|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not my purpose to enter into a lengthy philosophical discussion of the nature of time here. In general, we agree that we understand what we mean by time, even though we have no very deep understanding of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When considered in depth, time is a very difficult subject. The entire question of causality and time was addressed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in their classic 1935 paper, "Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?" In this paper, Einstein and his colleagues were concerned to show that Niels Bohr's quantum mechanical concepts implied instantaneous "communication" between elementary particles, which implied faster-than-light processes, and thus a violation of relativity theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances in physics allowed Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and Gerard Roger of the Institute of Optics at the University of Paris to conduct in 1982 the experiment that was only possible on paper in 1935. They found that two electrons do, in fact, "communicate" information about their angles of polarization instantaneously. This finding suggests that we would perhaps do better to consider the universe as being connected together in an informational sense, along the lines of the holographic universe outlined by David Bohm in his work, "Wholeness and the implicate order." If this view is anywhere close to the mark, our notions of time and causality are due for some changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately, we can agree to consider time from the more usual perspective of events, which can be measured at levels that allow us to rely on conventional mechanics. |
|
|
|
|
|