Does quantum mechanics obey causality?

  • I
  • Thread starter n01
  • Start date
  • #1
n01
49
4
My intuition tells me that it does not given that physical phenomena don't obey the principle of sufficient reason under quantum mechanics (a dogma many still hold certain). A lucid definition of the PoSR can be found here. Meaning, that some events are non-localized and the distinction between localized phenomena and global phenomena gets significantly blurred.

I don't see where else to post this as it's more of a meta-physical question.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
35,725
12,313
Quantum field theory obeys causality. The commutator between spacelike separated points in spacetime vanishes, which means they don't influence each other.
 
  • Like
Likes QuantumQuest, vanhees71 and bhobba
  • #3
9,987
3,092
Quantum field theory obeys causality.

Its associated with the cluster decomposition property:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-in-qft.547574/

Normal QM being based on the Galilean transformations doesn't. To fully understand the connection see the following beautiful book by the great theoretical/mathematical physicist Lev landau:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0750628960/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I don't know why but that is the only book I know that gives the details, admittedly in Landau's usual terse style. Its very important but other books simply do not delve into it.

You will find QM dynamics developed from Galilean Relativity in Chapter 3 of Ballentine. Its the reason for Schrodinger's equation etc so is foundational and inescapable in ordinary QM. One must go to QFT to rectify it.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
8
0
Yes there is causality just sometime it is reversed
 
  • #5
9,987
3,092
I don't see where else to post this as it's more of a meta-physical question.

Its actually a deep physical question going to the heart of modern physics and its foundations from symmetry. It was quite possibly the deepest discovery of 20th century physics that symmetry is of such importance to physics like in the 19th century mathematicians discovered its importance to mathematics and especially geometry. I suspect there is a deep secret there waiting to be uncovered - but only time will tell.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #6
9,987
3,092
Yes there is causality just sometime it is reversed

There is no causality in standard QM as can be seen by the form of the Hamiltonian obeying the Galilean transformations.

You are thinking of the retro-causal transnational interpretation. Its simply that - an interpretation.

Thanks
Bill
 
  • #7
8
0
You have right.
One of the possible right interpretation.
 
  • #8
n01
49
4
Its actually;y a deep physical question going to the heart of modern physics and its foundations from symmetry. It was quite possibly the deepest discovery of 20th century physics that symmetry is of such importance to physics like in the 19th century mathematicians discovered its importance to mathematics and especially geometry. I suspect there is a deep secret there waiting to be uncovered - but only time will tell.

Thanks
Bill

Yes,
I'm keenly interested on this from a quasi-computational perspective, and in some sense it's a tautology. So, let me elaborate if I don't start sounding metaphysical. Given that every physical law is either computable or non computable, then within such a system there will arise situations or "state of affairs" that could not be explained within the system itself. This is basically Godel's Incompleteness theorem stated in a nutshell.

My hunch is that QM and the logical conclusions derived at by Godel are in some deep sense intertwined and manifest in reality (I mean, how can they not be... unless we're talking about higher dimensions; but, even then those higher dimensions would require another higher dimension to maintain deterministic causality of each sub-dimension).

Hope that doesn't sound too outlandish as it does to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
1,241
189
This is basically Godel's Incompleteness theorem stated in a nutshell.
I take Godel a little more loosely, as in the system being used can't encompass all of reality, not that any given reality can't be modeled completely by a complete system. In my humble opinion, it is due to the introduction of supposed "infinite" degrees of freedom into a "finite" system which leads to the inconclusive result...
 
  • #10
1,374
383
Quantum field theory obeys causality. The commutator between spacelike separated points in spacetime vanishes, which means they don't influence each other.
Is this a definition of causality or merely a requirement of such? There are those amongst us that might claim entanglement experiments demonstrate superluminal "cause". I am very much not one of them.
 
  • #11
35,725
12,313
"they don't influence each other" is what I would consider as definition of locality - causality then arises if you consider the evolution in one time-direction.

There are non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics - but you don't have to follow those, there are also local interpretations.
 
  • #12
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,922
2,908
Quantum field theory obeys causality. The commutator between spacelike separated points in spacetime vanishes, which means they don't influence each other.

People keep saying this, but to me, it's only addressing half of the quantum formalism. In quantum mechanics, you apply mathematics in two different ways:
  1. The state and/or the field operators evolve with time.
  2. You use the state to compute probabilities of outcomes.
The issue with whether QM is causal was never about #1, it was about #2. When you observe an outcome, does the state change? If so, how? The fact that field operators at a spacelike separation commute (or anticommute) doesn't have any obvious relevance to the question of whether Von Neumann's collapse happens, and whether that collapse (if it does happen) violates the no-FTL rule.

