Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1801.03396

Evolution equations from an epistemic treatment of time

Per Östborn

Published Jan 10, 2018• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Relativistically, time $t$ is an observable just like position $r$. In quantum theory, $t$ is a parameter, in contrast to the observable $r$. This discrepancy suggests that there exists a more elaborate formalization of time, which encapsulates both perspectives. Such a formalization is proposed in this paper. The evolution is described in terms of sequential time $n\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}$, which is updated each time an event occurs. Sequential time $n$ is separated from relational time $t$, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each $n$, in which $t$ represents the knowledge at time $n$ about temporal relations. The evolution of the wave function is described in terms of the parameter $σ$ that interpolates between sequential times $n$. For a free object we obtain a Stueckelberg equation $\frac{d}{dσ}Ψ(r_{4},σ)=\frac{ic^{2}\hbar}{2\langle ε\rangle}\BoxΨ(r_{4},σ)$, where $r_{4}=(r,ict)$. Here $σ$ describes the time $m$ passed between the start of the experiment at time $n$ and the observation at time $n+m$. The parametrization is assumed to be natural, meaning that $\frac{d}{dσ}\langle t\rangle=1$, where $\langle t\rangle$ is the expected temporal distance between the events that define $n$ and $n+m$. The squared rest energy $ε_{0}^{2}$ is proportional to the eigenvalue $\tildeσ$ that describes a 'stationary state' $Ψ(r_{4},σ)=ψ(r_{4},\tildeσ)e^{i\tildeσσ}$. The Dirac equation follows as a `square root' of the stationary state equation from the condition that $\tildeσ>0$, which follows from the directed nature of $n$. The formalism thus implies that all observable objects have non-zero rest mass, including elementary fermions. The introduction of $n$ releases $t$, so that it can be treated as an observable with uncertainty $Δt$.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1801.03396

Related papers

Generally covariant evolution equations from a cognitive treatment of time

Per Östborn

The treatment of time in relativity does not conform to that in quantum theory. To resolve the discrepancy, a formalization of time is introduced in an accompanying paper, starting from the assumption that the treatment of time in physics must agree with our cognition. The formalization has two components: sequential time $n$ and relational time $t$. The evolution of physical states is described in terms of $n$. The role of $t$ is to quantify distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each $n$, in which $t$ represents the knowledge at time $n$ about temporal distances between present and past events. This approach leads to quantum evolution equations expressed in terms of a continuous evolution parameter $σ$, which interpolates between discrete sequential times $n$. Rather than describing the evolution of the world at large, these evolution equations provide probabilites of a set of predefined outcomes in well-defined experimental contexts. When the context is designed to measure spatio-temporal position $(x,t)$, time $t$ becomes an observable with Heisenberg uncertainty $Δt$ on the same footing as $x$. The corresponding evolution equation attains the same symmetric form as that suggested by Stueckelberg in 1941. When the context is such that the metric of space-time is measured, the corresponding evolution equation may be seen as an expression of quantum gravity. In short, the aim of this paper is to propose a coherent conceptual basis for the treatment of time in evolution equations, in so doing clarifying their meaning and domain of validity.

arXiv:2411.02885•Nov 5, 2024•0 citations

A cognitive basis for physical time

Per Östborn

The treatment of time in relativity does not conform to that in quantum theory. In the context of quantum gravity this is called "the problem of time". A crucial difference is that time $t$ may be seen as an observable in relativity theory, just like position $x$, whereas in quantum theory $t$ is a parameter, in contrast to the observable $x$. Aiming to resolve the discrepancy, a formalization of time in the spirit of Kant's Copernican revolution is suggested, where it is required that the treatment of time in physics agree with our cognition. This leads to reconsideration of the notions of identity and change of objects, as well as the nature of physical states and their evolution. The formalization has two components: sequential time $n$ and relational time $t$. The evolution of physical states is described in terms of $n$, which is updated each time an event occurs. The role of $t$ is to quantify distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each $n$, in which $t$ represents the knowledge at time $n$ about temporal distances between present and past events. A universal ordering of events in terms of $n$ can be postulated even though distances $t$ are relativistic. In short, it is argued that time as a sequential flow of events should be separated from time as a measure of distance between events. In physical models, these aspects of time can be expressed as one evolution parameter and one observable, respectively.

