More detail on the non-causality poll...

I'd expect adherents to quantum mechanics to choose "sometimes".

Since QM appears to introduce uncertainty (probabilistic) in place of causality (deterministic) (i.e., it moves from certainty toward randomness), I don't see why a deeper dive couldn't move entirely to randomness (non-causality).

Non-causality appears to be a generalization of nonlocality (or perhaps complimentary to it).

Because of the results of the Bell test experiments, there appears to be renewed interest in explicit theories of nonlocality (e.g., extentions of de Broglie–Bohm theory) to make QM more palatable.

I think the development of a construct for a non-causal extent with causality emergent at macroscopic levels (or emergent at the quantum/macro interface) could serve the same purpose, but I haven't been able to find anything on that.

*** Does anybody know of anyone who is working on that? ***

Here are some more hashtags to cast the net a bit wider. (feel free to comment even after the poll is complete):

#einstein #bohr #causality #spacetime #belltest #epr #paradox #light
#atom #atoms #electron #proton #quark #neutron #electricity #stem #technology
#cern #matter #energy #higgs #particle #lorentz #simultaneity #lightcone
#physics #QM #relativity #gravity #time #space