Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

It appears that you are currently using Ad Blocking software. What are the consequences? Click here to learn more.

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info

Nanotechnology Physics Earth Astronomy & Space Technology Chemistry Biology Other Sciences

search

Home Physics Quantum Physics October 2, 2012

Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

October 2, 2012, University of Vienna

Featured Last comments Popular

A new framework for quantum mechanics which does not assume a pre-existing global time. It
demonstrates the possibility for two agents to perform a communication task in which it is Traveling to the sun: Why won't Parker
impossible to tell with certainty who influences whom. Credit: University of Vienna Solar Probe melt?
Jul 19, 2018
11

A deeply rooted concept in everyday life is causality; the idea that events in
the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for Electron microscope detector achieves
what happens in the future. Physicists from the University of Vienna and the record resolution
Jul 19, 2018
2
Universite Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is
possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause
and an effect of another one. Newly discovered armored dinosaur
from Utah reveals intriguing family
One of the most deeply rooted history
Jul 19, 2018
2
concepts in science and in our
everyday life is causality; the idea First fossilized snake embryo ever
that events in the present are discovered rewrites history of ancient
snakes
Jul 19, 2018
0
caused by events in the past and,
in turn, act as causes for what
happens in the future. If an event A Researchers move closer to completely
is a cause of an effect B, then B optical artificial neural network
Jul 19,
2018
6
cannot be a cause of A. Now
theoretical physicists from the
more »
University of Vienna and the
Université Libre de Bruxelles have
shown that in quantum mechanics
it is possible to conceive situations Phys.org on Facebook
in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.
Me gusta A 1,4 mill. personas les gusta esto. Regístrate
The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications. para ver qué les gusta a tus amigos.

Although it is still not known if such situations can be actually found in nature,
the sheer possibility that they could exist may have far-reaching implications
for the foundations of quantum mechanics, quantum gravity and quantum Email newsletter
computing.
email
Subscribe
Subscribe

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Causal relations: who influences whom

In everyday life and in classical physics, events are ordered in time: a cause
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
can only influence an effect in its future not in its past. As a simple example,
imagine a person, Alice, walking into a room and finding there a piece of
paper. After reading what is written on the paper Alice erases the message How can heat change be measured under
constant pressure?

54 minutes ago
and leaves her own message on the piece of paper. Another person, Bob,
walks into the same room at some other time and does the same: he reads, Spatial dependence of induced Electric field

2
erases and re-writes some message on the paper. If Bob enters the room hours ago
after Alice, he will be able to read what she wrote; however Alice will not have
inverse square law confusion

4 hours ago
a chance to know Bob's message. In this case, Alice's writing is the "cause"
and what Bob reads the "effect". Each time the two repeat the procedure, How much should it cost to build an MRI Scanner?
only one will be able to read what the other wrote. Even if they don't have
6 hours ago
watches and don't know who enters the room first, they can deduce it by what
When/How does thermal radiation stop (if it stops)
they write and read on the paper. For example, Alice might write "Alice was and condu

7 hours ago
here today", such that if Bob reads the message, he will know that he came
to the room after her. Questions about neutrinos compared to the nature
of light

11 hours ago
Quantum violation of causal order More from General Physics

As long as only the laws of classical physics are allowed, the order of events
is fixed: either Bob or Alice is first to enter the room and leave a message for
the other person. When quantum mechanics enters into play, however, the
picture may change drastically. According to quantum mechanics, objects
can lose their well-defined classical properties, such as e.g. a particle that
can be at two different locations at the same time. In quantum physics this is
called a "superposition". Now an international team of physicists led by
Caslav Brukner from the University of Vienna have shown that even the
causal order of events could be in such a superposition. If - in our example -
Alice and Bob have a quantum system instead of an ordinary piece of paper
to write their messages on, they can end up in a situation where each of them
can read a part of the message written by the other. Effectively, one has a
superposition of two situations: "Alice enters the room first and leaves a
message before Bob" and "Bob enters the room first and leaves a message
before Alice".

"Such a superposition, however, has not been considered in the standard

formulation of quantum mechanics since the theory always assumes a
definite causal order between events", says Ognyan Oreshkov from the
Université Libre de Bruxelles (formerly University of Vienna). "But if we
believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to
expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the
location of a particle or its velocity", adds Fabio Costa from the University of
Vienna.

