In relativistic mechanics the time-like vector characterize the motion in spacetime with speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum c in which the line element ds2=c2dt2-dx2-dx2-dz2 is less than zero (where is infinitesimal change in time, and are infinitesimal change in space), thus the time in relativistic mechanics can instantaneously flow [1], however in quantum mechanics although the time is treated as unobservable parameter (without any Hermitian observable operator have engine-value equivalent to time) any two physical quantity described by two non-commuting observable operatorsand fulfill , the knowledge of one immediately produce the knowledge of the other [2], thus in quantum mechanics if two particles interacted in finite temporal epoch and then separated in space the gaining of knowledge by the local measurement of physical quantity runs on one them (for example the measurement of spin direction of one particle using Stern-Gerlach experiment) immediately produce the knowledge of the complementary physical quantity of the other particle (for example the opposite spin direction of the other particle), this simply called quantum entanglement the concept that so much advanced after publication of the Jon Bell’s 1964 celebrated paper [3] in which he illustrated that we can add parameters to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, and then he conclude “there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant”. The question now what these signals that can propagate instantaneously? The answer in this paper will be the time signals field which is defined for each constituent matter particle M and at each space point P as the measure of the total length of all occupation and leaving epochs of P by M which is representing a sequence function compactly supported only at the space point occupied by it and indexed by the number of occupation epochs of P by M, thus the flow of this time signal field from the far future to near future through the present to the near past to the far past inferable by the flow of matter particles constituting the system(such as sun, moon earth and clocks hands). Thus the present will represent in this paper a local absolute feature of time signals field defined at each space point as the set of all occupation epochs of it by matter particle, however the past and future will represent relativistic non-local features of the time signal field defined at each space point as a set of all leaving epochs between each two sequential occupation epochs, so the future after one occupation epoch is representing a past of the next one. Thus according to current representation of time, the two Mc-Taggard’s A and B series of time [4] will exist together as temporal set and then the time is real, the A-series in current theory is a set of all occupation and leaving epochs of space point by the matter particle that is consisting of the present, past and future epochs, and the B-series is the set of all leaving epochs of space points between each two sequential occupation epochs which are taking position before or after the discrete occupation epochs between them and then before or after each other.
Quantum mechanics is our most successful physical theory. It predicts the behavior of atoms, molecules, and light to ten decimal places. No experiment has ever contradicted it. It also contains a crack at its foundation. The theory’s central equation—the Schrodinger equation—describes a smooth, continuous, perfectly predictable evolution of the quantum state. But whenever anyone performs a measurement, they get a single, definite result. Which result they get appears to be random. The transition from smooth evolution to random outcome is called the “collapse of the wavefunction,” and after nearly a century of analysis, there is no agreed-upon explanation for what causes it, when it occurs, or whether it occurs at all. This is the measurement problem. The measurement problem is not a minor puzzle at the margins of the theory. It is a failure to explain the most basic operation in science: looking at the result of an experiment. Around it cluster other puzzles. Light behaves like a wave in some experiments and like a particle in others—two contradictory descriptions. Two particles that have interacted remain correlated across arbitrary distances, as though communicating faster than light. The probabilities that govern measurement outcomes appear as a postulate—the Born rule—inserted by hand with no deeper justification. And the theory offers no unified picture of reality: quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the standard model of particle physics speak incompatible mathematical languages. A century of effort has produced many interpretations of quantum mechanics. Copenhagen. Many-worlds. De Broglie-Bohm. Objective collapse. Quantum Bayesianism. None has achieved consensus. The measurement problem remains. This document proposes that the source of these puzzles is not quantum mechanics itself. It is a single, invisible assumption made at the very beginning of the theory in 1900—an assumption so deeply embedded that nobody noticed they were making it. Change that assumption, and the puzzles do not get solved. They dissolve. They stop being puzzles. They become predictable consequences of geometry.
