2 ms·
Disclaimer: Non-physicist here too. About motion without time: it depends on the definition of distance. Some physicists are proposing that space is an emergen
by pmontra 5y ago
Disclaimer: Non-physicist here too.
About motion without time: it depends on the definition of distance. Some physicists are proposing that space is an emergent feature and particles are closer (in the space we perceive) if they are more entangled. If particles A and B are entangled but then B gets entangled with C and says goodbye to A, we would see B moving from A to C. We would also perceive time because of that change, but there is no time at all.
- jonhohle 5y agoAs a non-physicist and someone who struggles with quantum mechanical theories, doesn’t your analogy contain an ordered sequence or events? Is that not time (that’s basically a vector clock, for example).
- pmontra 5y agoIt's even difficult to write without using time words. Let's try again. Status 1: B is entangled with A and not with C. Status 2: B is entangled with C and not with A. Perception: B moved from being spatially close to A to be close to C. Or the other way around. I agree that this could explain space but it doesn't seem to explain time. Why that entanglement changed and which one came first and why? I'm not the one that's going to explain that even at this very low level. Search for Susskind space entanglement and you should find something first hand.