Physicists continue to grapple over the relationship of time and
space. In computational complexity we settled that question three
decades ago: Space is just alternating time.
Chandra, Kozen and Stockmeyer, Alternation, JACM
1981. Based on two 1976 FOCS papers.
An alternating Turing machine is a nondeterministic machine with
states marked either existential or universal. Consider a game where
player 1 chooses the next legal configuration from existential states
and player 2 chooses the next legal configuration from the universal
states and player 1 wins if the machine halts in an accept state. The
machine accepts those inputs where player 1 has a winning strategy.
Alternation causes a shift in the time-space hierarchy of classes: P =
AL, PSPACE = AP, EXP = APSPACE, EXPSPACE = AEXP, etc.
More importantly the two fundamental resource bounds of time and space
are really just the same concept on different models.
Alternation allows us to show the PSPACE-completeness of many
game-based
problems. Also alternating machines set the stage for
interactive proof systems which led to probabilistically checkable
proofs, perhaps the most productive line of research in complexity
over the past fifteen years.
The paper also characterizes the polynomial-time hierarchy
using bounded alternation and shows that alternating finite automata
still accept just regular languages (with a double-exponential blow-up
in the number of states).
Physicists continue to grapple over the relationship of time and space. In computational complexity we settled that question...
For a moment I thought that you were going to announce some breakthrough on PTIME versus PSPACE, but it seems that it's not entirely true that "we settled that question".
If you want to bond with a physicist, just tell him or her that we too have troubles telling space and time apart.