Great post! Thank you. This is a question that I’ve been wanting to ask as well.It’s wrong on several fronts.
Quantum physics has yet to disprove the law of conservation of matter and energy (neither may be created or destroyed, but may be transformed). This law is best known by the very foundational equation of ALL quantum physics, E=mc[sup]2[/sup], the cornerstone of Einstein’s Special (and first) Theory of Relativity (and the reason the atomic bomb works). The sum total of the mass/energy of the universe is a constant, so (unless your source is scheduled for an appearance at Stockholm sometime soon bearing some profound new discovery that shakes the very foundation of quantum physics), nothing in quantum physics disproves causality. There is no such thing in physics, quantum or macro, as ANYTHING that appears from nothing, or ANYTHING that disappears into nothing (meaning no energy is absorbed or expended in the process). This concept is not EVEN quantum physics - it is basic high-school physics. Most people in the general population cannot tell you the equation for force, or gravity, but they can tell you that E equals m c squared. They might not know what it really means, but they know the equation. I daresay it is the single most well-known equation in the history of humanity, and it absolutely contradicts what your source is telling you. Which should tell you something about your source (ie, he does not know the very first thing about basic high-school physics, much less about quantum physics).
You may have heard that a particle might disappear from one place and suddenly appear in another. This is known as quantum shift, and it is an acknowledged phenomena in science (though not without some controversy). We don’t know how it is possible, but it may be related to another concept we don’t understand, namely quantum entanglement (which Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” and which he attempted to dispute in his famous EPR paper). Or it may be related to string theory, and, in particular, to the Holographic Principle (as described by the Nobel Laureate Gerard T’hooft). Of course, those ideas have considerable crossover, which boggles the minds of lesser mortals such as me.
We don’t currently understand how quantum shift works, but that doesn’t mean we will never understand, and, of course, it doesn’t mean that causality does not exist (and I don’t think you would find any accredited physicists who would claim that there was no causality involved - there is a bright and shiny Nobel Prize waiting on a shelf in Stockholm for the first guy that explains how it works). At one time, we did not understand how thunder or lightening worked. Now we do. Maybe, someday, we will understand quantum shift (and a whole raft of other quantum strangeness, such as, ummmmm, light and gravity). But, simply because we do not currently understand, it does not mean that nothing caused it to happen.
Excellent and succinct post, thank you ^^It’s wrong on several fronts.
Quantum physics has yet to disprove the law of conservation of matter and energy (neither may be created or destroyed, but may be transformed). This law is best known by the very foundational equation of ALL quantum physics, E=mc[sup]2[/sup], the cornerstone of Einstein’s Special (and first) Theory of Relativity (and the reason the atomic bomb works). The sum total of the mass/energy of the universe is a constant, so (unless your source is scheduled for an appearance at Stockholm sometime soon bearing some profound new discovery that shakes the very foundation of quantum physics), nothing in quantum physics disproves causality. There is no such thing in physics, quantum or macro, as ANYTHING that appears from nothing, or ANYTHING that disappears into nothing (meaning no energy is absorbed or expended in the process). This concept is not EVEN quantum physics - it is basic high-school physics. Most people in the general population cannot tell you the equation for force, or gravity, but they can tell you that E equals m c squared. They might not know what it really means, but they know the equation. I daresay it is the single most well-known equation in the history of humanity, and it absolutely contradicts what your source is telling you. Which should tell you something about your source (ie, he does not know the very first thing about basic high-school physics, much less about quantum physics).
You may have heard that a particle might disappear from one place and suddenly appear in another. This is known as quantum shift, and it is an acknowledged phenomena in science (though not without some controversy). We don’t know how it is possible, but it may be related to another concept we don’t understand, namely quantum entanglement (which Einstein called “spooky action at a distance,” and which he attempted to dispute in his famous EPR paper). Or it may be related to string theory, and, in particular, to the Holographic Principle (as described by the Nobel Laureate Gerard T’hooft). Of course, those ideas have considerable crossover, which boggles the minds of lesser mortals such as me.
We don’t currently understand how quantum shift works, but that doesn’t mean we will never understand, and, of course, it doesn’t mean that causality does not exist (and I don’t think you would find any accredited physicists who would claim that there was no causality involved - there is a bright and shiny Nobel Prize waiting on a shelf in Stockholm for the first guy that explains how it works). At one time, we did not understand how thunder or lightening worked. Now we do. Maybe, someday, we will understand quantum shift (and a whole raft of other quantum strangeness, such as, ummmmm, light and gravity). But, simply because we do not currently understand, it does not mean that nothing caused it to happen.