arXiv:2411.01427•Nov 3, 2024•0 citations

A strict epistemic approach to physics

Per Östborn

The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state $S$ with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state $S$ is a subset of a state space $\mathcal{S}=\{Z\}$, such that $S$ always contains many elements $Z$. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of $S$ cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements $Z$, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of $S$ is described in terms of sequential time $n\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}$, which is updated according to $n\rightarrow n+1$ each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time $n$ can be separated from relational time $t$, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each $n$, in which $t$ represents the knowledge at sequential time $n$ about the temporal relations between present and past events.

arXiv:1601.00680•Jan 4, 2016•1 citation

Quantum formalism for events and how time can emerge from its foundations

Eduardo O. Dias

Although time is one of our most intuitive physical concepts, its understanding at the fundamental level is still an open question in physics. For instance, time in quantum mechanics and general relativity are two distinct and incompatible entities. While relativity deals with events (points in spacetime), with time being observer dependent and dynamical, quantum mechanics describes physical systems by treating time as an independent parameter. To resolve this conflict, in this work, we extend the classical concept of an event to the quantum domain by defining an event as a transfer of information between physical systems. Then, by describing the universe from the perspective of a certain observer, we introduce quantum states of events with space-time-symmetric wave functions that predict the joint probability distribution of a measurement (observation) at $(t,\stackrel{P\vec}{x})$. Under these circumstances, without assuming collapse, we propose that a well-defined instant of time, like any other observable, arises from a single event, thus being an observer-dependent property. In this manner, we obtain a stationary quantum state written as a sum of a sequence of normalized states of events with increasing memories. As a consequence, a counterfactual asymmetry along this sequence of events gives rise to the flow of time as being successive ``snapshots'' from the observer's perspective. In this proposal, which contrasts strikingly to the view in which time is an illusion, it is the many distinguishable states in which the observer stores information that makes the existence of time possible.

arXiv:2007.00513•Physical Review A•Jan 21, 2021•9 citations

Quantum mechanics from an epistemic state space

Per Östborn

We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state $S$ corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state $S$ is a subset of a state space $\mathcal{S}=\{Z\}$, such that $S$ always contains several elements $Z$, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of $S$ cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements $Z$, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of $S$ is described in terms of sequential time $n\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}$, which is updated according to $n\rightarrow n+1$ each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts $C$, there is initial knowledge at time $n$ that a given series of properties $P,P',\ldots$ will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values $p,p',\ldots$ of these properties will become known. At time $n$, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets $\{p\},\{p'\},\ldots$. In such a context $C$, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{C}$ on top of $\mathcal{S}$, in which the elements are contextual state vectors $\bar{S}_{C}$. Born's rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values $p,p',\ldots$ is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator $\bar{P}$ with eigenvalues $\{p\}$ to each property $P$ observed within $C$. These operators obey $[\bar{P},\bar{P}']=0$ if and only if the precise values of $P$ and $P'$ are simultaneoulsy knowable.

arXiv:1703.08543•Mar 24, 2017•3 citations

Time Evolution of Quantum Systems

Nandita Rudra

Our ultimate objective is to know the dynamics of quantum system and obtain the equation of motion. We emphasize that time in non-relativistic mechanics is not a dynamical variable and we have treated it like a parameter.

