Can Causality be violated by say instantaneous data transfer?

[Alan McDougall]

Can Causality be violated by say instantaneous data transfer?

 

Spooky action as Einstein called it or quantum non-locality and entanglement have shown fundamental particles can interact instantaneously regardless of the distance between them Alter the spin of one instantly alters the spin of its twin in the other direction.

 

 

Causality is fundamental to how the universe works, entropy for instant is intertwined with causality etc

 

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[timo]

Can Causality be violated by say instantaneous data transfer?

If "instantaneous data transfer" means the sending of information and the receiving of information at different locations happening at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), then this violates causality in the sense that it is defined in special relativity.

 

Causality is fundamental to how the universe works,...

I think it's actually only fundamental for our mainstream ideas of how the universe works. If it was fundamental to how the universe works then we already knew that causality is not violated.

 

... entropy for instant is intertwined with causality etc.

I call this an urban myth. It's not more related to causality than switching on a lightbulb is (though admittedly switching on a lightbulb could have been what you meant with "etc").

 

What are your thoughts on the matter?

The common statement heard in this context is that faster-than-light effects do not allow to carry information faster than light. To me that sounds like a cheap excuse for a problem of theory assumptions not holding true in reality. But I acknowledge that a) "do not allow for FTL information transport" is probably just the laymens' version and about as accurate as "LHC tries to recreate the Big Bang", and b) I lack the competence to form a proper opinion on the matter.

[Enthalpy]

The limited speed of information is a basic hypothesis of Relativity that allows it to explain why Lorentz' transformation makes sense. It's not a remote consequence of increasing mass. If you achieve data transfer faster than light, Relativity is lost.

 

Entropy is related with the direction of time. This is the main link I see with causality.

[Alan McDougall]

The limited speed of information is a basic hypothesis of Relativity that allows it to explain why Lorentz' transformation makes sense. It's not a remote consequence of increasing mass. If you achieve data transfer faster than light, Relativity is lost.

 

Entropy is related with the direction of time. This is the main link I see with causality.

 

I have just been thinking about Schroedinger's cat theory, in the unobserved state the cat is neither dead or alive, thus there is no cause or effect until the box is opened .

 

Surly this violates causality , because cause and effect are merged in the box, until the box is opened and the cat observed?

[swansont]

I have just been thinking about Schroedinger's cat theory, in the unobserved state the cat is neither dead or alive, thus there is no cause or effect until the box is opened .

 

Surly this violates causality , because cause and effect are merged in the box, until the box is opened and the cat observed?

Violation of causality is having the cause precede the effect or being superluminal. The cause is the poison. The breaking of the vial will not occur after the measurement of the system to determine the state of the cat. The state of the vial and cat are entangled; determining one tells you the other, so determining them simultaneously is not a superluminal effect.

[Ronald Hyde]

I don't really regard causality as being some required principle of Nature. It may well be that some processes that occur now may have 'causes' that lie in the future, but since we have no knowledge of the future till we get 'then', we can't know at the time it happens. Consider that in the simple case of the Photon there is an 'advanced' ( forward in time ) part, and a 'retarded' ( backward in time ) part. We as observers only receive information from the past, but the atom that emitted the Photon may have received some from the future. But in principal we have no way of determining what information it may have received.

[Alan McDougall]

Violation of causality is having the cause precede the effect or being superluminal. The cause is the poison. The breaking of the vial will not occur after the measurement of the system to determine the state of the cat. The state of the vial and cat are entangled; determining one tells you the other, so determining them simultaneously is not a superluminal effect.

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Alan McDougall]

Maybe most scientist, not all dismiss the concept of God is because God is supposed to have no cause, thus he is an uncaused cause that violates causality.

[ecoli]

Maybe most scientist, not all dismiss the concept of God is because God is supposed to have no cause, thus he is an uncaused cause that violates causality.

 

!

Moderator Note

Do you want this thread moved to the Religion board?

[Alan McDougall]

!

Moderator Note

Do you want this thread moved to the Religion board?

 

Absolutely not! I only made the comment about God because god supposedly has no cause and this forum being scientific would need a scientific explanation for something vilolating Causality.

 

I wonder about the scientist you say that believed god violates causality I will do a little research but not bring it up in this thread.

 

My thinking is maybe in the strange illogical quantum world causality might be seen to violtalated somehow , by practical experiments.? In the unmeasured unobserved quantum world it might happen but would we ever know?