Can Particles Exist in Multiple Times Through Quantum Time Dilation?

[Voodoo Chile]

What if quantum mechanics is combined in an experiment with time dilation? Not that unheard of as subatomic particles can travel very fast, until they are relatively close to the speed of light.
Take a ship moving very fast, say .25c. Now take a particle that would travel at either .25c in one of two directions (using a beam splitter): Either forward in the direction of the ship or backwards relative to the ship. The particle would go through both paths, and therefore be going in both directions, and therefore both speeds relative to you, at .5c and 0c. The particle would act as if it was going both directions, and therefore would experience normal time due to being stationary, and slower time due to going forward.
My relativity knowledge isn't as good as my quantum mechanics knowledge (I know the particle wouldn't travel exactly .25c either way because of time dilation relative to the ship, so I'm taking liberties with this argument already) but theoretically, would the particle now exist in multiple time-frames? And therefore, would the particle be in not only two places at once, but also at two TIMES at once? (ironic statement, as understanding arguments of simultaneity is the major starting point in studying time dilation.)
I'm probably wrong in this theory, but I feel that when you collapsed the wave function on one end, you have sent information across time. If anyone would be able to explain why I'm misunderstanding it, that would be great.

 

[Infernos]

I think this is a great question Voodoo! I would be immensely interested in an answer that could include those pesky neutrinos the surpassed c. Time relative to a particle has always been shushed and push aside in these forums as only us, the fleshy observers are the ones that seem to matter. Your question about the particle existing in multiple time-frames sparks the imagination, does it exist in a time superposition relative to the particle? Or maybe it is "stretched" over the time-frames to allow for it to happen? Great question!

 

[mathfeel]

What if quantum mechanics is combined in an experiment with time dilation? Not that unheard of as subatomic particles can travel very fast, until they are relatively close to the speed of light.
Take a ship moving very fast, say .25c. Now take a particle that would travel at either .25c in one of two directions (using a beam splitter): Either forward in the direction of the ship or backwards relative to the ship. The particle would go through both paths, and therefore be going in both directions, and therefore both speeds relative to you, at .5c and 0c. The particle would act as if it was going both directions, and therefore would experience normal time due to being stationary, and slower time due to going forward.
My relativity knowledge isn't as good as my quantum mechanics knowledge (I know the particle wouldn't travel exactly .25c either way because of time dilation relative to the ship, so I'm taking liberties with this argument already) but theoretically, would the particle now exist in multiple time-frames? And therefore, would the particle be in not only two places at once, but also at two TIMES at once? (ironic statement, as understanding arguments of simultaneity is the major starting point in studying time dilation.)
I'm probably wrong in this theory, but I feel that when you collapsed the wave function on one end, you have sent information across time. If anyone would be able to explain why I'm misunderstanding it, that would be great.

We do have a working theory of quantum mechanics + special relativity. It is called Quantum Field Theory. Effects of QM and SR are included.

Then I got completely lost in the rest of your post.

 

[phinds]

I would be immensely interested in an answer that could include those pesky neutrinos the surpassed c.

There is at present no belief that any neutrinos have surpassed c. What there IS is a set of experimental results that the experimenters themselves don't believe and they have published the results with the request to the world's physics community to help them figure out where the measurement error is.

 

[phinds]

The particle would go through both paths, and therefore be going in both directions, and therefore both speeds relative to you, at .5c and 0c.

That is not correct. Relativistic speeds do NOT add like that. The one moving forward would be going something less than .5c and nothing about your scenario causes any problems in relativity. About the same particle going both ways, I can't say whether that would happen or not. QM is weird.

 

[DaveC426913]

Take a ship moving very fast, say .25c. Now take a particle that would travel at either .25c in one of two directions (using a beam splitter): Either forward in the direction of the ship or backwards relative to the ship. The particle would go through both paths, and therefore be going in both directions, and therefore both speeds relative to you, at .5c and 0c. The particle would act as if it was going both directions, and therefore would experience normal time due to being stationary, and slower time due to going forward.

