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:2601.02140

O Nature, Where Art Thou?

Fay Dowker

gr-qchep-thquant-phSubmitted Jan 5, 2026• Announced Jan 6, 2026
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Where does what happens happen in a quantum system? The standard textbook formulation of quantum mechanics provides a strange, imprecise and yet successful-in-practice answer to this question. In the struggle to unify our understanding of gravity with quantum theory, though, the textbook answer no longer suffices, and an alternative approach is needed. The Feynman Sum Over Histories approach provides an alternative that is particularly suited to quantum gravity because the Sum Over Histories and General Relativity are built on the same fundamental concepts of `event' and `history'.

Comments
6 Pages. A slightly different version of this article was published as "Unifying gravity and quantum theory requires better understanding of time'', Nature 645, 32-34 (2025)

Related papers

Logic is to the quantum as geometry is to gravity

Rafael D. Sorkin

I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.

arXiv:1004.1226•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•23 citations

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Consistent Histories may be strange, but so is standard Quantum Theory

J. Finkelstein

Interpretational questions that arise in the Consistent Histories formulation of quantum mechanics are illustrated by the familiar example of a beam passing through multiple slits.

arXiv:quant-ph/9608007•Aug 7, 1996•0 citations

On the Need for a Certain Physicality from Quantum Theory

Devin Hardy

Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.

JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS•Mar 29, 2017•0 citations

Topics in the decoherent histories approach to quantum theory and quantum gravity

Petros Wallden

•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations

Toward a quantum dynamics for causal sets

Roberto B. Salgado

The Causal Set hypothesis for Quantum Gravity asserts that the smooth Lorentzian spacetime manifold of General Relativity is only an approximation to a fundamental microscopic discrete structure: a locally-finite partially-ordered set. The points of this set are akin to the point-events of the spacetime manifold, and the order-relations among these points are akin to the causal-relations among these point-events. The local-finiteness condition implies a fundamental discreteness and provides an important [conformal] factor needed for the continuum approximations. In this dissertation, we address two aspects toward the formulation of a quantum dynamics for causal sets. The first aspect concerns the dynamics of a zero-mass classical scalar field on a background causal set, Poisson-sampled from an Alexandrov interval in (1 + 1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. Our numerical simulations suggest that actions can be defined for such a scalar field, expressed solely in terms of the causal set and the scalar field, which approximates the corresponding classical action on the continuum Minkowski spacetime. This result may help us describe matter and gauge fields in a local and Lorentz-invariant way on a causal set, a discrete structure now being considered as the arena for spacetime physics. More importantly, it may help us formulate an action for the causal set itself, which would be used in a sum-over-histories approach to describe the quantum dynamics of causal sets. The second aspect concerns Quantum Measure Theory, a new approach to quantum dynamics inspired by the sum-over-histories approach, which is better suited to formulating the dynamics of causal sets and of other alternative structures for spacetime. To better understand the mathematical structure underlying this new approach, we derive some algebraic identities involving the sum-rules of the Quantum Measure and its generalizations. We conclude with a discussion on possible applications and open problems concerning these aspects.

•Jan 1, 2008•4 citations
Where does what happens happen in a quantum system? The standard textbook formulation of quantum mechanics provides a strange, imprecise and yet successful-in-practice answer to this question. In the struggle to unify our understanding of gravity with quantum theory, though, the textbook answer no longer suffices, and an alternative approach is needed. The Feynman Sum Over Histories approach provides an alternative that is particularly suited to quantum gravity because the Sum Over Histories and General Relativity are built on the same fundamental concepts of event' and history'.
I will propose that the reality to which the quantum formalism implicitly refers is a kind of generalized history, the word history having here the same meaning as in the phrase sum-over-histories. This proposal confers a certain independence on the concept of event, and it modifies the rules of inference concerning events in order to resolve a contradiction between the idea of reality as a single history and the principle that events of zero measure cannot happen (the Kochen-Specker paradox being a classic expression of this contradiction). The so-called measurement problem is then solved if macroscopic events satisfy classical rules of inference, and this can in principle be decided by a calculation. The resulting conception of reality involves neither multiple worlds nor external observers. It is therefore suitable for quantum gravity in general and causal sets in particular. Quantum gravity and quantal reality Why, in our attempts to unify our theories of gravity and the quantum, has progress been so slow? One reason, no doubt, is that it's simply a very hard problem. Another is that we lack clear guidance from experiments or astronomical observations. But I believe that a third thing holding us back is that we haven't learned how to think clearly about the quantum world in itself, without reference to “observers” and other external agents. Because of this we don't really know how to think about the Planckian regime where quantum gravity is expected to be most relevant. We don’t know how to think about the vacuum on small scales, or about the inside of a black hole, or about the early universe. Nor do we have a way to pose questions about relativistic causality in such situations.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Many attempts have been made at the unification of General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Theory (QT), but there is a fundamental error made with these attempts, as we will discuss. What is the point of such theories? Well, obviously to describe the physical world we live in. QT describes what happens on the tiny scale, and GR describes what happens to bodies on a large scale. The fundamental error in unifying the two subjects is that QT doesn’t provide the physical happenings for GR to work, or in other words, QT describes why the world is the way it is, but not how, and this does not philosophically suffice in GR. Must we simply give up, in that the subjects are two different entities? I think the answer is that we mustn't. I think that we should put one theory in terms of the basic mechanics of the other, perhaps by simplifying, or perhaps by taking the physical reality to be our guide. Do I believe QT describes the world? Accurately. Do I believe that QT is the physical truth? Of course not… it is simply a mathematical construct to provide a model that allows for us to predict future outcomes. I will begin very simplistic, but the goal for the first part of the paper is to Classically describe the physical mechanics of QT. I will stick with particles in their ground state, and hence no translational motion.
The Causal Set hypothesis for Quantum Gravity asserts that the smooth Lorentzian spacetime manifold of General Relativity is only an approximation to a fundamental microscopic discrete structure: a locally-finite partially-ordered set. The points of this set are akin to the point-events of the spacetime manifold, and the order-relations among these points are akin to the causal-relations among these point-events. The local-finiteness condition implies a fundamental discreteness and provides an important [conformal] factor needed for the continuum approximations. In this dissertation, we address two aspects toward the formulation of a quantum dynamics for causal sets. The first aspect concerns the dynamics of a zero-mass classical scalar field on a background causal set, Poisson-sampled from an Alexandrov interval in (1 + 1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. Our numerical simulations suggest that actions can be defined for such a scalar field, expressed solely in terms of the causal set and the scalar field, which approximates the corresponding classical action on the continuum Minkowski spacetime. This result may help us describe matter and gauge fields in a local and Lorentz-invariant way on a causal set, a discrete structure now being considered as the arena for spacetime physics. More importantly, it may help us formulate an action for the causal set itself, which would be used in a sum-over-histories approach to describe the quantum dynamics of causal sets. The second aspect concerns Quantum Measure Theory, a new approach to quantum dynamics inspired by the sum-over-histories approach, which is better suited to formulating the dynamics of causal sets and of other alternative structures for spacetime. To better understand the mathematical structure underlying this new approach, we derive some algebraic identities involving the sum-rules of the Quantum Measure and its generalizations. We conclude with a discussion on possible applications and open problems concerning these aspects.