Show Less
Restricted access

Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics

A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology

Raphael Neelamkavil

A fixed highest criterial velocity (of light) in STR (special theory of relativity) is a convention for a layer of physical inquiry. QM (Quantum Mechanics) avoids action-at-a-distance using this concept, but accepts non-causality and action-at-a-distance in EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Paradox) entanglement experiments. Even in such allegedly «non-causal» processes, something exists processually in extension-motion, between the causal and the «non-causal». If STR theoretically allows real-valued superluminal communication between EPR entangled particles, quantum processes become fully causal. That is, the QM world is sub-luminally, luminally and superluminally local-causal throughout, and the Law of Causality is ubiquitous in the micro-world. Thus, «probabilistic causality» is a merely epistemic term.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Chapter 9. Causality in the Epr Paradox: Part 1. The Physics


I argue in the following sections as follows: A fixed highest criterial velocity for all velocities in Special Relativity is in fact a convention for a layer of inquiry. Quantum physics wants to consistently avoid action-at-a-distance from within such a criterial velocity, but finds at the same time luminal-level non-causality in the EPR non-perplexing. Causality for some parts of the universe must be reasonably connected to any alleged non-causality in other parts. Even in “non-causal” processes, something must exist in extension-motion. Then “probabilistic causality” is a mere epistemic term. Every part of a quantum process is ontologically causal, including in the entanglement experiment, if Special Relativity can be made to allow real superluminal velocities with their own causal cones that will be causal for them. Then action on one entangled particle causally results in change in the second particle. This makes finite, real and causally local superluminal velocities possible in quantum physics. Let me begin.

One mind-boggling conceptual paradox in QM is the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (abbr. EPR) paradox (1935). The critical dilemma today about the place and extent of causality in QM is much due to EPR. From the subjectivist-mystical QM point of view of a group of scientist-thinkers (Fritjof Capra, Gary Zukav, Amit Goswami, Dean Radin etc., already mentioned earlier), microcosmic and macrocosmic causality will be based on identification or mixing of freedom and subjectivity with some sort of objectivity (with or without objectual-ness?), and at times with a simultaneous dissociation of freedom from causation, where one tends...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.