Causality... size matters.
Discussion
Following on from a post on page 14 of the 'Time' thread the issue of causality was broached and does need addressing.
I suppose the first knowledgeable moment we understand the irreversibility of cause and effect is when drop something or knock something off a table and it smashes, your grandmas bit of bone china, usually a cup, and the accusing eye is cast your way, if it shatters (they always do) the piece of precious clay is gone forever.
We don't have the names for the actions but we feel the consequences in shame.
The truth is that although at the size and complexity of the cups level of cohesion as to being a cup at a smaller level, the quantum level, no such irreversibility exists.
In another thread in this Science! forum there was mention of the 'annihilation' of a Positron and an Electron and I pointed out that nothing is ever annihilated in this Cosmos and this is true (despite protestations to the contrary) A Positron and Electron appear to annihilate to create two photons. Those same two photons pair can and will create an electron and positron out of the vacuum.
In effect in the world of the very small there is really no cause an effect, just transfiguration, as we go smaller cause and effect combine and all that governs this is what can and can't interact and in the world of the very small, there isn't much that can't.
So what changes as we go smaller?
Primarily it is the presence of time and its entwinement with probability.
We have a name for that, its name is Entropy.
When that precious cup was knocked off your grandmas table what really happened, we'll avoided accusations so the clumsiness is of no concern, first thing of real note is that as it tipped over the edge it started to fall, but the cup didn't break from just falling, as is often said the fall doesn't hurt, it's the ground that hurts, but there is a deeper reason why it didn't shatter on the way down and that is about time and probability.
Whilst falling it was under a single overwhelming probability set, the set we call gravity and that is what really kept the cup together, just as it had when it was innocently sitting on the table before you knocked it of.
It did have other probabilities but they were overwhelmed by the huge numbers in the probability of Gravity.
Once the cup touches the ground the huge numbers of the probability of gravity are overwhelmed by the huge number of possible paths the disintegration can take.
That number is barely comprehendable to a human and we might as well call it infinite.
But the disintegration take a single path through all these possibilities, one path in an infinite number of them, some, many in fact would mean the cup doesn't shatter.
But it broke...
As it broke probability came into play as each piece cracked and separated from others all having to negotiate the almost infinite number of further possible permutations of where they land and how hard and shatter further.
These kinetic energy interactions could quite easily have lead to the cup actually re-forming, there is sufficient energy to even re-create the bonds that made the cup whole as it once was when sat on the table, furthermore there is sufficient energy to put the cup back on the table...
The reason it didn't is because just as there were an infinite number of possible final outcomes of the placement of every part that broke and the shape and manner of those breaks and it took one path, an unrepeatable path, the path back to the cup returning to the table in perfect condition is but one single path in a series of an infinite number of infinite possibilities.
The route through the probabilities is a singular one, but the opportunity at each moment is near infinite and if we cut the number of possibilities down by going smaller then at some point cause and effect become cancelled out numerically.
This is why particles can snap into and out of existence without apparent cause, the odds are reduced, the possibilities were levelled or rather nearly levelled and it it is inevitable.
Funny old Cosmos innit!
I suppose the first knowledgeable moment we understand the irreversibility of cause and effect is when drop something or knock something off a table and it smashes, your grandmas bit of bone china, usually a cup, and the accusing eye is cast your way, if it shatters (they always do) the piece of precious clay is gone forever.
We don't have the names for the actions but we feel the consequences in shame.
The truth is that although at the size and complexity of the cups level of cohesion as to being a cup at a smaller level, the quantum level, no such irreversibility exists.
In another thread in this Science! forum there was mention of the 'annihilation' of a Positron and an Electron and I pointed out that nothing is ever annihilated in this Cosmos and this is true (despite protestations to the contrary) A Positron and Electron appear to annihilate to create two photons. Those same two photons pair can and will create an electron and positron out of the vacuum.
In effect in the world of the very small there is really no cause an effect, just transfiguration, as we go smaller cause and effect combine and all that governs this is what can and can't interact and in the world of the very small, there isn't much that can't.
So what changes as we go smaller?
Primarily it is the presence of time and its entwinement with probability.
We have a name for that, its name is Entropy.
When that precious cup was knocked off your grandmas table what really happened, we'll avoided accusations so the clumsiness is of no concern, first thing of real note is that as it tipped over the edge it started to fall, but the cup didn't break from just falling, as is often said the fall doesn't hurt, it's the ground that hurts, but there is a deeper reason why it didn't shatter on the way down and that is about time and probability.
