Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

In RBW there are no probabilities per se.

  1. Aug 12, 2013 #1
    continuing from another thread.

    or rewriting physics ? and epistemology and ontology :rolleyes:

    another acausal model.
    "The causaloid framework"

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509120v1
    "Quantum theory is a probabilistic theory with fixed causal structure. General relativity is a deterministic theory but where the causal structure is dynamic."

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4464
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/abs/ncomms2076.html
    "The idea that events obey a definite causal order is deeply rooted in our understanding of the world and at the basis of the very notion of time. But where does causal order come from, and is it a necessary property of nature?"

    from john norton:
    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0003.004/1

    "Each of the individual sciences seeks to comprehend the processes of the natural world in some narrow domain—chemistry, the chemical processes, biology; living processes, and so on. It is widely held, however, that all the sciences are unified at a deeper level in that natural processes are governed, at least in significant measure, by cause and effect. Their presence is routinely asserted in a law of causation or principle of causality—roughly that every effect is produced through lawful necessity by a cause—and our accounts of the natural world are expected to conform to it,"
    "I urge that the concepts of cause and effect are not the fundamental concepts of our science and that science is not governed by a law or principle of causality."


    mmmm ........:rolleyes:



    .
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 12, 2013 #2
    Hmm... didn't we already know that the world out there is completely quantum and not classical(only experienced as classical-like and as such can explain most of the events though certainly not all)?

    There are actual experiments that show that if qunatumness can be investigated and taken note of, it stops being quantumness and turns into classicality. If there is no way to know the path or where/what the system is doing, it manifests in a quantum way. What could need further investigation?

    You would expect causality to be fundamental in a classical universe made of classical bullet-like particles. Since no such particle has ever been found and all evidence so far indicates the classical-like universe is completely quantum, classical causality must be an artifact of the way we experience the world, not that it's classical or the familiar classical concepts are somehow fundamental or indispensable. It seems some people think they can get the Nobel by proving that the universe of Newton is not fundamental and only an approximate special case, even though it's been known ever since Einstein's SR that that cannot be the case. And some people understand that the far bigger price lies elsewhere - in trying to shoot down the basic postulates, principles and theorems of qm(proposing conspiracies) in an attempt to restore classicality and the local realism of the Newton era, but it's also a sure way of being shown the door.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2013
  4. Aug 13, 2013 #3
    Not so fast....

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4462762&postcount=7


    "Our knowledge is ultimately restricted by the boundaries of what we have explored by direct observation or experiment"
    Marcus Aspelmeyer.


    ------
    and by the way the causaloid framework is rooted on quantum mechanics, is quantum mechanics, the author of the idea ("Causaloid Framework" I.E. Causality lost) Lucien Hardy, an example of who is him:
    Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0101012


    same thing for the authors of the other article, Caslav Brukner et al, all quantum scientists.



    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  5. Aug 13, 2013 #4
    How are the quoted passages related to what I said in



    When you say that a system is quantum, the first thing that comes to mind is superposition of states. This is what separates quantum from classical and they both are aspects of one and the same underlying system. Specifically, through experiments and theory(the Born's rule) it is known that measuring a system's state forces the system to 'select' one eigenvalue(classical-like outcome).

    As soon as it's understood that reality is classical-like/classically-consistent(but fundamentally quantum), there'd be no strictly classical requirements - like fundamental classical causality, bullet-like particles, non-contextuality and objectivity at all scales. I guess change comes about slower if you really was convinced the world was certain way and that was the complete picture.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
  6. Aug 13, 2013 #5
    nice to know your opinion.
    i disagree.


    .
     
  7. Aug 14, 2013 #6

    RUTA

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Relational Blockworld (RBW) is an interpretation of QM whereby relations in spacetime are the fundamental constituents of Nature. We acknowledged that unlike most interpretations of QM, RBW implied a formal structure underwriting quantum physics, so we developed a graph theoretic account of what Wallace calls "theory X" underneath QFT in accord with RBW. Conceptually, the standard view of classical reality is given by worldtubes *in* spacetime where worldtubes are sets of intrinsic properties distributed in space and identified through time in Lorentz invariant fashion. Classical physics then deals with laws governing the interactions of the trans-temporal objects (TTOs) represented by these worldtubes. Thus, these laws account for the relative locations of worldtubes in spacetime. According to these laws, TTOs are the fundamental constituents of Nature. In RBW, the mysteries of QM revolve around the ontological status of “quantum entities,” so we get rid of them by building the worldtubes of TTOs from fundamental blocks of space, time and sources (using language of QFT). For us, sources represent relational/contextual properties of TTOs. See the first two figures and their captions in http://users.etown.edu/s/stuckeym/Foundations2013.pdf which depict this decomposition of worldtubes. You can see from these figures that there is no ‘thing’ in the spacetime between Worldtube 1 and Worldtube 2 mediating their interaction. What is typically understood as an interaction between TTOs in spacetime is a block of spacetimesource which, with many other such blocks, co-defines the worldtubes and their spatiotemporal relationship. So, worldtubes aren’t *in* spacetime, but are co-constructed with space, time and sources. There are different distributions of spacetimesource blocks that would be consistent with this picture, just as there are many different distributions of molecular velocities in a gas consistent with a particular temperature and pressure. Thus, RBW’s theory X is probabilistic. It’s meant to underwrite quantum physics, not replace quantum physics.
     
  8. Aug 15, 2013 #7
    I would agree that both the "micro" and "macro" world obey Quantum Mechanics, but without much supporting evidence (yet) both parties can only speculate.
     
  9. Aug 15, 2013 #8


    Evidence for what? A bullet-like particle? That sounds strange in the era of modern electronics and quantum computing.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2013
  10. Aug 16, 2013 #9

    i agree.




    .
     
  11. Aug 18, 2013 #10
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.2261v3.pdf
    ........"Regarding the derivation of quantum theory and relativity"...

    (to me, not a problem at all) of course, something that derive a theory, can be a interpretation itself too.
    Respect to probabilities, it seems very weird ones, pushed probabilities, not from pure chance, no probabilities per se.

    apart IMO einstein not replaced newton, physics was improved.


    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.2261v3.pdf
    "Therefore, almost all attempts to unify relativity and quantum theory opt for becoming (dynamism) as fundamental in some form or another"

    not very useful dichotomy, dynamism vs statism.



    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2013
  12. Aug 18, 2013 #11

    RUTA

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The use of an adynamical, spatiotemporal holism was our response to EPR-Bell, quantum liar, delayed choice, quantum eraser, etc. There are many interpretations of QM motivated by such phenomena, one can choose according to taste :smile: But, RBW has spawned a new approach to unification and quantum gravity, so at that point there is physics subject to empirical adjudication.
     
  13. Aug 18, 2013 #12
    understood. nice to know. :cool:

    but to me, more is needed to unify relativity and quantum theories, or best said, GOING BEYOND or COME BEYOND.
    not is, respond to bell, causality or not, probabilities or not, determinism or not and so on..... this are just dichotomies, is more yet.
    spin for example is not an intrisic property, you can change it, same thing for colors, height, location etc, they are just attributes, characteristics, properties.
    Objects or Process are more than properties....


    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: In RBW there are no probabilities per se.
  1. SE Lagrangian (Replies: 12)

  2. Derivation of the SE (Replies: 29)

Loading...