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.
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.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate x and the velocity v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrödinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Two related problems in relativistic quantum mechanics, the apparent superluminal propagation of initially localized particles and dependence of spatial localization on the motion of the observer, are analyzed in the context of Dirac’s theory of constraints. A parametrization invariant formulation is obtained by introducing time and energy operators for the relativistic particle and then treating the Klein–Gordon equation as a constraint. The standard, physical Hilbert space is recovered, via integration over proper time, from an augmented Hilbert space wherein time and energy are dynamical variables. It is shown that the Newton–Wigner position operator, being in this description a constant of motion, acts on states in the augmented space. States with strictly positive energy are nonlocal in time; consequently, position measurements receive contributions from states representing the particle’s position at many times. Apparent superluminal propagation is explained by noting that, as the particle is potentially in the past (or future) of the assumed initial place and time of localization, it has time to propagate to distant regions without exceeding the speed of light. An inequality is proven showing the Hegerfeldt paradox to be completely accounted for by the hypotheses of subluminal propagation from a set of initial space–time points determined by the quantum time distribution arising from the positivity of the system’s energy. Spatial localization can nevertheless occur through quantum interference between states representing the particle at different times. The nonlocality of the same system to a moving observer is due to Lorentz rotation of spatial axes out of the interference minimum.
I consider in this book a formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Usually QM is formulated based on the notion of time and space, both of which are thought a priori given quantities or notions. However, when we try to define the notion of velocity or momentum, we encounter a difficulty as we will see in chapter 1. The problem is that if the notion of time is given a priori, the velocity is definitely determined when given a position, which contradicts the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. We then set the basis of QM on the notion of position and momentum operators as in chapter 2. Time of a local system then is defined approximately as a ratio ∣x∣/∣v∣ between the space coordinate x and the velocity v. In this formulation of QM, we can keep the uncertainty principle, and time is a quantity that does not have precise values unlike the usually supposed notion of time has. The feature of local time is that it is a time proper to each local system, which is defined as a finite set of quantum mechanical particles. We now have an infinite number of local times that are unique and proper to each local system. Based on the notion of local time, the motion inside a local system is described by the usual Schrodinger equation. We investigate such motion in a given local system in part II. This is a usual quantum mechanics. After some excursion of the investigation of local motion, we consider in part III the relative relation or motion between plural local systems. In the final part IV, we will prove that there is at least one Universe wave function ϕ in which all local systems have local motions and thus local times. This concludes our formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
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.
Defining space and time in a manner that agrees more with an observer who measures distance and time with particles, I create a quantum theory of space and time which is more accurate than the special theory of relativity. This new theory, called distance-time theory, predicts the following quantum principles: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the probabilistic location of a particle, and the collapse of this probability once a particle is observed. These principles are derived mostly independent of traditional quantum theory, and they are intrinsic properties of time and space in distance-time theory. However, special relativity theory always gives a particle's exact location and speed. This relativistic result disagrees with the quantum principles previously discussed, but it agrees with classical physics. Special relativity theory is a classical theory, while distance-time theory is a quantum theory. Nevertheless, distance-time theory still predicts proven special relativistic results, and there are novel testable predictions made by distance-time theory. The most notable predictions are those regarding the speed of quantum tunneling and certain characteristics of light. Also, distance-time theory defines distance as equivalent to a time period according to the equation D = cT.