At the same time

[michel123456]

a. Can one object be at 2 different points of space ?

 

The answer is Yes it can, but not at the same time. Meaning that the same object A can be at point 1 at time stamp T1 and at point 2 at time stamp 2. It cannot be at 2 different points 1 & 2 at the same time.

 

That was for Space.

 

Now the new question:

 

b. Can an object be at 2 different points of time ?

 

The answer is Yes it can. But not at the same time

 

The underlined condition looks like a tautology. Of course an object cannot be at 2 different points of Time "at the same time".

 

Which means that IF an object is at time stamp T1, it cannot be "at the same time" at time stamp T2.

 

Or, because the "at the same time" is tautologic when speaking about Time, what one could say is the following:

 

If an object is at time stamp T1, it is not at time stamp 2. And if the object is at time stamp T2, it is not at time stamp T1. IOW time stamps are mutually exclusive.

 

Is anything wrong in the above?

Edited June 1, 2017 by michel123456

[swansont]

In QM it is possible to be in two places at the same time. A superposition of spatial states.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a18756/atoms-exist-two-places-simultaneously/

 

So your premise is false

[Handy andy]

In QM it is possible to be in two places at the same time. A superposition of spatial states.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a18756/atoms-exist-two-places-simultaneously/

 

So your premise is false

 

Are you convinced the process of superposition is fully understood by science, is there any scope for error in your claim.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Handy andy

[fiveworlds]

In QM it is possible to be in two places at the same time. A superposition of spatial states.

 

Is it possible to be in more than two places at the same time?

[swansont]

Are you convinced the process of superposition is fully understood by science, is there any scope for error in your claim.

Nothing is fully understood by science. Everything claimed is with the caveat that it is according to the best of our understanding.

Is it possible to be in more than two places at the same time?

You can have superpositions of more than 2 states. Quantum computing, for example, relies on this.

[Delta1212]

Also, of course it is impossible to be in two times at the same time because "the same time" implies a single time coordinate.

 

For the same reason, you can't be in two places at the same place.

[studiot]

Also, of course it is impossible to be in two times at the same time because "the same time" implies a single time coordinate.

 

For the same reason, you can't be in two places at the same place.

 

Well I will actually add the +1 for that little epithet.

 

 

 

 

 

But for the other condition I am unsure about invoking superposition.

That surely is about states, which are energy states not times or places, and combinations of these states (linear or otherwise) form the 'superposition', rather as combinations of particular solutions of differential equations form more general solutions of that equation.

Edited June 1, 2017 by studiot

[swansont]

 

But for the other condition I am unsure about invoking superposition.

That surely is about states, which are energy states not times or places, and combinations of these states (linear or otherwise) form the 'superposition', rather as combinations of particular solutions of differential equations form more general solutions of that equation.

Read the link. In the interferometer you have a superposition of trajectories. There have been other examples, too. If position can be an eigenstate, you can have a superposition.

[michel123456]

Also, of course it is impossible to be in two times at the same time because "the same time" implies a single time coordinate.

 

For the same reason, you can't be in two places at the same place.

That is my point.

 

The conclusion that I draw from this is that the different positions in time are mutually exclusive. That is to say that if you are at T1, you are not at T2, T3, etc. And if you are at T3, you are not at T1.

Which means that a 3D object remains always a 3D object. It does not become a 4D object. All objects are 3D objects that travel through time, being only once at each time stamp T and never occupying more than one time stamp "at a time".

Edited June 3, 2017 by michel123456

[michel123456]

Silence is gold

[Endy0816]

Have tried to explain a few times now...

 

In a loaf of bread is any single unique slice at two different places within the loaf? If not then how can your loaf of bread possibly exist?

[michel123456]

Have tried to explain a few times now...

 

In a loaf of bread is any single unique slice at two different places within the loaf? If not then how can your loaf of bread possibly exist?

1. You are presupposing that the reality is "a loaf of bread".

2. In your example, the loaf of bread xists only when you cut it. Before cutting, there is no loaf, there is the entire bread.

 

3. The loaf & the bread are static things. Our world is dynamic.

 

What I say that if you put a pen on your desk, this pen is what it is, it is a 3D object. It is not a 4D entity that stretches into the past. There is no bread of pen, and your pen is not a loaf cut from something bigger.

[Delta1212]

If you have a one meter wide desk and you lay a meter stick across the width of the desk, can the meter stick exist at both ends of the desk at the same time?

[Endy0816]

It is like a 4D loaf of bread that we are observing 3D slices of.

The additional dimension of time is going to be involved if something appears dynamic.

Do tesseracts help any? You should be able to see how a 3D slice of a 4D object produces our more familiar Universe.



Kind of macabre, but the visible human project is a good example how successive slices can give something the appearance of motion.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Endy0816