The work provides an important step towards understanding that definite

causal order might not be a mandatory property of nature. "The real
challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of
causal orders", explains Caslav Brukner from the Quantum Optics, Quantum
Nanophysics, Quantum Information group of the University of Vienna.

Explore further: Quantum Mechanical Con Game

More information:
"Quantum correlations with no causal order" Ognyan
Oreshkov, Fabio Costa, Caslav Brukner. Nature Communications. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms2076

Journal reference: Nature Communications

3 shares

feedback to editors
Provided by:
University of Vienna

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Related Stories Recommended for you

Quantum Mechanical Con Game

May 5, 2008 World's fastest man-made spinning
For the first time, physicists have come up with a scheme that would allow a object could help study quantum
quantum mechanical expert to win every time in a con game with a victim mechanics

July 20, 2018
who only knows about classical physics. Prior quantum cons have typically ...
Researchers have created the fastest man-made rotor in the
world, which they believe will help them study quantum
mechanics.
Quantum physics mimics spooky
action into the past

April 23, 2012
Physicists of the group of Prof. Anton Zeilinger at the Unusual sound waves discovered in
Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information quantum liquids

July 20, 2018
(IQOQI), the University of Vienna, and the Vienna Center for
Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) have, for the ... Ordinary sound waves—small oscillations of density—can
propagate through all fluids, causing the molecules in the fluid
to compress at regular intervals. Now physicists have
theoretically shown that in one-dimensional ...
Quantum teleportation analysed by mathematical
separation tool

September 27, 2011
Scientists from the University of Vienna's Faculty of Physics in Austria Reversing cause and effect is no trouble
recently gave a theoretical description of teleportation phenomena in sub- for quantum computers

July 20 2018

52 comments

2.5
2.5 Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka 2.8 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2012

Guess we need a temporal double slit experiment, since quantum physics always goes
back to that in some sense.

Observe an electron from a beta source interacting with an electron from another beta
source in some fashion where the order of the emission matters, and then look for strange
interference patterns.

ValeriaT 1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2012

At the water surface it's quite normal, when the past of some event becomes influenced with
its future. It's because the events are spreading there both via surface ripples, both trough
underwater waves, which are weaker than the surface ripples - but they're spreading way
faster, than the surface ripples. The mutual interference of longitudinal gradients therefore
may create the conditions for subsequent surface wave spreading (and vice-versa, indeed.)

The people often call such the retrograde causality a predestination or destiny, but the
whole existence of scientific theories serves for effective prediction of future. When we can
calculate, that some asteroid will hit the Earth in the 2036 year, we can construct the space-
ship, which will compensate this risk for future. In this particular case the (awareness of)
future event affected the presence of human observers.

sigfpe 4.5 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2012

@Eikka,

You won't get interference between electrons from distinct sources. That's why it's a two slit
experiment and not a two source experiment. It's one electron going through two slits, not
two separate electrons.

daywalk3r 2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 02, 2012

When we can calculate, that some asteroid will hit the Earth in the 2036 year,we
can construct the space-ship,which will compensate this risk for future. In this
particular case the (awareness of) future event affected the presence of human
observers.
Getting a bit lost in time there, are we? ;-D

What you wrote is of course as bonkers as the "research" this article is referring about.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

If a space-ship would have been constructed and used to "compensate for the future", then
that particular "future event", which supposedly "affected the present", is, essentially, NON-
EXISTENT! ;-D

So in that regard, your "arguments" about the future affecting the past, are about as
substantial as saying "God did it", or Santa..

No matter what observations you make, and how it affects your future actions - it will
allways be the PRESENT which leads to the FUTURE! :-)

Those quantum magicians never fail to amaze.. though sadly, nor dissapoint :-/ (not to be
confused with real scientists)

kochevnik 1 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2012

It would seem that nature employs intransitivity to achieve a timeless state. I suspect this
mobius is a shadow of higher-dimensional timeless states which we as inferior low-
dimensional beings are only able to infer with motion.

mogmich not rated yet Oct 03, 2012

"The real challenge is finding out where in nature we should look for superpositions of
causal orders"

Suggestion: The relation between consciousness and brain? Consciusness is of course an

effect of the state of the brain. But maybe consciousness can also (partly) be the cause of
the state of the brain?