CRC Press eBooks•Aug 19, 2019•0 citations
Relativistically, time ttt is an observable just like position rrr. In quantum theory, ttt is a parameter, in contrast to the observable rrr. This discrepancy suggests that there exists a more elaborate formalization of time, which encapsulates both perspectives. Such a formalization is proposed in this paper. The evolution is described in terms of sequential time n∈Nn\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}n∈N, which is updated each time an event occurs. Sequential time nnn is separated from relational time ttt, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each nnn, in which ttt represents the knowledge at time nnn about temporal relations. The evolution of the wave function is described in terms of the parameter σσσ that interpolates between sequential times nnn. For a free object we obtain a Stueckelberg equation ddσΨ(r4,σ)=ic2ℏ2⟨ε⟩□Ψ(r4,σ)\frac{d}{dσ}Ψ(r_{4},σ)=\frac{ic^{2}\hbar}{2\langle ε\rangle}\BoxΨ(r_{4},σ)dσd​Ψ(r4​,σ)=2⟨ε⟩ic2ℏ​□Ψ(r4​,σ), where r4=(r,ict)r_{4}=(r,ict)r4​=(r,ict). Here σσσ describes the time mmm passed between the start of the experiment at time nnn and the observation at time n+mn+mn+m. The parametrization is assumed to be natural, meaning that ddσ⟨t⟩=1\frac{d}{dσ}\langle t\rangle=1dσd​⟨t⟩=1, where ⟨t⟩\langle t\rangle⟨t⟩ is the expected temporal distance between the events that define nnn and n+mn+mn+m. The squared rest energy ε02ε_{0}^{2}ε02​ is proportional to the eigenvalue σ~\tildeσσ~ that describes a 'stationary state' Ψ(r4,σ)=ψ(r4,σ~)eiσ~σΨ(r_{4},σ)=ψ(r_{4},\tildeσ)e^{i\tildeσσ}Ψ(r4​,σ)=ψ(r4​,σ~)eiσ~σ. The Dirac equation follows as a `square root' of the stationary state equation from the condition that σ~>0\tildeσ>0σ~>0, which follows from the directed nature of nnn. The formalism thus implies that all observable objects have non-zero rest mass, including elementary fermions. The introduction of nnn releases ttt, so that it can be treated as an observable with uncertainty ΔtΔtΔt.
The treatment of time in relativity does not conform to that in quantum theory. To resolve the discrepancy, a formalization of time is introduced in an accompanying paper, starting from the assumption that the treatment of time in physics must agree with our cognition. The formalization has two components: sequential time nnn and relational time ttt. The evolution of physical states is described in terms of nnn. The role of ttt is to quantify distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each nnn, in which ttt represents the knowledge at time nnn about temporal distances between present and past events. This approach leads to quantum evolution equations expressed in terms of a continuous evolution parameter σσσ, which interpolates between discrete sequential times nnn. Rather than describing the evolution of the world at large, these evolution equations provide probabilites of a set of predefined outcomes in well-defined experimental contexts. When the context is designed to measure spatio-temporal position (x,t)(x,t)(x,t), time ttt becomes an observable with Heisenberg uncertainty ΔtΔtΔt on the same footing as xxx. The corresponding evolution equation attains the same symmetric form as that suggested by Stueckelberg in 1941. When the context is such that the metric of space-time is measured, the corresponding evolution equation may be seen as an expression of quantum gravity. In short, the aim of this paper is to propose a coherent conceptual basis for the treatment of time in evolution equations, in so doing clarifying their meaning and domain of validity.
The treatment of time in relativity does not conform to that in quantum theory. In the context of quantum gravity this is called "the problem of time". A crucial difference is that time ttt may be seen as an observable in relativity theory, just like position xxx, whereas in quantum theory ttt is a parameter, in contrast to the observable xxx. Aiming to resolve the discrepancy, a formalization of time in the spirit of Kant's Copernican revolution is suggested, where it is required that the treatment of time in physics agree with our cognition. This leads to reconsideration of the notions of identity and change of objects, as well as the nature of physical states and their evolution. The formalization has two components: sequential time nnn and relational time ttt. The evolution of physical states is described in terms of nnn, which is updated each time an event occurs. The role of ttt is to quantify distances between events in space-time. There is a space-time associated with each nnn, in which ttt represents the knowledge at time nnn about temporal distances between present and past events. A universal ordering of events in terms of nnn can be postulated even though distances ttt are relativistic. In short, it is argued that time as a sequential flow of events should be separated from time as a measure of distance between events. In physical models, these aspects of time can be expressed as one evolution parameter and one observable, respectively.
