Does Quantum Mechanics Embrace Symmetry and Causality?

[Huang]

Does quantum mechanics follow causality, phase transition, critical point, symmetry, asymmetry, order, disorder, continuation, discontinuation, limitation, without limitation, convergence, divergence, similarity, hierarchical structure, singularity, plurality?

 

[PeterDonis]

Does quantum mechanics follow causality, phase transition, critical point, symmetry, asymmetry, order, disorder, continuation, discontinuation, limitation, without limitation, convergence, divergence, similarity, hierarchical structure, singularity, plurality?

Where are you getting all these terms from, and what do you think they mean?

 

[PeroK]

In scientific terms your question is quite meaningless.

 

[Huang]

In scientific terms your question is quite meaningless.

Interesting statement. Don’t you think Newton’s third law of motion is the expression of the fundamental interrelationship, symmetry? Can’t you see symmetry is more fundamental than Newton’s law? And Space-Time is an expression of symmetry, in other words, they follow the fundamental interrelationship of symmetry?

 

[fresh_42]

I have removed a post as off-topic and the quotations of it.

@Huang: You have been asked to clarify your question, as it obviously doesn't make a lot of sense to scientists. This question is still unanswered. And a polemic counter question:

Interesting statement. Don’t you think Newton’s third law of motion is the expression of the fundamental interrelationship, symmetry? Can’t you see symmetry is more fundamental than Newton’s law? And Space-Time is an expression of symmetry, in other words, they follow the fundamental interrelationship of symmetry?

does not clarify anything at all.

We do not discuss philosophy here, because normally it isn't philosophy, only babble. You may ask about symmetries, which of course are at the heart of physics since at least 1918. But this is not what you have asked for in the OP. Instead you accumulated a list of keywords without any context or comment. It was politeness to ask you for clarification. The alternative would have been a removal as substandard content.

Again, do you want to discuss philosophical terms in science, esp. physics, or do you have a specific example in mind which you want to discuss? The answer to your question as stated would result in a thick book about metaphysics.

 

[Huang]

“Where are you getting all these terms from”. It is amazing to see someone ask such a question such as “where are you getting all these terms from (phase transition, critical point, symmetry, asymmetry), partially from a physics forum and who is supposed to be a scientist. And you think that question is “polite”. “because normally it isn't philosophy, only babble” You may think this is polite too, do you? I found this forum is incredible: so much politics.

 

[fresh_42]

“Where are you getting all these terms from”. It is amazing to see someone ask such a question such as “where are you getting all these terms from (phase transition, critical point, symmetry, asymmetry), partially from a physics forum and who is supposed to be a scientist. And you think that question is “polite”. “because normally it isn't philosophy, only babble” You may think this is polite too, do you? I found this forum is incredible: so much politics.

I tried to explain to you where the difficulties with your question are. However, again you did not clarify anything, but started an argument about an issue which isn't related to your question. Yes, I do call this babble, or a mock fight if you like this better. You seemingly do not want to defend your question, only offend others. This is not only rude, it is also not the way scientists discuss.

This thread is closed.