).

Then, when we are at time B, and assuming we could move back in time (of course, we cannot do that, but let us make a Gedankenexperiment), it just makes sense that moving back in time should also be probabilistic, not deterministic.

So, with a high probability, if we could move back in time, we would not end up in state A, but in state C (whatever it is).

Only a big coincidence could result in C having the grandfather alive (most possible states would be with no grandfather whatsoever).

So, if we use QM as a framework, the Grandfather paradox does not exist (or it could exist, but with an exceedingly small probability).

In fact, here one could ask: what does going back in time means in QM, if we do not end up in the "original" A state? Wouldn't this evolution towards the past analogous to (another) dynamics into the future? Which experiments could be done to really be sure we had gone back in time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Moderator's note: Thread moved to QM forum.
 
jordi said:
when we are at time B, and assuming we could move back in time (of course, we cannot do that, but let us make a Gedankenexperiment)
You can't make a valid thought experiment that violates the laws of physics. So you can't just wave your hands and assume "we could move back in time". You have to figure out if the laws of physics allow such a thing. @PeroK referred to one way that the laws of physics might allow it, namely closed timelike curves; but most physicists do not believe closed timelike curves can actually exist, since the mathematical solutions in relativity that include them have properties that most physicists think are physically impossible.

jordi said:
it just makes sense that moving back in time should also be probabilistic, not deterministic.
No, it doesn't, because measurement in QM, at least as it is handled in the basic math, is not time symmetric. (What various QM interpretations say about this is another question, discussion of which belongs in the QM interpretations forum.) You have multiple possibilities before a measurement, but only one of them is observed to happen. There is no "backward in time" analogue in QM where you have multiple possibilities after a measurement but only one before.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
984
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
225
Views
14K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
3K
Back
Top