No.

1] Motion is relative. So is stationary. No particle in your setup is any more stationary or in motion than any other particle. It entirely depends on what frame of reference you choose. And you can choose anyone you want. Choose the FoR of the particle headed sternward, and you have a spaceship traveling at .25c and a particle traveling ahead of it at .5c.

2] Particles do not experience any kind of absolute time dilation. Time dilation is a result of relative motion. The particle travleiing sternward and the particle traveling forward are both time dilated by the same amount from your FoR.

 

[Neandethal00]

There is at present no belief that any neutrinos have surpassed c. What there IS is a set of experimental results that the experimenters themselves don't believe and they have published the results with the request to the world's physics community to help them figure out where the measurement error is.

Glad to see CERN results hit this physics forums.
All I hope is physicists do not FORCE an explanation on us to save other theories of physics.

 

[phinds]

Glad to see CERN results hit this physics forums.
All I hope is physicists do not FORCE an explanation on us to save other theories of physics.

That is insulting and unwarrented.

 

[Neandethal00]

That is insulting and unwarrented.

No, my comment was not meant to insult anyone. No one should take it personally.

But over the years, I have noticed scientists of all branches of science including physics never or very rarely use the answer "We Do Not Know Yet". Instead, they will produce an explanation for everything, correct or incorrect.

 

[phinds]

No, my comment was not meant to insult anyone. No one should take it personally.

But over the years, I have noticed scientists of all branches of science including physics never or very rarely use the answer "We Do Not Know Yet". Instead, they will produce an explanation for everything, correct or incorrect.

I have NOT noticed that at all, which is why I found, and still find, your comment insulting to scientists.

I think a perfect example of this is the recent furor over the experiments that seemed to show neutrons moving faster than c. When the scientists conducting the experiments couldn't figure out what was going on, they said EXACTLY THAT. They published their results with a call to the physics community to help them figure out what their mistake was since they didn't really believe they had found something going faster than c.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, my comment was not meant to insult anyone. No one should take it personally.

You do realize that a sizeable fraction of PF membership is professionals in the science community... Your Fellow members here are the very people you are passing judgment on.

But over the years, I have noticed scientists of all branches of science including physics never or very rarely use the answer "We Do Not Know Yet". Instead, they will produce an explanation for everything, correct or incorrect.

It is their responsibility to produce explanations. They explain what they do understand.

correct or incorrect.

This is naive. The scientific method is founded upon change and modification. It is correct for what is observed now. When there is more evidence, the model is changed. That does not constitute incorrect.

The failure here, is that a large portion of the public expect scientists to "declare" for all time that x is the way it is, and that it will never change. The public does not understand the scientific method at all. That seems to include you.

 

[Neandethal00]

You do realize that a sizeable fraction of PF membership is professionals in the science community... Your Fellow members here are the very people you are passing judgment on.


It is their responsibility to produce explanations. They explain what they do understand.


This is naive. The scientific method is founded upon change and modification. It is correct for what is observed now. When there is more evidence, the model is changed. That does not constitute incorrect.

The failure here, is that a large portion of the public expect scientists to "declare" for all time that x is the way it is, and that it will never change. The public does not understand the scientific method at all. That seems to include you.

@Dave, Phinds
Sorry, I started this. Now I do not want to open the pandora's box, which will solve no problem but will be waste of our own valuable time. I understand many members of PF are professional in scientific community, but there are some students also.

Yes Phinds, this neutrino speed was one of the rare occasions where physicist published a paper asking for an answer, and it surprised me. Like you we all are waiting for an answer to this experimental findings.

You see, I studied physics but physics is not my profession. Now I observe physics, its laws as an outsider and in my mind I have an unbiased opinion about all sciences. I understand you all have curious minds about nature like I have. That's what brought us together, we are here not to compete but to learn from each other.

Again my apology if I offended anyone. I'll be careful in the future.

 

[KWillets]

What if quantum mechanics is combined in an experiment with time dilation?

A man named de Broglie already did this.