What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .
This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.
OK, and which interpretation of quantummechanics resolves the superposition paradox again?
There is no paradox once you let go of the constant particle concept.
Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense.
No, Schrödinger's thought experiment was toillustrate the paradox of quantum superposition, he was demonstrating anexample of how conventional causation does not apply to quantum physics.
Incorrect.
The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.
Schrödinger used it in conversation withEinstein, do you think Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein are two of thepeople who people who don’t understand the experiments and mathematics ofquantum mechanics?
They did (I assume Eisenstein did, I know Schrodinger did), and neither believed the cat's life depends on opening the box.
“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard Feynman
Cuts both ways don't it?
conventionalcausation is not probabilistic, it is deterministic.
The definition of "conventional causality" is implied by the original post I was responding to. In that post it was suggested that the universe need not have a cause because causes are unconventional in quantum mechanics.
The only way this could possibly make sense is by implying that something that happened once the universe "began" caused the universe to begin.
Thus unconventional causality = effect precedes cause.
There is nothing about probability distributions that implies such a thing.
Oh please, quantum superposition is afundamental principle of quantum mechanics, do you really want to call PaulDirac, Erwin Schrödinger, NielsBohr, , Louis de Broglie, Max Born, WernerHeisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman some of the“fake experts” of quantum physics.
I do not, and will put no more effort into addressing your strawmen than to say "strawman".
The traditional interpretation of ThomasYoung's iconic double-slit experiment demonstrates that the photon not onlygoes through both slits; it simultaneously takes every possible trajectory, notexactly what I would call “conventional causation”.
"interpretation" -> "demonstrate", that's an oddity. The double slit experiment demonstrates that there is no photon billiard ball. The only reason we ever suspected there was one is quantized interactions of the whole wave which is considerably stranger than a billiard ball but is in no way a mystical contradiction.
What you call conventional is up to you. The context does not allow you the freedom to dispute what I meant.
Nonsense, the finite speed of informationtransfer is foundational to the mathematics of the Theory of Relativity
It is not. It deals with time dilation, length elongation when they are caused by relative motion and mass distortions (gravity).
It was assumed (rightly in my opinion) that since all energy and matter exists as fields (of various types) that do not propagate faster than light that no information can travel faster. It is not required by the theory in the slightest.
without it you don’t get Lorentz transformation and the mathematics of the Theoryof Relativity falls apart.
The Lorentz transform has nothing to do with information. See my last paragraph.
So now Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are two “fake experts” that don't understand Relativity?
Strawman
“Time travel used to be thought of as just science fiction, but Einstein’s general theory of relativity allows for the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that you could go off in a rocket and return before you set out.” - Stephen Hawking
Eisenstein's purported quote could be dismissed as metaphysical musings, but this one is certainly false. If Hawking really said this he was acting as a dishonest showman at the time.
The “twin paradox” of Relativity is a matterof time dilation rather than superluminal signaling
Read more carefully, once again: The error that produces the twin paradox is the same error that causes some to conclude that superluminal signaling constitutes time travel.
it results from thedifference in the elapsed time of the two twins, and it demonstrates Relativity’stheoretical violation of conventional causality.
It demonstrates the conceptual error of the one who thinks he is dealing with an implication of special relativity, nothing more. If it was truly a prediction of special relativity we could thus conclude special relativity is incorrect. Contradictions do not exist in reality, this is the only definition of truth that allows for debate.
The asymmetry in the paradox is that one twinleaves the other twin’s reference frame and comes back, theoretically, one twinis now younger than the other, the actual paradox relates to which twin isyounger.
It is a contradiction for both to be younger or both older. Therefore any understanding of general relativity which predicts both results is false, else general relativity is false.
General relativity is a series of assertions with clear mathematical formulations. It does not predict a contradiction. Only Eisenstein's aesthetic desire for an equality of reference frames predicts the contradiction, and he eventually recanted.
