Talk:Causality (physics)

article name change
I tried to clear the page Causality by renaming it Causality dummy, but that didn't work as I intended, simply to clear the article name 'Causality'. I don't know the technicalities of such changes. I have requested editorial help.

I think that the article Causality (physics) is important and valuable. But it is specialised; it is not about the general topic of causality; it is, as is evident, about causality considered in physics. Physics is an experimental science. For interpretation of experiments, it relies on a presupposed notion of causality. The notion of causality is so general that it is not restricted to philosophy, and is not derivative from or reliant on physics, which actually presupposes it. Physics says important things about causality, but they derive from presuppositions, and are not logically prior to those presuppositions.

I think that a name change of the article formerly called Causality needs talk page discussion and consensus.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll revert it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a contradiction between unidirectional causality and CPT symmetry?
In CPT symmetry article we can read "The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena". However, having a situation with a clear past->future causality direction and transforming it with CPT symmetry, shouldn't it reverse the causality direction to future->past?

So naively it seems there is some contradiction here? I have some idea to test it experimentally. Is it considered in literature? Maybe CPT symmetry should be mentioned in the article?

Also, hypothetical allowed by general relativity non-orientable wormhole could apply T symmetry e.g. to a rocket going through it - in theory again reversing causality direction (?) Jarek Duda (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

References or lack thereof
In 2008, this page earned a refimprove tag: .

15 years later, there are a grand total of 6 references, 2 of which are not in English, and one is a link to a dictionary definition. Seems like we could do better than that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Causal dynamical triangulation with no references
The section "Causal dynamical triangulation" had editorializing and no refs. It makes an extraordinary claim at the end implying that causality results from CDT. The single ref is to a conference invitation. I deleted the content as unsupported connection to the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)