Posted on 12/07/2005 3:31:28 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Ignore nuclei. Consider instead the following decay: Upsilon(4S) --> B0B0~ (i.e. a B meson and an anti-B meson, each with subsequently reconstructed flavor-tagged decays).
[Geek alert: "flavor tagged" means that each decays in such a way that you know whether it was a B meson or an anti-B meson. A B meson contains an anti-b quark, which weakly decays into an anti-c quark, which weakly decays to an anti-s quark, which is positively charged. So if you see a K+ meson, you know it was a B meson and not an anti-B meson.]
Consider: the B and anti-B are entangled. Until one of them decays--thereby "picking" a flavor--the other one doesn't know how it is supposed to decay. The "second" one to decay will subsequently oscillate back and forth between being a B and an anti-B meson: effectively, it has two decay rates, one in its role as a B and one in its role as an anti-B.
Here's the trick: those clocks got reset to zero when the "first" meson decayed, through the magic of EPR correlation. There's no hidden variable you can assign to the "longer-lived" meson that will describe its decay, because it didn't have enough information, back when it was born, about both how and when to decay. That information didn't exist. And you can't say that it was pre-informed about the decay fate of the "first" meson because that doesn't help: such a scheme will necessarily obey Bell's inequality, and the experimental fact--predicted by quantum mechanics--is that these decays do not obey.
It actually gets worse. Notice that I've been putting "first" and "second" in scare quotes. This is because by the time they decay, they have travelled some distance from each other. If they decay close enough in time, the decays have a space-like invariant interval between them. So "first" and "second", in that case, will be observer-dependent. But the correlation still works! This is predicted by quantum mechanics, but impossible to arrange with deterministic hidden variables. "Fate" is mathematically unable to perform this clock-reset trick.
Now, you say, fine for B mesons, but what about non-EPR correlated nuclear decays? Perhaps they're different. Perhaps B and K mesons are magic and causeless, but nuclear decays have a cause. Perhaps you'd be right. But there's no experimental reason to believe that the mechanisms governing B meson decays are any different from what governs nuclear decays. Occam's Razor leads us to conclude that all subatomic decays have a random, causeless element, somewhere.
Thanks. This is the sort of think I had in mind (but I'm not a physicist, but I did publish in physics journals after staying in a Motel 6.)
My original assertion was that the necessity of causation is no longer supported by observation and experiment.
Without getting mystical about it, this has consequenses for philosophy and theology, assuming they care about things like facts.
I certainly agree with you, Quark, on the importance of symmetries regarding inversion of coordinates in geometric physics!
This whole sidebar could have been nipped in the bud were it not for RWP hypothesizing a single spatial dimension universe. IOW, a physical universe – not just a dimensional hypothetical. Perhaps that was not his intent, for he says in post 674:
In this case we can hypothesize about a single dimensional universe and perform inverse geometry on it because it is not physically real.
But when we test it with a thought experiment – as though the single spatial dimension universe is physically real and we are the observer “in” it (the line) – then we run into the causal problem of “were it not for time, events could not be.” The inversion becomes physically impossible because the “creator” RWP did not provide a temporal dimension and an additional spatial dimension (template, zero point, direction, etc.) for context.
As "creator" of his universe though RWP could perform an inversion "in" it because he would be the context and not be bound by the spatial/temporal limitations of his own "created" universe.
As betty boop observed, this is a compelling demonstration of a number of issues which intersect in philosophy, theology, mathematics and physics.
One of the forms of causality is "where it not for A, C would not be". In this case, were it not for space/time, subatomic decay would not be.
Which I didn't, as you admit. So why is your misreading of my words my problem?
The inversion becomes physically impossible because the “creator” RWP did not provide a temporal dimension and an additional spatial dimension (template, zero point, direction, etc.) for context.
I've answered this over and over again. I've also asked you, over and over again, to identify where time enters the problem. You are either unable or unwilling to do so.
Go learn some math, AG. That's the kindest thing I can say to you right now.
Why?
At one time God was wholly responsible for tornadoes, science decided tornadoes would be an interesting thing to look into, so they did. What they found were causes that were natural in origin. For this not to hold you have to make God personally responsible for all those causes.
Let's see your evidence. Demonstrate that space/time cannot spontaneously come into existence.
intriguing placemarker
I'll stipulate that existence exists. <g>
The issue here is whether decay events could be specifically predicted, given complete (or at least sufficient) knowledge of the initial state. (Proximate cause, if you will.) The reality is that, in order for such a thing to be mathematically possible, decays would necessarily behave in a manner contrary to what is experimentally observed. At least some decays cannot have proximate causes.
My assertions from the beginning of this sidebar have been in context with the void which I raised way back at post 328.
Your counter-argument was:
As you say a point is more symmetric than a field. But the term symmetry cannot be applied absent spatial and temporal dimensionality.
Again we are at the causal relation that were it not for A, C would not be. No space/time therefore no events, no things, no symmetry etc.
Then, based on what you said, science is often forced to cope with the supernatural: Logical self-consistency demands it.
Science can easily deal with the supernatural. People who believe in the supernatural are seldom pleased with the experimental results.
Looking back to the post you were responding to, I don't see the point you were trying to make.
The history of quantum theory and relativity are examples of instances where science had to deal with contradictory evidence. In such cases, what changes is our understanding of things.
Science deals with such changes in perception all the time.
An empty one, I'm afraid. Wittgenstein himself said that the fundamental problem of philosophy is "why is there something, and not just nothing," but admitted that no answer was possible. IMHO, the only solution is to take a cue from Ayn Rand, taking "Existence Exists" as an axiom and having done with it.
My text was incomplete. I was not trying to say science has the intention of shrinking God, just that the shrinking of God is a 'side effect' of science's desire to understand. I see no evidence for God just like I see no evidence for the tooth fairy. I have no desire to shrink God in the minds of others or expand him. I just don't care. I do care about the external effects those beliefs impose on my culture.
"I just think this is a case of science biting the hand that feeds it. Which seems to be all the rage these days.
Science does what it does, humanity benefits, God doesn't.
"But I also know that where the "realm of God" shrinks, so do human prospects. As in: "The Incredible Shrinking Humanity." Which comprehends the problem of "The Incredibly Shrinking Person."
You'll have to expand on this, I'm not familiar with the story.
"You wrote a fine essay, b_sharp; yet it's late and so I'll have to defer a fuller response to tomorrow. I'm grateful for your post.
You are welcome.
LoL... <<- Eddie Murphy laugh..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.