Eoprime 1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2012

"Université Libre de Bruxelles (formerly University of Vienna)"

Thats not correct, one is in Brussels the other one is in Vienna.

Eikka 3 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012

@Eikka,

You won't get interference between electrons from distinct sources. That's why it's
a two slit experiment and not a two source experiment. It's one electron going
through two slits, not two separate electrons.

Of course you do. The whole idea of the two slit experiment is, that the two slits act as two
sources that interfere with each other when the single particle goes through both holes at
the same time.

The interference pattern exists as a classical sum of two separate wavefronts, and you can
easily replicate it with two distinct sources, like two laser beams, two loudspeakers, or two
drops of water in a flat dish. Or in this case, two electric toothbrushes:
http://www.cap.ca...BW_0.jpg

roboferret 3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2012

This also has interesting theological and philosophical implications, as it removes the
dichotomy between infinite causal regress and a prime mover, essentially invalidating the
Kalam cosmological argument beloved of some apologists.

thingumbobesquire 1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012

This notion of causality as a stream of concatenated events is reductionist twaddle. In the

realm of what Leibniz designated as the thinking monad, the desired future cognized as
having sufficient reason for the survival of mankind determines the past in a continuous
manner. This is how we used to more regularly make policy in this country. For example,
the Apollo mission. Now we have become more like brute beasts reacting to forces
supposedly beyond our control... http://thingumbob...pot.com/

Noumenon 1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012

You won't get interference between electrons from distinct sources. That's why it's
a two slit experiment and not a two source experiment. It's one electron going
through two slits, not two separate electrons.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Of course you do. The whole idea of the two slit experiment is, that the two slits act as two
sources that interfere with each other when the single particle goes through both holes at
the same time.

The traditional two slit experiment uses only one source, and only one electron at a time.
The electron is not thought of as a physical wave in that experiment. It is a wave-function of
all possible paths,... the electron "feels-out" all possible paths and interferes with itself.

However, yes, an entire quantum system of several particles, can be in such a

superpossition, but if one can identify one electron from another, there will be no
interference.

If one chess texts which slit it went through, the interference goes away.

Noumenon 2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2012

The concept of Causality, like time, space, and substratum, etc,... are forms in which the
mind orders experience. They are a-priori intuitions,.. built in functions of the mind that
operate on and synthesize experience for consciousness.

What we consider "phenomenal reality", or our intuitive knowledge of reality, has a

subjective component,... which is to say, we supply the conceptual structure in which reality
is known. The question is, can Reality be conformed within this mind dependent framework
consistently across all realms,...

The mind has evolved on the macro-scale, therefore it has evolved faculaties appropriate in
that realm,.. but not at the micro-scale. We presume causality, or force Reality to conform to
it. Can we get away with this at the qm scale? Qm has shown the answer is no,... such was
the quantum revolution, and break from the "classical".

In other words, the non-intuitive nature of qm, is merely a epistemological problem.

Noumenon 2 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2012

EDIT,..

Of course you do. The whole idea of the two slit experiment is, that the two slits act
as two sources that interfere with each other when the single particle goes through
both holes at the same time.- Eikka

My previous post should have had this paragraph in quotes.

EDIT

"If one [can check] which slit it went through, the interference goes away.",

Eikka 2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012

"If one [can check] which slit it went through, the interference goes away.",

Yes, but that's besides the point.

The point is that any two sources of waves, whether it's mechanical waves, light waves, or
probability waves, can interfere with one another.

The point is that in the two-slit experiment where the electron is supposed to come out of
one or the other hole, it forms an interference pattern because both realities are valid at the
same time. We have to figure out a set-up where the outcome depends on the temporal
order of the sources, and observe the analog of an interference pattern of light, but in time.