Whilst falling it was under a single overwhelming probability set, the set we call gravity and that is what really kept the cup together, just as it had when it was innocently sitting on the table before you knocked it of.
It did have other probabilities but they were overwhelmed by the huge numbers in the probability of Gravity.
Once the cup touches the ground the huge numbers of the probability of gravity are overwhelmed by the huge number of possible paths the disintegration can take.
That number is barely comprehendable to a human and we might as well call it infinite.
But the disintegration take a single path through all these possibilities, one path in an infinite number of them, some, many in fact would mean the cup doesn't shatter.
But it broke...
As it broke probability came into play as each piece cracked and separated from others all having to negotiate the almost infinite number of further possible permutations of where they land and how hard and shatter further.
These kinetic energy interactions could quite easily have lead to the cup actually re-forming, there is sufficient energy to even re-create the bonds that made the cup whole as it once was when sat on the table, furthermore there is sufficient energy to put the cup back on the table...
The reason it didn't is because just as there were an infinite number of possible final outcomes of the placement of every part that broke and the shape and manner of those breaks and it took one path, an unrepeatable path, the path back to the cup returning to the table in perfect condition is but one single path in a series of an infinite number of infinite possibilities.
The route through the probabilities is a singular one, but the opportunity at each moment is near infinite and if we cut the number of possibilities down by going smaller then at some point cause and effect become cancelled out numerically.
This is why particles can snap into and out of existence without apparent cause, the odds are reduced, the possibilities were levelled or rather nearly levelled and it it is inevitable.
Funny old Cosmos innit!
Edited by Gene Vincent on Sunday 26th August 14:22
You mention entropy at the start, you finish by saying ( if I understand correctly ) that at the smallest particle level probability levels out and reversibility occurs, does this mean that at this level the second law doesn't hold ? Or is that covered by you saying nearly levelled ?
A word or two about 'laws'... most people simply do not understand what a 'law' is and invoke it as if it gives them some sort of authority of knowledge.
In my OP I have outlined how we derive the law that you are both attempting to invoke against it.
A 'law' is often invoked but all laws are a sketchy view of how we see things work, what I have written is the deeper theory of why we call it a law, a 'law' is always inferior to the theory that underpins it, because it is borne of it.
You've heard of Entropy, you will have a sketchy view of what it means, but my first post explains in greater detail how it came about.
Laws themselves don't exist, they don't control the Cosmos, laws are no more than a meme.
Questioning a working theory with a 'law' is doomed to failure.
In my OP I have outlined how we derive the law that you are both attempting to invoke against it.
A 'law' is often invoked but all laws are a sketchy view of how we see things work, what I have written is the deeper theory of why we call it a law, a 'law' is always inferior to the theory that underpins it, because it is borne of it.
You've heard of Entropy, you will have a sketchy view of what it means, but my first post explains in greater detail how it came about.
Laws themselves don't exist, they don't control the Cosmos, laws are no more than a meme.
Questioning a working theory with a 'law' is doomed to failure.
I wasn't questioning your theory I was questioning the second law / axiom at the sub atomic level.
What then causes the levelling of probabilities to be almost level and not actually level ? is it just the one in a million or one in a billion " rogue" positrons / electrons that get away statistically or is it a manifestation of the second law ?
Apologies if the use of the word "law" is deemed inappropriate , if you are just going to refer me to your original post please do not reply, I read it and understood it, I have also read it elsewhere and understood it then, but wasn't able to question the writer quite so easily
What then causes the levelling of probabilities to be almost level and not actually level ? is it just the one in a million or one in a billion " rogue" positrons / electrons that get away statistically or is it a manifestation of the second law ?
Apologies if the use of the word "law" is deemed inappropriate , if you are just going to refer me to your original post please do not reply, I read it and understood it, I have also read it elsewhere and understood it then, but wasn't able to question the writer quite so easily
No problem.
If we make a reasonably accurate calculation of the extent of the Cosmos around us that is expanding spontaneously and the occurrence of particles popping into and out of existence, we get a similar final resolution, well within the probability that the actions we see at both the micro and macro are too close in relationship to ignore.
If we make a reasonably accurate calculation of the extent of the Cosmos around us that is expanding spontaneously and the occurrence of particles popping into and out of existence, we get a similar final resolution, well within the probability that the actions we see at both the micro and macro are too close in relationship to ignore.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff