This paper introduces the concept of time as a count of a count of changes or events that set up a local "clock" in each system. Time does not exist without changes in the system and every system runs its own local time. In interaction, systems generate a sequence of interaction events that are being added to the internal pool of events in each system. Any observation is made with the local time of the observer system and changes the observer's local time by adding observation events to the observer's time count. Local time in any "nite and closed system is "nite and obeys the saturation principle due to limitations of the event counting capacity of the system. Traditional continuous time is just a convenient approximation for the enormous number of events occurring in our world that set up our local "clock". !e event-based approach does not conflict with modern physics but proposes a new view of the fundamental notion of time and brings us one step closer to understanding the world in which we live. The greatest mystery of the notion of time is that there is no time at all.
This paper introduces the concept of time as a count of a count of changes or events that set up a local "clock" in each system. Time does not exist without changes in the system and every system runs its own local time. In interaction, systems generate a sequence of interaction events that are being added to the internal pool of events in each system. Any observation is made with the local time of the observer system and changes the observer's local time by adding observation events to the observer's time count. Local time in any "nite and closed system is "nite and obeys the saturation principle due to limitations of the event counting capacity of the system. Traditional continuous time is just a convenient approximation for the enormous number of events occurring in our world that set up our local "clock". !e event-based approach does not conflict with modern physics but proposes a new view of the fundamental notion of time and brings us one step closer to understanding the world in which we live. The greatest mystery of the notion of time is that there is no time at all.
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 argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.
The concept of position and its measurement are fundamental to modern navigation technology as well as to theoretical physics. Nevertheless, a consistent notion of position has not been found in modern physics because of apparent inconsistencies between quantum mechanics and relativity. In quantum mechanics the probability distribution for a particle's position is determined by its wave function. A wave function strictly localized in space describes a particle within that locality, and nowhere else. But the quantum equations of motion predict the function will disperse, after any length of time at all, to occupy all space. Therefore the theoretical prediction is that, shortly after detection in a laboratory, a particle may be found anywhere in the universe, including regions requiring faster-than-light travel to reach. This contradicts the theory of relativity, which precludes a body traveling faster than the speed of light. The conflict arises from unexamined assumptions regarding the time of the measurement event and the time of the system under measurement. The prevailing view in physics is that time is only a parameter, having a definite value, describing dynamic changes in physical systems. This view endures even though quantum mechanics recognizes position as a quantum variable with inherent uncertainty, and relativity indicates that time should be placed on the same footing as position. But if time is recognized as a quantum variable with inherent uncertainty, the conceptual problems with position are resolved. The particle has finite probability of being in the past (or future) of the observer, while the quantum mechanical operator describing the position measurement contains a term which extrapolates from the intrinsic time of the particle to the time of the observer. Being potentially well in the past of the measurement event, the particle has time to travel to remote regions without exceeding the speed of light, and the conflict with relativity is resolved. A relativistic quantum theory can therefore be constructed incorporating a well-defined concept of position.
Clocks are systems for measuring frequency, velocity, duration and numerical order ntttt.......,, 210 of physical events. Time t obtained with clocks is not a forth dimension 4X of space, time t is only a component of tciX ∗∗=4. This view of clock/time as a measuring system sees physical phenomena running exclusively in space and not in time. This view is supported with several experiments which confirm that time t of physical event can be zero. Time is not part of space; time is run of clocks in space. Past, present and future exist as a psychological time in the mind only not in the universe. We experience motion i.e. change in the space through the frame of psychological time. We “project ” linear psychological time “past-present-future ” into the space, however it is not there. Observer who distinguishes between space-time, physical time and psychological time is aware that in quantum measurement he only measures physical events in space and not in time. Clock/time is merely a measuring device. With this understanding observer’s observation, measurement and experience of quantum phenomena are closer to their real nature. Stream of numerical order of quantum phenomena ntttt.......,, 210 runs in space only and not in time. Stream of quantum phenomena has no duration on its own. Duration is result of measurement.
