- #1
Jimih
- 1
- 0
i looked it up on the wiki page and was a little hard for me to understand.
RandallB said:It pretty much means exactly what wiki says – You have a Timelike separated events A happening before B with some effect happen at A depending on what independent is done at B where the choice of what happens at B in not affected at all by what had already happened at B, rather that some aspect of what happens at A is caused by the result at B.
Well sure, so would any experimentally proven correct re-interpretation of oQM like MWI etc. If for no other reason; QM claims that no other description can be more complete that what Copenhagen QM already allows. Hence the claim to being as complete as it can get.sudhirking said:wouldn't this in a way defy Qm
RandallB said:It pretty much means exactly what wiki says – You have a Timelike separated events A happening before B with some effect happen at A depending on what independent is done at B where the choice of what happens at B in not affected at all by what had already happened at B, rather that some aspect of what happens at A is caused by the result at B.
Why would we even consider retrocausality? Because of apparent QM non-local behaviors between Spacelike separated events. (Timelike & Spacelike both on Wiki under Spacetime)
Retrocausality, that almost no one believes is true or can be proved, is one of many unrealistic ways that might demonstrate the existence of “Non-Local” reality. But applied inside certain very limited microscopic limits the idea can work out mathematically rather nicely to describe and predict some results. Feynman diagrams are probably the most famous of those limited examples.
I don't - Only a Non-Local discription such as QM can.Phrak said:I don't see how you apply notions of cause and effect to spacelike separated events.
"You got the hiccups" I have no idea what that slang might mean - care to explain.peter0302 said:You got the hiccups Randall?
Retrocausality really has no applcability in any interpretation of QM except Cramer's "transactional" interpretation, which he speculates would allow you to send a message back in time. No other mainstram interpretation has retrocausality as a relevant or even existent feature.
But that question could not have been asked if the repeated reply had not been already ignored and Feynman Diagrams had actually been looked up.peter0302 said:The joke was that you repeated yourself verbatim rather than answer the man's question directly. A little passive-aggressive IMO.
Retrocausality is the concept of an effect occurring before its cause. It suggests that the future can influence the past, contrary to our traditional understanding of causality.
Traditional causality follows the principle that the cause must always precede the effect. Retrocausality challenges this by suggesting that effects can influence their causes.
No, retrocausality is still a highly debated and speculative concept in the scientific community. While there have been some studies and theories that suggest the possibility of retrocausal effects, there is currently no concrete evidence to support it.
If retrocausality were to be proven true, it would challenge our understanding of time and causality. It could potentially change our approach to predicting and understanding events in the past, and have significant impacts on fields such as physics and philosophy.
There are various theories and experimental designs that have been proposed to test the concept of retrocausality. These include studying anomalies in quantum mechanics, conducting thought experiments, and exploring the possibility of time loops. However, further research and experimentation is needed to fully understand and test retrocausality.