Is Causality in Quantum Mechanics as Clear-Cut as in Classical Mechanics?

[dmtr]

OK, so how does that relate to what "causes" the subsequent polarization value?

You need the "subsequent polarization value" first, before you are talking about what is "causing" it. The subsequent polarization value is just an another entanglement in between the observer and the photon. What you would get as a result is an observer in the superposition of two states. Now it would be up to an observer in some certain state to interpret his own state, and there is no problem with that. So there is no such thing, as the "defined subsequent polarization value", and there is no point of talking on what causes it.

-- Dmtr

 

[Bob_for_short]

Dmtr, you should call this concept Dr^tm.

 

[DrChinese]

You need the "subsequent polarization value" first, before you are talking about what is "causing" it. The subsequent polarization value is just an another entanglement in between the observer and the photon. What you would get as a result is an observer in the superposition of two states. Now it would be up to an observer in some certain state to interpret his own state, and there is no problem with that. So there is no such thing, as the "defined subsequent polarization value", and there is no point of talking on what causes it.

-- Dmtr

I have no clue to what you are talking about, but apparently we agree that there is no cause for the result.

 

[Descartz2000]

It is my understanding that in classical mechanics, cause and effect are universally accepted.

Is it the same in QM? Is causality sound in QM?

It seems obvious that the role of determinism is not consistent with QM, but it too seems that all events (micro and macro) must have sufficient causes. A lack of causality argues for spontaneous emergence or the event being a first cause. It seems to me that all events will default back to available variables (sufficient causes). Otherwise, an event is based on nothingness or a lack of something, something without conditions or configurations or parameters. This seems to argue that acausality is based on nothing. Logically speaking, this makes no sense, an event then is either its own first cause (self causation), or it is based on available variables (causality of a larger system). I think some logic should be used in our interpretations.

 

[italiano vero]

all events (micro and macro) must have sufficient causes. A lack of causality argues for spontaneous emergence or the event being a first cause.
Logically speaking, this makes no sense, an event then is either its own first cause (self causation), or it is based on available variables (causality of a larger system). I think some logic should be used in our interpretations.

Exactly. This is my position. However, there's no reason to think that logic can understand all the characteristic of reality. But there's no reason also to think the contrary. So we can only say that an event that seems random could be caused or not. But, in my opinion, we can't explain macroscopical causality without the assumption of microscopical causality for the reason that Descartz2000 has explained.

However, as DrChinese has underlined, this assumption is more phylosophical than purely mathematical/physical.

"Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza." (Manzoni, 5 Maggio)