Can Instantaneous Action at a Distance Exist Within Planck Time Limits?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of instantaneous action at a distance in relation to Planck time, exploring whether such actions can occur within the constraints of this minuscule timescale. Participants consider the implications of Planck time on causality and the nature of time itself, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how instantaneous action at a distance can coexist with the concept of Planck time, suggesting that there may be a necessary waiting period between cause and effect.
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about the original question, seeking clarification on the meaning of Planck time and its implications for instantaneous actions.
  • A participant asserts that instantaneous action at a distance involves entangled particles interacting as a single system, implying that such interactions do not necessarily relate to Planck time.
  • There is a claim that a unit of Planck time is the smallest duration in which an event can occur, challenging the notion that nothing can happen in that timeframe.
  • A participant raises a question about whether the existence of Planck time implies that time is continuous rather than quantized.
  • Another participant agrees with the notion that Planck time is the time it takes for light to travel a Planck length, suggesting that distance between particles affects the timing of interactions.
  • A repeated point emphasizes that if particles are far apart, it would take time for interactions to occur, leading to a question about the nature of instantaneous actions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between instantaneous action at a distance and Planck time, with some asserting that interactions can occur instantaneously while others question the implications of distance and time on such actions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nature of time and the conditions under which instantaneous actions can occur.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the definitions and implications of Planck time, but there are unresolved assumptions about the nature of time and causality in the context of quantum mechanics.

flotsam
Messages
29
Reaction score
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
I guess is was a silly question?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
13K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
15K