#1 would be sufficient to prove that causality is never violated, if that were the only process involved in QM (as is the case in many-worlds). But that conclusion doesn't follow from QFT, it requires an interpretation of QFT.
 
  • Like
Likes n01, Feeble Wonk and zonde
  • #13
35,725
12,313
If there is a causal interpretation (and there is: MWI for example), and a non-causal interpretation, I would call the underlying theory causal. If it would be non-causal, then causal interpretations would be impossible.
 
  • #14
1,374
383
IMO, the entire reason "Does QM obey causality" is a question is due to a lack of a well defined theoretical or operational definition of the term "causality". The appearance of probability in a theory complicates this question.
 
  • Like
Likes Feeble Wonk and rrogers
  • #15
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,529
1,345
My intuition tells me that it does not ...

I don't see where else to post this as it's more of a meta-physical question.

There is no physical evidence that at the quantum mechanical level there is any cause which specifically determines an outcome to a measurement (excepting repeated measurements when the systems is already in a known state). I doubt anyone here would dispute that statement.

It is a metaphysical question (as you say), because there are interpretations in which there are such causes. However, those interpretations cannot be discerned from non-causal interpretations by virtue of physical evidence. It is by inference and personal preference alone that such can be made.
 
  • Like
Likes Feeble Wonk and bhobba
  • #16
n01
49
4
If any of you are interested in entertaining this thought and possibly looking at it from a more specific example of the origins of causality in QM...

I have always been puzzled by what exactly determines a wave function collapse? Or stated another way, what keeps quantum systems evolving as opposed to simply collapsing on itself?
 
  • #17
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
19,094
9,895
There is no wave-function collapse. So you don't bother you with it :-).
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and mfb
  • #18
n01
49
4
There is no wave-function collapse. So you don't bother you with it :-).

Well, yes according to the MWI; but, in that case what determines that our universe is the way it is as opposed to other worlds?
 
  • #19
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
19,094
9,895
I don't believe in the religion of MWI. I'm a proponent of the minimal statistical interpretation. "Collapse" is just the interaction of the measured object with the measurement device, which usually is macroscopic, and we coarse grain over many microscopic degrees of freedom which leads to the classical behavior of the relevant observables of measurement apparatus. Thus, in general we don't know the state of the total quantum system (measured system + measurement apparatus), and tracing over the measurement apparatus leads to a mixture for the state of the observed system.
 
  • #20
324
125
Yes. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, but it's not random. The probabilities are deterministic.
 
  • #21
35,725
12,313
I don't believe in the religion of MWI. I'm a proponent of the minimal statistical interpretation.
Do you call all interpretations religions?
Thus, in general we don't know the state of the total quantum system (measured system + measurement apparatus), and tracing over the measurement apparatus leads to a mixture for the state of the observed system.
Even worse, in the minimal statistical interpretations there is not even such a state, because you cannot give the wave function a physical reality (otherwise you need some way to get rid of it).
 
  • #22
1,374
383
Even worse, in the minimal statistical interpretations there is not even such a state, because you cannot give the wave function a physical reality (otherwise you need some way to get rid of it).
Is there an operational definition of or measure of something having "a physical reality?". IMO, the fact these so called interpretations can't be distinguished by the theory or experiment is proof they are simply added baggage that add nothing to the science.
 
  • #23
35,725
12,313
The problem is that you need an interpretation to make experiments: you have to relate the theory to what you get as experimental result. This is trivial for all theories apart from quantum mechanics, so it seems to appear only there.
 
  • Like
Likes eloheim and bhobba
  • #24
1,374
383
The problem is that you need an interpretation to make experiments: you have to relate the theory to what you get as experimental result.
So you classify the Born rule as interpretation? It's what's observed to happen in experiments. Geiger counters count and photoelectrons are collected, at random.
 
  • #25
zonde
Gold Member
2,958
215
The commutator between spacelike separated points in spacetime vanishes, which means they don't influence each other.
I would like to understand to what extent this statement is justified.
I will use an analogy. Parent has two different candies. Two kids ask him for candies, one asks first and the other one later. Parent gives random candy to the kid who asks first and the other one to other kid. Basically either kid can't really influence which candy he will get and which candy will get the other kid by asking fist or second. But just the same the two events are not independent.

So just because commutator vanishes we can't really claim that the two spacetime points are independent, right?
 

Related Threads on Does quantum mechanics obey causality?

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
52
Views
13K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
538
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
Top