For that we need a presumably random source, like nuclear decay, and a system that
deflects the particles depending on which one came first.

indio007 2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012

Quantum correlations with no causal order

http://arxiv.org/...4464.pdf

theorist777 1 / 5 (2) Oct 03, 2012

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

I've presented and published work on Causal Particle Theory. It is easy to understand that
particle theory MUST restore Causality to its fundamental formulation, in order to be
mathematically consistent with the rest of physical theory. Seiberg et al also published a
paper which spells out a Causality criteria (which the standard model does not meet). The
approach I've used both meets this crteria and is Consistent with Hartle-Hawking_Hertog
Instanton theory.

julianpenrod 1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2012

In fact. something like this was known since the earliest days of the electromagnetic model
for light. James Clerk Maxwell defined light as mutually oscillating electrostatic and
magnetic fields. But they oscillate in a special way. The oscillating electrostatic field gives
rise to the magnetic field. But the magnetic field is also oscillating and, as it oscillates, it
goives rise to the electrostatic field! So the oscillating electrostatic field gives rise to the
oscillating magnetic field which, in turn, gives rise to the oscillating electrostatic field that
gives rise to the oscillating electrostatic field!

Noumenon 1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012

,.. and then what happens?

ValeriaT 1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012

Maxwell's theory cannot account to quantum phenomena and reversibility of time arrow - so
that the speculations about Maxwell's theory are essentially OT here. In particle model the
vacuum is behaving like the elastic foam: if you squeeze it at some place, it will expand in
perpendicular direction like the piece of jelly: from this aspect of behavior the duality of
electrostatic and magnetic fields follows in AWT. After all, Maxwell has used a model of
elastic fluid during derivation of his theory too. Despite of it, this model is strictly
deterministic, until only transverse waves are taken into account. The things will become
interesting, when we consider the much faster longitudinal waves too - and this is just the
domain of quantum field theory.

Kron 1 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2012

For temporal loops to be a real possible phenomenon the following must be true: the past,
present, and future all exist. This spells deterministic universe. This means no freewill, only
an illusion of choice. Meaning a human being brought back in time and presented with the
same option an infinite number of times will always make the same choice. This destroys
personal accountability, a persons actions in this scenario are like a running script,
presented with the choice to murder or to not-murder will always yield the same result, the
future already exists.

So either,
Case A: only the present exists, the future is not determined and the past is forever behind
us (no temporal loop case)
Or case B: the past, present, and future all exist, all is predetermined, we are like a train on
the tracks, our destination a known. Only in this case is a temporal loop (causal loop), a
possible candidate.

Kron 1 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2012

In case B you can have an open track system (meaning no temporal loop), so the past
began at some point and the future comes to an end at some point, we reside somewhere
in between, presently.

Under a temporal loop the train tracks loop back into the originating station. So the future
ends in the past. The end of the line being the beginning of the line.

Kron 1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2012

Soft determinism (or compatibilism) is a popular topic now a days. It allows scientists to
delve into deterministic studies without messing with the social systems in place today. After
all, it would be immoral to blame someone for their actions, when in reality they have no
control over them. In fact, it wouldn't even be immoral, because in a deterministic universe,
no such thing as morality exists. With no freewill we are only executing a sequence of
predetermined events.

So soft determinism considers the universe as running a determined course (electrons

always attracted to protons, etc.), but states that actions of living organisms are
indetermined.

I don't think determinism and indeterminism are compatible. The Universe is one or the
other in my opinion. I don't know which is more likely, but I hope it is the latter.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Jitterbewegung 1 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2012

?duarf rof elbail eb I lliw neht era yeth tahw em llet ot srebmun ottol s'keew txen teg nac I fI

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2012

But if we believe that quantum mechanics governs all phenomena, it is natural to

expect that the order of events could also be indefinite, similarly to the location of a
particle or its velocity", adds Fabio Costa from the University of Vienna.

I have seen some theorize that the universe is expanding both forwards and backwards in
the time axis, rather than just forwards.

If this is true, then the past is continually being altered by the present and the future, even
though we are somehow unaware of the effects locally.

Consider this, if space is a made of 3 dimensions, and all 3 observed dimension of space
are expanding, apparently, in both positive and negative direction, then why would we
expect time to expand only in the positive direction?

This would explain why the Sun appears exactly twice as old as the radius of the universe, if
you start with the assumption that the Sun was once 100% hydrogen. If it has been burning
both into the future and the past, it makes sense.

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2012

Consider this:

Gravity, as far as we observe it in our day to day lives, is a linear force which is always
roughly orthogonal to the tangent plane at the Earth's surface at our location. But this
perceived "force" propagates out spherically in every direction.

Yet, we do not say that one on the opposite side of the Earth experiences opposite gravity.
We perceive the surface as an "origin" and in mechanics we normally calculate everything
with reference to the surface. So we have a "directional" entity with spherical origins and
propagation.