Since the beginning of physics, time is the duration of material changes. We measure time with clocks. The notion of time in Newton physics, Einstein’s relativity, and quantum physics are different despite we always measure the same time with the same apparatuses that are clocks. We showed in this article that the act of the measurement done by the observer is generating duration. Time as duration is the result of the interaction between the observer and physical reality via clocks. In the universe, only changes exist. Changes have no duration on their own. Time as duration is born with the measurement done by the observer. Duration is relative and depends on the variable energy density of time-invariant superfluid quantum space that is the carrier of EPR-type entanglement.
The nature of time has long been debated in human history and nowadays is considered of central importance for understanding quantum gravity. We focus on and advocate the relational concept of time, which was put forward in the 17th century in opposition to Newton's absolute time, and only in 1990 explored in a quantum mechanical framework by Carlo Rovelli. After a historical introduction the mathematical models of time are carefully analyzed in chapter 1, followed by a discussion of the role of time played in fundamental theories. Using as an example nonrelativistic mechanics, the process of parametrization is explained, leading to a separation of a 'canonical time coordinate' from an arbitrary evolution parameter. The discussion of the role of time in special and general relativity as well as in quantum mechanics shows that more fundamental theories use less structure of time. This is followed by an exposition of the history of the relational concept of time, which negates the existence of an absolute duration and therefore often is called "timeless". Next it is shown how fundamental theories can be formulated and re-interpreted using this concept. We put emphasis on the hitherto neglected connection between relationalism and non-extensibility, while absolute time is shown to be unproblematic in classical mechanics just because of the possibility to extend the system without changing its nature. We conclude chapter 1 with a new axiomatic basis for the construction of time observables based on a simultaneity relation between 'observations', which are treated as a primitive concept and intuitively correspond to measurement events, but without knowing 'when' these events occur. There is no fundamental time observable; any observable qualifies as a time observable, if it allows to separate all instants. Chapter 2 gives a brief account of three main problems connected with time: a) The problem of the arrow of time. This has to be disentangled from the problem of irreversibility: a solution of the latter essentially excludes cyclic motions and is required for a solution of the former, which consists in showing that a fundamental direction between any two non-identical instants is physically meaningful. We give a formal definition of the arrow of time. This classical analysis is followed by a review of the problem of the arrow of time in quantum theory, where the situation becomes more complicated because of indeterminism. The discussion shows that there is no experimental evidence for a fundamental arrow of time, so that no contradiction with the relational concept of time arises. b) The problem of time measurement, which is of particular importance for the relational approach, in which time has no reality except if measured by a clock. In quantum theory useful time operators seem to be possible only within the more general formalism of positive operator valued measures (POVM). Clocks based on an oscillation mechanism do however require phase measurements; quantum phase operators can be defined as certain POVMs. Phase difference operators do also exist in the traditional Hilbert space formalism, if another quantization is used, as is done with relational quantization. c) The problem of quantum gravity is sketched only briefly. Chapter 3 introduces and discusses a model of Rovelli consisting of two oscillators with no external time. In this model one oscillator is considered as a clock and defines a relational time for the other one. In the first section we introduce this model and generalize it to a free massless scalar field in one dimension. We establish the relation between a single field mode and the infrared behaviour of the field through constants of motion. In the second section after a short review of canonical quantization we review Rovelli's quantization and generalize it to the free field. We could not prove the existence of the quantization map, but calculations using computer algebra indicate that the quantization does exist. For an enlarged algebra we are able to prove the nonexistence of a quantization map similar to a proof by Groenewold and van Hove. In chapter 4 we observe that a clock time always requires infinitely many degrees of freedom, and we make the hypothesis that a time observable is given by the infrared behaviour of quantum fields, leading to a classical notion of time when using algebraic quantum mechanics. This does however not solve the main problem of quantum relationalism: Which conditions determine a particular evolution?