So much hay is made out of the fact that quantum theory—and its associated experiments—violates the principle of local causality, as canonically developed by the classical (Newtonian) and relativistic (Einsteinian) models. But no one ever really asks about what these models are 'truly' saying about physical reality. That is, in all of these theories, it is axiomatically assumed that material bodies, in the elemental sense, come in the forms of geometric points. But there is a major difference between the following two ideas:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

1) points as the solutions to linear, analytical equations

2) points as 'really existing' physical objects

In fact, it is my thesis that the desire to satisfy idea #1—at least within the community of mainstream academic physics—has always overshadowed the question that idea #2 is constantly begging. And this question is:

"If the form of physical bodies, in the most elementary sense, is not that of the geometric point, then what is it?"

But before we even demand from ourselves a [hypothetical] answer to this question, let us return to the original question: How is local causality possible?

That is, we will assume the existence of two elementary bodies that come in the form of geometric points, and for the sake of simplicity, we will consider a one-dimensional space. Now, just like those 'cars approaching each other from opposite directions' questions, we will consider our particles, A and B, to be involved in the same kind of collision course.

So A and B are now approaching each other with some arbitrary relative speed (it makes no difference what the individual velocities might be in a given frame of reference). So, A and B get closer and closer until something happens. My question is simply this:

"What is the nature of this 'something' when we say that two physical bodies, in the form of points, have 'interacted'?"

And I ask this because of this difficulty: the only way that we can say that two points are not different is when they are, in fact, the same point. So here are the choices that we have left:

1) The two points are not interacting precisely because they are different—i.e. there is some amount of space between them.

2) It is senseless to say that interaction exists precisely because there is only a single point in existence.

Anybody have any comments about this difficulty?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# How is local causality possible?

Loading...

Similar Threads - local causality possible | Date |
---|---|

"local" vs "long distance" phone service? | Jul 4, 2017 |

Local bank advertise their credit cards | Nov 18, 2015 |

Your Local Cuisine | Apr 8, 2015 |

Given T-symmetry, what limits non-locality? | Apr 5, 2015 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**