Ok, so that's not a perfect example, but it's an attempt to show how a "beginning" can be
something other than a point, without contradicting any science nor creation belief we have.

The atmosphere begins at the surface of the Earth, an irregular spheroid, not a point.

Ironically relativity uses a modified version of the formula for a circle:

r2 = x2 plus y2.

r=1

sqrt(1 - x2) = y

But negative values for time are discarded. see below.

Cirrus 1 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2012

I don't know if this has been brought up here, but i read an interesting thing on DNA and
Protein the other day, and this article reminded me of it.
"In the very first cell (assuming that there was a "first" cell) what came first - the DNA or the
protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the
protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it
decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously,
without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be
made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and
maintained by the proteins of the cell" could this be almost macro sized evidence of such
quantum phenomena??

kochevnik 2 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2012

@Kron For temporal loops to be a real possible phenomenon the following must be
true: the past, present, and future all exist. This spells deterministic universe.
I disagree. I notice the brain is designed around tasks. Yet this is still an emergent property.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

More fundamentally neural nets appear affected by music. In other words slight forces of
attraction are experienced by resonating networks in phase which depend not upon time,
but affinity. The kinematic abilities of persons is an add-on interface which requires precepts
such as dimension which is, after all, a purely human construct.

By employing time and reason a human can realize slowly that he is embedded within a 7.1
dimension timeless world.

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2012

cirrus:

It's evidence of creation and forward planning.

When you design a computer or an encryption algorithm, it works the same way; you design
any coding and decoding at the same time.

You are certainly correct that the cellular mechanism of Ribosomes "reading" DNA to
produce structures could not arise by accident or chance, because this event requires a
"forward thinking" process of creation.

In this case, reversing time doesn't even help solve the paradox you present.

Regardless of the direction of time, only a creative mind could could develop both the code
and the reader(the Ribosome) in one step.

Viruses and Prions do not have Ribosomes of their own, and so they cannot possibly
reproduce without high-jacking a cell first, because they need the cell's Ribosomes in order
to build the structures they need for reproduction.

Prevailing biology theories claim viruses came first and then cells, but this is not possible,
because viruses can't reproduce without full cell hosts.

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

So more than likely, the first viruses existed as secondary tools produced by cells for
communication, maintenance, or even sexual reproduction, BECAUSE the cell has the
Ribosomes and the other structures to produce the protein capsules of the Viruses. This
would happen in the same way modern cells produce enter-cellular matrix (such as fibers
between bone cells, or blood plasma). Therefore Viruses probably arose in the same way
as enter-cellular matrices. The same could be said for Mitochondria. The first Viruses could
have been cellular maintenance tools or immune/defense mechanisms against cancers or
other enemy cells.

Later, genetic mutation in the viruses caused some viruses to become pathogenic to the
original species, and then over time enough screwed up changes happened so that viruses
infect nearly all other life forms, though a virus by itself isn't usually considered a "life form"
anyway since it can't complete it's own reproductive cycle.

See the difference?

Eikka 3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2012

This spells deterministic universe.

Not really.

The whole point is that when the causal order of things is unclear, you don't really have a
past that would determine the future or vice versa.

The past and the future are how they have to be for the present to exist, and the present is
what keeps changing and fluctuating.

We are unaware of the change, because if it suddenly became true that Hitler had won the
second world war, it would have always been true for us.

Lurker2358 1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2012

In other words, viruses could have been developed by cells as "cellular drones," which seek
out and destroy enemy cells, just like a UAV hunting muslims in the middle east.

The original manner of deployment may have been exocytosis from the original host cell,
but when in the target cell, the viruses grow out of control and destroy it.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Over time, viruses out-lived their original parent cellular strains, so that physical evidence of
this is hard to find.

But it makes much more logical sense than the standard evolutionary model of "Viruses
came first and somehow became more complex and magically gained Ribosomes and
organelles of their own, and at some point they became cells".

That's just silly, because cells do not have mere "fractal" complexity that could originate
from a few reproduction accidents. Cells have "complicated" construction of many parts
which are wholly different, yet fully dependent on one another, and as such, in most cases,
could not arise accidentally..

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

We are unaware of the change, because if it suddenly became true that Hitler had
won the second world war, it would have always been true for us.

