Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

EurekAlert ^ | 10/2/12

[LibWhacker]

I used two. I showed the proof to a fellow grad student in math whom I respected. He said I must’ve made a mistake somewhere but couldn’t find it.

[Mr. K]

if you are on the foo stam you can already get obama phow

[Raycpa]

it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.

Any married guy could have told you that.

[LibWhacker]

It could make you rich. Or getting rich could make you buy one. Your choice.

[Chode]

know what?

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thank you very much.

Physically would that be similar to recursion? Here a video character's actions could be influenced by his actions in each successive execution; but unlike "Ground Hogs Day" the video character could change the future? Eventually it does reach the desired end.

Thanks again.

[dinodino]

That was a really great story!

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

I’m more confused now than I never was.

[Cboldt]

-- You seem to be reading material similar to what my older brother reads. --

I wonder what the chances of that are.

[Cboldt]

-- Strange? As opposed to what, familiar? Physical? As opposed to what, mental? Relax, everything will be all right. --

"strange" as in doesn't follow intuition or common sense. Like, if your mother took a fast ride, she could come back and be younger than you are. One of my favorite remarks about physicists is that the closer they look, the more the stuff they are looking at disappears. Or, that what we think of as "solid" stuff is about 99.999999999999999% empty. (I guessed at the number of trailing nines there, but it's in the right neighborhood).

Agreed, thing will turn out fine. I read physics just because I find it interesting. I like music too.

[muawiyah]

Years ago ~ decades really ~ I worked for a half dozen statisticians who'd developed the RPW system for the Post Office Department ~ they later on worked on the Cost-Revenue Ascertainment system (a manifestation of the same objective).

These guys were a lot of fun. Most of them had served in WWII or the Korean War and every day was a breath of fresh air for them ~ even the crotchity ones.

So they had a feel ~ a real personal feel for probability.

Their hobbies were either dabbling in quantum physics, or figuring out what the structure of the elements was all about ~ plus visiting the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem as soon as that could be done. WWII had done things to their life's links that were simply incredible.

So, smart guys, right attitude, and well experienced in everything. Each one of them had his own interpretation for the Schroedinger Cat theorm. In fact, that little tale fell right in the middle of a sampling algorithm dilemma they'd come up with ~ which is very simple. When you have an ongoing continual process and you need to reach in and take a snapshot of just a second of time and something comes up that prevents you from doing so, what is the correct prophylaxis to take another sample at another time that will PROBABLY (Within some degree of certainty) replace the lost data?

Remembering that each little 1 second snapshot is going to represent hours of work and thousands of pieces of mail down the road as the typical second is structured for total agency operating costs, can you just wait 5 and try it again? Or is it more complex ~

These people consciously killed Schroedinger's cat every day ~ usually several times ~ because there's the answer to the question of when can you repeat your action and get the same result?

As I recall it if you kill the cat you can never repeat the action, so you gotta' leave the cat alone!

Decades later more advanced string theory theoreticians are getting more deeply into this problem ~ so I follow that stuff just in case one of them comes up with a better solution than just out and out killing the cat ~ the only action that allows you to stick a (new) kitty back in the box and strive for a different, but otherwise identical, result.

Then there's a whole school of thought with thousands of members who dispute the relevance of that cat to anything.

[I see my hands]

"Strange" "Insane"

It will be the ultimate cruelty if we are never given a glimpse of the mystery.

[Cboldt]

-- for 99c i'll pick one up with my next amazon order, thx --

He's with you on that Schroedinger's cat thing. Your opening the box isn't relevant to the outcome. He makes real good sense of the question of "what constitutes observation?"

[martin_fierro]

[SolidRedState]

Quantam crap is total horse manure.

[KarlInOhio]

Depressed cats cause radioactive decay. Shove one into a Schrödinger box and if the cat is depressed the radioactive sample will decay thus killing the cat. A happy cat will prevent that decay. Thus if we get enough happy cats together we can stop a nuclear bomb from going off.

[Chode]

no way do i believe there are THAT many happy cats in the world... 8^)

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Many atheists are atheists because they think science explains everything and that we will eventually be able to explain everything.

Quantum mechanics throws a monkey wrench into that idea.

I am positive a conscious observer of some kind was required to bring the universe into existence. Nothing occurs in the quantum universe without a conscious observer. Calling that observer "God" would not be outrageous.

[Wuli]

sounds like the author of the Harry Potter books was on occasion not writing about “magic” but instead reflecting quantum physics (whether she realized it or not)

the more humans know, the larger becomes the body of knowledge we are aware that we don’t know

the “undiscovered” universe (that portion of creation we either have no knowldge of or no understanding of or admittedly incomplete understanding of) seems to keep expanding as fast as what we do know grows - like peeling an onion with infinite layers

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks LibWhacker.

---

· String Theory Ping List ·

---

---

· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·

---