Traditionally, some version of Born’s rule is always considered to be an indispensable part of any interpretation of quantum mechanics, either as a postulate, or as a result derived-not always on the basis of convincing reasoning-from other postulates. In this section, we have a close look at the possible forms of Born’s rule and discuss the limits of its validity. All traditional foundations of quantum mechanics heavily depend on the concept of (hypothetical, idealized) experiments-far too heavily. This is one of the reasons why these foundations are still unsettled, over 90 years after the discovery of the basic equations for modern quantum mechanics. No other theory has such controversial foundations. The main reason is that the starting point of the usual interpretations is an idealization of the measurement process that is taken too seriously, namely as the indisputable truth about everything measured. But in reality, this idealization is only a didactical trick for the newcomer to make the formal definitions of quantum mechanics a bit easier to swallow. Except in a few very simple cases, it is too far removed from experimental practice to tell much about real measurements, and hence about how quantum physics is used in real applications. In experimental physics, measurement is a very complex thing, far more complex than Born’s rule (the usual starting point) suggests. To measure the distance between two galaxies, the mass of the top quark, or the Lamb shift, just to mention three basic examples, cannot be captured by the idealistic measurement concept used there, nor by any of the refinements of it discussed in the literature. In each of the three cases mentioned, one assembles a lot of auxiliary information and ultimately calculates the measurement result from a best fit of a model to the data. Clearly, the theory must already be in place in order to do that. We do not even know what a top quark should be, whose mass we are measuring, unless we have a theory that tells us this! The two most accurately determined observables in the history of quantum physics, namely the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and Lamb shift, are not even q-observables! To present the stage for the criticism of Born’s rule in Section 14.3, we first need to clarify the meaning of the term “Born’s rule”. To distinguish different useful meanings, we look in Sections 14.1-14.2 at the early history of Born’s rule.
A direct evidence for Time Reversal Violation (TRV) means an experiment that, considered by itself, clearly shows TRV independent of, and unconnected to, the results for CP Violation. No existing result before the recent BABAR experiment with entangled neutral B mesons had demonstrated TRV in this sense. There is a unique opportunity for a search of TRV with unstable particles thanks to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) Entanglement between the two neutral mesons in B, and PHI, Factories. The two quantum effects of the first decay as a filtering measurement and the transfer of information to the still living partner allow performing a genuine TRV asymmetry with the exchange of "in" and "out" states. With four independent TRV asymmetries, BABAR observes a large deviation of T-invariance with a statistical significance of 14 standard deviations, far more than needed to declare the result as a discovery. This is the first direct observation of TRV in the time evolution of any system.
We mentioned some “intricacies” regarding the time reversal symmetry in §6.1. Let us now explain the statement. What do we mean by a symmetry? Suppose we perform an experiment that measures, in some way, the matrix element between a certain initial state ∣∣φ1〉 and a certain final state ∣∣φ2〉. It is customary to denote this matrix element by the notation 〈 φ2 ∣∣φ1〉. Any operator U would change the initial and the final states, and we fix the notation for the changed states as follows: U |φ1〉 = |U φ1〉 , U |φ2〉 = |U φ2〉 . (7.1) For arbitrary operators U , the matrix element of these changed states will not be equal to the matrix element between the original states. However, if we find some operator U such that it satisfies the relation 〈U φ2 | U φ1〉 = 〈φ2 | φ1〉 , (7.2) for arbitrary ∣∣φ1〉 and ∣∣φ2〉, then we say that U is a symmetry operator. In fact, since Eq. (7.1) implies 〈U φ2| ≡ ( |U φ2〉 )† ≡ ( U |φ2〉 )† = 〈φ2|U † , (7.3) it is easily seen that Eq. (7.2) can be written as〈 φ2 ∣∣U †U ∣∣φ1〉 = 〈φ2 | φ1〉 . (7.4) And if this relation has to be obeyed for arbitrary states ∣∣φ1〉 and ∣∣φ2〉, the conclusion is that U †U = 1 , (7.5) which defines a unitary operator . This definition of a symmetry operator would do for most symmetries, such as the ones discussed in Ch. 6. For time reversal, however, this definition is inadequate. The problem appears from a tacit assumption that goes into writing Eq. (7.2). In the original situation, ∣∣φ1〉 was the initial state and∣∣φ2〉 was the final state. In the transformed situation, we are assuming that∣∣U φ1〉 still remains the initial state, and ∣∣U φ2〉 the final state. Certainly this cannot be true when we are talking of time reversal! If the direction of time is reversed, the erstwhile initial state would become the final state and vice versa.