Correct, you could not test this locally by writing a journal and checking to see if it changed,
because anything that changed the journal would change the whole universe, including your
memories of the universe.

I proposed a way to test the theory above, however, by measuring the age of the universe
under the assumption that most stars were pure hydrogen at some time.

I've done the math for the sun about half a year ago, and it turns out the sun would need to
be exactly twice as old as the mainstream theory age of the universe in order to reach it's
present composition.

If a large number of things appear to be twice as old as the universe itself, then that would
be evidence for time moving both directions.

Eikka 3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2012

what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the
DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its
code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to
decode themselves before they could exist.

The argument falls on its face when you realize that proteins are strands of amino acids
much like, or even completely identical to RNA, and RNA can self-assemble and self-
replicate without the help of a ribosome by simple random chemical processes. And what is
DNA then? Well, it's simply doubled up RNA.

The ribosomes and the DNA probably evolved out of bits of self-copying RNA because
some strands of RNA automatically fold up into proteins and some of those proteins can
catalyze the copying of strands of RNA, which would form a precursor pair for DNA and
ribosomes.

Eikka 2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2012

In fact, the ribosomes don't deal with DNA directly, but bits of RNA copied from the DNA.

But that's off topic here.

Lurker2358 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

In fact, the ribosomes don't deal with DNA directly, but bits of RNA copied from the
DNA.

But that's off topic here.

RNA is not single DNA, neither is DNA doubled RNA.

RNA uses Uracil, instead of Thymine. Uracil is never in DNA.

RNA uses Ribose.

DNA uses Deoxyribose.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

The same portion of a DNA double helix can, in principle, code for two completely different
RNA molecules which in turn code for completely different protein structures, which is why
the old theory of genetics is flawed.

Because of this, changing one gene potentially changes multiple traits that would otherwise
seem unrelated.

Kron 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

@Lurker
That is all well said and done. I am not opposed to creationism. At some point, however,
self-organization must have taken place. Yes. It is possible that a God, or a God type race,
created the Universe as we know it. We could never gather information to disprove this
hypothesis, but a problem arises (to infinity in fact), what created the God that created us?
Even in a closed time loop - where God creates Himself - there is a question of the
emergence of the time loop.

We can speak of the matrix theory, or creationism, but this only locally explains reality. It
fully defines the parameters of our Universe, but at that point the parameters expand. We
are left knowing what we thought the Universe was, but now we know nothing of the bigger
reality our "Universe" is nested in.

Eikka 1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2012

RNA is not single DNA, neither is DNA doubled RNA.

I'm talking about the structure, not the particular amino acids used in them, as they are
largely interchangeable.

In a pool of random molecules, you get all sorts of strands with all sorts of combinations,
some of which do something and some of which do nothing. There's no saying that DNA
couldn't use uracil and RNA thymine - it's just that it doesn't.

The entire point is, that it's dumb to ask which came first - proteins or DNA - because they
are in principle the same thing.

TheGhostofOtto1923 3.3 / 5 (23) Oct 07, 2012

In other words, viruses could have been developed by cells as "cellular drones,"

Sorry lurker, real science proves you wrong.

"Viruses share a common ancestor that existed over 3 billion years ago and may even have
preceded cellular forms of life, according to a report in the May 3 PNAS by George Rice and
colleagues at Montana State University."

-But you have shown once again how your god is an ad hoc god.

Remember, google is your friend. Your only friend.

Lurker2358 1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2012

Sorry lurker, real science proves you wrong.

"Viruses share a common ancestor that existed over 3 billion years ago and may
even have preceded cellular forms of life, according to a report in the May 3 PNAS
by George Rice and colleagues at Montana State University."

-But you have shown once again how your god is an ad hoc god.

Remember, google is your friend. Your only friend.

Common ancestry of a virus is irrelevant, even if it were proven, which I highly doubt it was
"actually" proven.

More often than not, people simply fill in absurd gaps.

A virus as it is defined in any text book, dictionary, or encyclopedia cannot possibly have
preceded cellular life, by it's very definition.

Wiki is YOUR friend, Ghost:

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

"A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of an
organism."

Dictionary dot com is your friend:

"an ultramicroscopic... metabolically inert, infectious agent that replicates only within the
cells of living hosts."

Lurker2358 1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2012

So the textbook, encyclopedic, and dictionary definitions of a virus makes it impossible for
viruses to exist without cellular life.

