Reconciling Non-locality and Planck Time: Exploring the Limits of Causality

In summary: No, all actions have to wait for the appropriate time in order to happen, but within a unit of Planck time they all happen at the same time.
  • #1
flotsam
29
0
How does instantanious action at a distance reconcile itself with Planck Time and the assumption that nothing can happen in this minuscule timescale? Does the transition from cause to effect not have a Planck time after the cause and before the effect?
Could one describe a unit of Planck Time as being 'the present' and one must wait for the future for anything to happen?

Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but one can only learn.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I guess is was a silly question?
 
  • #3
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you understand what the Planck time is?
It's the smallest amount of time (quanta of time) that is meaningful. Measuring times shorter than that are meaningless.

On a second look, I have a vague idea of what you mean. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're asking if instantaneous action at a distance will happen within a unit of Planck time.

Instantaneous action at a distance concerns tangled particles interacting. You must treat them mathematically as one system. So I think that if you interact with one of the particles, it's as if you're interacting with the other at the exact same time.
So, my guess is that it doesn't really concern the Planck time.
 
  • #4
Right. It's not as if the interaction with particle A happens first, then causes particle B to react. It's instantaneous. No time passes inbetween.

And you're incorrect in saying that "nothing can happen in" a single unit of Planck time. On the contrary, a single unit is the smallest length of time in which something CAN happen. It's how long it takes for the shortest event imaginable to take place.
 
  • #5
Hooloovoo said:
... a single unit is the smallest length of time in which something CAN happen. It's how long it takes for the shortest event imaginable to take place.
So does this mean time is continious not quantized?
 
  • #6
I agree, because Plancks time is the time it takes a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length, therefore if the particles are really far apart, say across the universe it would still take time for the transaction to happen. Therefore it's either instantaneous or not. Am I correct in saying that?
 
  • #7
tbone said:
I agree, because Plancks time is the time it takes a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length, therefore if the particles are really far apart, say across the universe it would still take time for the transaction to happen. Therefore it's either instantaneous or not. Am I correct in saying that?

I forgot about light traveling a Planck-length! But do all other actions have to wait a Planck-time to happen above the quantum realm?
 

Related to Reconciling Non-locality and Planck Time: Exploring the Limits of Causality

1. What is non-locality and how does it relate to Planck time?

Non-locality refers to the ability of particles to influence each other instantaneously, regardless of the distance between them. This concept is closely related to Planck time, which is the shortest possible unit of time in the universe, at about 5.39 x 10^-44 seconds. Non-locality suggests that particles can interact and exchange information faster than the speed of light, which has significant implications for our understanding of space and time.

2. How was non-locality first discovered and studied?

Non-locality was first discovered in the 1930s through the work of physicist Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. They proposed a thought experiment called the EPR paradox, which demonstrated the concept of entanglement and non-locality. In the 1960s, physicist John Bell further developed the theory of non-locality and introduced the concept of Bell's inequalities, which provided a way to test and measure non-locality in experiments.

3. How does non-locality challenge our understanding of cause and effect?

Non-locality challenges the traditional understanding of cause and effect because it suggests that particles can influence each other without any physical interaction or communication. This goes against the principle of locality, which states that any physical phenomenon can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings. Non-locality suggests that particles can share a connection or "spooky action at a distance," as Einstein called it, which allows them to behave in a non-local manner.

4. Can non-locality be observed and measured in experiments?

Yes, non-locality has been observed and measured in various experiments, including the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality tests. These experiments have shown that particles can indeed influence each other instantaneously, regardless of distance. However, the implications of these results are still being debated and studied by scientists.

5. How does the concept of Planck time impact our understanding of non-locality?

The concept of Planck time is essential in understanding non-locality because it sets a limit on the shortest possible unit of time in the universe. This means that any phenomenon that occurs in a time interval shorter than Planck time cannot be observed or measured. This has implications for the study of non-locality, as it suggests that there could be phenomena and interactions happening at a level that is beyond our current understanding and technology.

Similar threads

Has this approach to non-locality been explored?
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Wave function of particle / quantum field in space, also in time?
Replies
1
Views
784
B QFT & QM Questions (about time, locality, gravity, etc.)
Replies
6
Views
2K
Planck instant and neurobiology. Could mind exist outside time-courses?
Replies
5
Views
3K
B Quantum Entanglement: Hidden Information vs. Time
Replies
19
Views
2K
A Is the Counterfactual Argument for Locality and Realism Flawed?
Replies
11
Views
2K
What's really down in a BH? (a Planck star)
Replies
14
Views
4K
Nature of Time in Physics: A Question
Replies
19
Views
3K
B Questions on QFT & QM: Is QM or QFT Absolute Time?
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Question about time in QM vs. special relativity?
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top