Can a particle exist without time

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaMeekie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particle Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether a particle can exist without time, particularly in the context of entangled particles and superposition. Participants explore the implications of quantum mechanics, spacetime, and the nature of existence in relation to time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that entangled particles communicate nonlocally, suggesting a relationship between space and time that challenges conventional understanding.
  • Others argue that entanglement is merely a correlation and does not imply communication or superluminal effects.
  • A participant presents a classical mechanics analogy involving conservation of momentum to question the interpretation of instantaneous knowledge about entangled particles.
  • There is a suggestion that definitions of "particle," "time," and "exist" are crucial for addressing the original question, indicating a need for clarity in terminology.
  • Some participants mention hidden variables and their philosophical implications, while others challenge the relevance of such concepts to classical mechanics.
  • Discussion includes references to the behavior of particles in the early universe and how it may differ from current understandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of entanglement, the role of time in particle existence, and the implications of quantum mechanics. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the original question.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in definitions and assumptions regarding the terms used, suggesting that different interpretations of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics may lead to varying conclusions.

DaMeekie
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I was wondering about entangled particles or particles with superposition being able to communicate nonlocally, and then thought about space and time. I know Einstein says that space and time are one in the same called spacetime. He also states that something that travels the speed of light doesn't experience time, but it still propagates through time having to move through space too. Now when you observe an entangled particle if one is up the other is down instantly. Then when you're not looking at it the particles have superposition being able to be both up and down at any given moment it is not being observed. The fact that a particle can act infinitely faster than the speed of light in a vacuum makes me think that an entangled particle exists within our perception of space but not time. I know I may be wrong, but any insight would be much appreciated, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DaMeekie said:
I was wondering about entangled particles or particles with superposition being able to communicate nonlocally,.

That's not what entanglement or superposition implies. Its simply a correlation - that's it - that's all. We have interpretations where it's more than that - but that's all they are - interpretations.

Time is a part of all our currently accepted theories.

Your view of light is a common misconception:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/photon-elapsed-time-equation.774176/

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
DaMeekie said:
I was wondering about entangled particles or particles with superposition being able to communicate nonlocally, and then thought about space and time. I know Einstein says that space and time are one in the same called spacetime. He also states that something that travels the speed of light doesn't experience time, but it still propagates through time having to move through space too. Now when you observe an entangled particle if one is up the other is down instantly. Then when you're not looking at it the particles have superposition being able to be both up and down at any given moment it is not being observed. The fact that a particle can act infinitely faster than the speed of light in a vacuum makes me think that an entangled particle exists within our perception of space but not time. I know I may be wrong, but any insight would be much appreciated, thank you.

I have a glob that has no initial momentum. At time t=0, it spontaneously splits into two, daughters A and B, and they move in opposite direction to each other, with no other external interaction. At some time later, when A is very far away from B, I measure the linear momentum of A. IMMEDIATELY, I know the momentum of B at that very instant, simply by applying conservation of momentum that we all learn in high school. In fact, if at the same time someone else measures the linear momentum of B, I could have easily tell that person what B's momentum is.

Now, did this imply that the particles "can act infinitely faster than the speed of light in vacuum"?

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
ZapperZ said:
IMMEDIATELY, I know
Well that's interesting from a philosophical point of view.
 
DirkMan said:
Well that's interesting from a philosophical point of view.

How is this interesting "from a philosophical point of view", and is this really surprising, considering that this was never an issue when we were dealing with classical mechanics?

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
Knowing the forum rules I'm hesitating to answer. Let's just say I've read somewhere that the hidden non-local variable might have something to do with our brains (call it knowledge, consciousness, free will ...)
 
DirkMan said:
Knowing the forum rules I'm hesitating to answer. Let's just say I've read somewhere that the hidden non-local variable might have something to do with our brains (call it knowledge, consciousness, free will ...)

Yikes!

The example I gave is a standard classical mechanics scenario that we present in high school and intro college physics! There are no "hidden non-local variables" there! Are you telling me that when you encounter a conservation of momentum problem in your first year physics class, you automatically think of such hidden variables? Really?!

Zz.
 
To me, this is a fascinating question, nevertheless, i think perhaps one needs to define what is meant by the terms particle, time and exist. Additionally,
all these things seem to be dependent upon our "laws of physics". It is possible to make up different laws, that would have different variables but could
essentially have the same behavior. (consider, for example, Heisenberg's Matrix mechanics, and Schrödinger[s wave equation. Additionally Dirac said that
the only important thing (about a view of a theory) is the mathematics involved. -- he meant that one could call the wave function applying to charge, and later
it became probability density, but it continued, because the inherent mathematics of the structure remained (the Schroedinger wave eqn. stayed with the same structure.
so one must not be caught up in names. Which is why the terms you use, could need to be defined(i think), and then one might be better able to answer your question.
Still, i think it is a good one.. (things in the early universe act a LOT different than are dreamed of "in your philosophy".
 
DirkMan said:
Knowing the forum rules I'm hesitating to answer. Let's just say I've read somewhere that the hidden non-local variable might have something to do with our brains (call it knowledge, consciousness, free will ...)

You've almost certainly misunderstood what you've read. The primary motivation for the (futile, we now understand) search for a realistic non-local hidden variable theory was to put QM on the same solid ground as classical mechanics: get rid of the measurement problem, get rid of superluminal influences at a distance, and especially to get rid of any requirement for conscious observer.
 
  • #10
Wished to have added... that in the early universe (before and during inflation, things were very, very different, and cannot be any comparison, between
then and now).. Afterwards, things settled down, and now some meaning may exist (but not for whole universe, at all times).
 
  • #11
ken schatten said:
To me, this is a fascinating question, nevertheless, I think perhaps one needs to define what is meant by the terms particle, time and exist. Additionally,
We're drifting very far from OP's question here, which has been pretty much answered by Bhobba and ZapperZ.
I'm going to close this thread now, although as always, if you have more to add to thread PM me so that I can reopen it for your comment.
 

Similar threads

High School Double-slit experiment and time
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Graduate Is entanglement also for time-like intervals?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Schrödinger's cat question
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
High School Can entangled particle pairs be measured at the same time?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
High School Quantum entanglement and simultaneity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad Using a single particle as quantum computer
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Undergrad Question regarding quantum mechanics from relativity perspective
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
High School Multiple entanglements question
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
High School Entangled particle decoherence question
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Can energy be stored in a single particle indefinitely?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K