Sorry, you lose.

And if biologists have claimed that viruses predate cells, then they contradict their own
definitions. Any "precellular" common ancestor could not have been a virus, by definition of
the term.

But it would not surprise me if evolutionary biologists contradict themselves, or re-define

their own terms, as they do so all the time, particularly also in realms of so-called
"abiogenesis" or evolutionary realms bordering on abiogenesis.

We know from experimentation that viruses are produced by cells, in modern times, cells
which were hijacked by the parent virus.

Sorry, by definition, Viruses do not and cannot pre-date cellular life.

You lose.

Any common ancestry could easily be explained the way I did above, as a "cellular drone"
defense mechanism or sexual reproduction mechanism gone haywire. much easier to
explain and model too.

Lurker2358 1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2012

You may ask, "How could a virus be beneficial as a maintenance mechanism or as a sexual
reproduction mechanism".

Well, remember the article a few months back about the beetle which someone aquired the
DNA of it's own gut bacteria, whereby the scientists called this "evolution".

While true in a sense, it is not "macro-evolution" because no "new" traits or genes (globally
in terms of the environment" came into existence. What happened was a form of cross-
species, sexual reproduction at the cellular level. How could this happen? The easiest way
to understand it is through one of three mechanisms:

1, Endocytosis-still requires a virus-like or prion-like event though.

2, Viral mediation (i.e. a virus picked up the gene from the bacteria and then transferred it to
the beetle)

3, Prion (the gene broke off the gut bacteria's chromosome, or an individual DNA strand,
becoming a prion, and then somehow migrated to Beetle's Gamete DNA in at least one
strain of the beetle, passing to children.

TheGhostofOtto1923 3.3 / 5 (21) Oct 07, 2012

Common ancestry of a virus is irrelevant, even if it were proven, which I highly

doubt it was "actually" proven.
No I mean it proves that you are wrong to speculate without being familiar with the science.
A virus as it is defined in any text book, dictionary, or encyclopedia cannot possibly
have preceded cellular life, by it's very definition.
Again science by it's very definition proves that you are wrong to speculate. Scientists say
that viruses might have preceded cells based on evidence. It is reckless to declare this
wrong.
Wiki is YOUR friend, Ghost

This did not come from wiki. Drop it into GOOGLE your buddy to find the source.

Kron 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

Viruses are genetic seeds which latch on and alter the genetic information of living cells. A

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

virus changes a cell by adding its DNA to the cells DNA strand. A virus causes a change in
the host cell. This is evolution.

Now if you think about this for a moment, you will see, how viruses could be precursors to
life itself.

Nikstlitselpmur 1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

Would there be any place in our galaxy where the observation of sub atomic particles
wouldn't be effected by the black hole at the center and frame dragging? How far will a
gravity wave travel?

ziphead 2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2012

"Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A"

This, as in: creationist post A in response to atheist post B turns out to be rally caused by
atheist post B from the future, as a pre-emptive action conceived inside someone's paranoid
mind. And on and on it goes...

I mean; how does one drift from quantum causality discussion to rambling on about viruses
neither party knows much about without consulting online resources first?

...it is nevertheless fun to observe.

TheGhostofOtto1923 3.3 / 5 (21) Oct 07, 2012

viruses can't reproduce without full cell hosts...by definition, Viruses do not and
cannot pre-date cellular life.
No, by your def viruses known presently cannot do this. Things change. This is called
evolution not design.

"...therefore it is likely that these two ancient lineages of viruses also share a common
ancestor. Probably the ancestor diverged into two different lineages already before Bacteria
and Archaea separated into the two distinct domains of life.

Altogether, the evidence suggests that the very abundant world of viruses appear to be
formed of lineages that emerged before the first cellular domain of life emerged (Benson et
al. 2004)...However, we argue that it is more likely that the evolutionary process producing
both cells and viruses were actually tightly associated to one another."

-There. I threw you a bone. And hey - thanks for actually looking something up.

consciousgod 1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2012

Just like space, time has 3 dimensions. Humans can only perceive one dimension of time.
The second dimension of time is the dimension of time where the quantum world resides.
It's called superposition. The third dimension of time is called multiverse. In the 2nd
dimension of time, all possibilities exists like when we are in the dream state, our
consciousness wonders until ours minds observe, we wake up, and our wondering in
superposition becomes FIXED in our one time dimension reality, and we lose sight of all the
possibilities and become stuck in the here and now.