The general view is that all fundamental physical laws should be formulated within the framework given by quantum mechanics (QM). In a sense, QM therefore has the character of a metaphysical theory. Consequently, if it is possible to derive QM from more basic principles, these principles should be of general, philosophical nature. Here, we derive the formalism of QM from well-motivated epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. First, an epistemic formalism is developed, using concepts like knowledge and potential knowledge, identifying a physical state SSS with the potential knowledge of the physical world. It is demonstrated that QM emerges from this formalism. However, Hilbert spaces, wave functions and probabilities are defined in certain well-defined observational contexts only. This means that the epistemic formalism is broader than QM. In the fundamental layer of description, the physical state SSS is a subset of a state space S={Z}\mathcal{S}=\{Z\}S={Z}, such that SSS always contains many elements ZZZ. These elements correspond to unattainable states of complete knowledge of the world. The evolution of SSS cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements ZZZ, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of SSS is described in terms of sequential time n∈Nn\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1n\rightarrow n+1n→n+1 each time an event occurs, each time potential knowledge changes. Sequential time nnn can be separated from relational time ttt, which describes distances between events in space-time. There is an entire space-time associated with each nnn, in which ttt represents the knowledge at sequential time nnn about the temporal relations between present and past events.
Although time is one of our most intuitive physical concepts, its understanding at the fundamental level is still an open question in physics. For instance, time in quantum mechanics and general relativity are two distinct and incompatible entities. While relativity deals with events (points in spacetime), with time being observer dependent and dynamical, quantum mechanics describes physical systems by treating time as an independent parameter. To resolve this conflict, in this work, we extend the classical concept of an event to the quantum domain by defining an event as a transfer of information between physical systems. Then, by describing the universe from the perspective of a certain observer, we introduce quantum states of events with space-time-symmetric wave functions that predict the joint probability distribution of a measurement (observation) at $(t,\stackrel{P\vec}{x})$. Under these circumstances, without assuming collapse, we propose that a well-defined instant of time, like any other observable, arises from a single event, thus being an observer-dependent property. In this manner, we obtain a stationary quantum state written as a sum of a sequence of normalized states of events with increasing memories. As a consequence, a counterfactual asymmetry along this sequence of events gives rise to the flow of time as being successive ``snapshots'' from the observer's perspective. In this proposal, which contrasts strikingly to the view in which time is an illusion, it is the many distinguishable states in which the observer stores information that makes the existence of time possible.
We derive the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics from epistemic principles. A key assumption is that a physical theory that relies on entities or distinctions that are unknowable in principle gives rise to wrong predictions. An epistemic formalism is developed, where concepts like individual and collective knowledge are used, and knowledge may be actual or potential. The physical state SSS corresponds to the collective potential knowledge. The state SSS is a subset of a state space S={Z}\mathcal{S}=\{Z\}S={Z}, such that SSS always contains several elements ZZZ, which correspond to unattainable states of complete potential knowledge of the world. The evolution of SSS cannot be determined in terms of the individual evolution of the elements ZZZ, unlike the evolution of an ensemble in classical phase space. The evolution of SSS is described in terms of sequential time n∈Nn\in \mathbf{\mathbb{N}}n∈N, which is updated according to n→n+1n\rightarrow n+1n→n+1 each time potential knowledge changes. In certain experimental contexts CCC, there is initial knowledge at time nnn that a given series of properties P,P′,…P,P',\ldotsP,P′,… will be observed within a given time frame, meaning that a series of values p,p′,…p,p',\ldotsp,p′,… of these properties will become known. At time nnn, it is just known that these values belong to predefined, finite sets {p},{p′},…\{p\},\{p'\},\ldots{p},{p′},…. In such a context CCC, it is possible to define a complex Hilbert space HC\mathcal{H}_{C}HC​ on top of S\mathcal{S}S, in which the elements are contextual state vectors SˉC\bar{S}_{C}SˉC​. Born's rule to calculate the probabilities to find the values p,p′,…p,p',\ldotsp,p′,… is derived as the only generally applicable such rule. Also, we can associate a self-adjoint operator Pˉ\bar{P}Pˉ with eigenvalues {p}\{p\}{p} to each property PPP observed within CCC. These operators obey [Pˉ,Pˉ′]=0[\bar{P},\bar{P}']=0[Pˉ,Pˉ′]=0 if and only if the precise values of PPP and P′P'P′ are simultaneoulsy knowable.