Parsec 5 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012

@daywalk3r - it is sad when people confuse the lack of understanding about something with
the lack of that things reality. Its like I don't understand about cats, so cats do not exist, and
anyone that talks about cats is a crackpot.

daywalk3r 1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2012

@daywalk3r - it is sad when people confuse the lack of understanding about

something with the lack of that things reality. Its like I don't understand about cats,
so cats do not exist, and anyone that talks about cats is a crackpot.

As much as it is sad to confuse delusions with real understanding.

Do some people even realize they are supporting claims for which there is exactly ZERO
observational (nor any other type of) evidence?

Talk about time travel, zero dimensional entities, Loch Ness, God, (whatever), all you want..
But this is a science site, and as far as I know, one of the very basic tenets of science is,
that every CLAIM should be backed by EVIDENCE.

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

And so far, neither the authors of the paper, nor you, have provided a single one..

Aaron_Nitzkin 2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2012

No, Kron, you get that result because you are inappropriately maintaining assumptions of
classical mechanics. If all events exist simultaneously in some sense from a greater
perspective, they do so without all being simultaneously observed, because observation is a
local, temporal phenomena, or simply interaction, if you prefer decoherence. So, if past-
present-future exist at once, they do so in the form of wave-functions in which many
possibilities exist. Your experience would be one path through all possible events, as
shaped by your interactions and observations, thereby giving you the freedom as a
consciousness of determining your path as you go along, although the possibilities from
which you select pre-exist.

Aaron_Nitzkin 2 / 5 (4) Nov 04, 2012

And, re: the article -- is this not already implied by consideration of the full dual-
wavefunction's behavior? If every event sends out a wavefunction "spherical" in space-time,
into both the past and future, then each event is a handshake between past and future,
which makes some degree of circular causality the norm, as events in the future are always
partially determining the events in their own pasts. My question is, could this generate
meaningful macroscopic effects, and what experiment could we use to look for evidence
that current events are being shaped by the future?

Kron 1 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2012

Your experience would be one path through all possible events

True. Reality may exist in all possible states simultaneously, experiences (interactions, or
whatever) being the collapse into a certain state. So the architecture exists and is free of
interaction until we hit run. At this point we begin to carve a path, creating our own reality.
So we're on the same page here, I assume?

But we can explore this a little deeper. Like, what are we as lifeforms? Are our actions really
random, or are we predictable? By this I mean, if immersed in the same environment
repeatedly without prior run knowledge, would our run paths differ, or would all paths be
identical?

If you walk into a room full of girls and all are vying for your attention and you choose the
one you like the best, would you end up choosing the same one repeatedly if we brought
you back in time to the moment you first walked in?

I think I'd always pick the same one, just as a proton picks an electron and not a positron

Commenting is closed for this article.

We recommend

New Pathways to Clearer Skin: Individual Treatment in Metastatic Gastric or GEJ Adenocarcinoma: a
Psoriasis Systematic, Patient-Centered Approach
Gary Goldenberg, Jerry Bagel,
myCME Tania Dickson et. al.,
myCME

Diseases in Hematolody: Precision and Emerging Metastatic Gastric or GEJ Adenocarcinoma: Managing
Medicine with a Systematic, Patient-Centered Approach
Karen L. Kaul et. al.. Keats, Sandeep S. Dave, Wing C. (John) Chan, Tania Dickson et. al.,
myCME
Cheryl L. Willman, Anas Younes,
myCME
Individualizing Treatment in Psoriasis as New
Managing Metastatic Gastric or GEJ Adenocarcinoma: Pathways to Clearer Skin
A Systematic, Patient-Centered Approach Gary Goldenberg, Jerry Bagel,
myCME
Tania Dickson et. al.,
myCME

Powered by

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]
Quantum causal relations: A causes B causes A

Top Help Science X Account Feature Stories Android app Connect

Home FAQ Sponsored Account Latest news iOS app

Search About Newsletter Week's top Amazon Kindle

Mobile version Contact RSS feeds Archive

© Phys.org 2003 - 2018, Science X network Privacy Policy Terms of Use

https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html[22/07/2018 04:02:00]