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

Springer eBooks

On the Different Aspects of Time in the Fundamental Theories of Physics

Thomas Görnitz

Published Dec 9, 2013• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-02798-2_3

Related papers

Anti Heisenberg—The End of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

Ilija Barukčić

In contrast to many other physical theories, quantum mechanics is generally regarded as above any theory we have ever had and perhaps the best candidate for a universal and fundamental description of objective realty as such. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not the only aspect of the conceptual difference between quantum and classical physics but is certainly one of the most important and famous aspects of quantum mechanics. As we will see, quantum mechanics as a theory and especially Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle challenges not only our imagination but violates some fundamental principles of classical logic as such. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is refuted.

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics•Jan 1, 2016•8 citations

Time in Quantum Theory

H. D. Zeh

Compendium of Quantum Physics•Jan 1, 2009•12 citations

Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics

Alan M. Kadin

In the 20th century, physics was split into quantum mechanics on the microscale, classical mechanics on the macroscale, and general relativity on the cosmic scale, each with a distinct conceptual framework. On the contrary, a simple realistic picture of fundamental waves can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales. This neoclassical synthesis combines aspects of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics, but is distinct from each of them. Electrons are soliton-like waves with quantized spin, which locally define time and space. In contrast, nucleons and atoms are simply composites, with no wave nature of their own. There are no point particles, quantum entanglement, or gravitational singularities. Furthermore, mathematical abstractions such as curved spacetime and complex quantum waves in Hilbert space are not fundamental at all. This approach makes predictions that differ from orthodox theory, which can be tested.

•Dec 1, 2017•0 citations

Revisiting the Nature of Time: A Unified Perspective Across Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Waheed Sabry

Journal of Engineering Advances and Technologies for Sustainable Applications•Jan 1, 2026•0 citations

A categorical framework for quantum theory

Thomas Filk A, A. von Müller

Abstract Underlying any physical theory is a layer of conceptual frames. They connect the mathematical structures used in theoretical models with the phenomena, but they also constitute our fundamental assumptions about reality. Many of the discrepancies between quantum physics and classical physics (including Maxwell's electrodynamics and relativity) can be traced back to these categorical foundations. We argue that classical physics corresponds to the factual aspects of reality and requires a categorical framework which consists of four interdependent components: boolean logic, the linear‐sequential notion of time, the principle of sufficient reason, and the dichotomy between observer and observed. None of these can be dropped without affecting the others. However, quantum theory also addresses the “status nascendi” of facts, i.e., their coming into being. Therefore, quantum physics requires a different conceptual framework which will be elaborated in this article. It is shown that many of its components are already present in the standard formalisms of quantum physics, but in most cases they are highlighted not so much from a conceptual perspective but more from their mathematical structures. The categorical frame underlying quantum physics includes a profoundly different notion of time which encompasses a crucial role for the present. The article introduces the concept of a categorical apparatus (a framework of interdependent categories), explores the appropriate apparatus for classical and quantum theory, and elaborates in particular on the category of non‐sequential time and an extended present which seems to be relevant for a quantum theory of (space)‐time.

arXiv:0907.5242•Annalen der Physik•Sep 17, 2010•6 citations

Foundations of time evolution in quantum mechanics

Bernhard Baumgartner

International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Aug 1, 1995•1 citation
In contrast to many other physical theories, quantum mechanics is generally regarded as above any theory we have ever had and perhaps the best candidate for a universal and fundamental description of objective realty as such. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is not the only aspect of the conceptual difference between quantum and classical physics but is certainly one of the most important and famous aspects of quantum mechanics. As we will see, quantum mechanics as a theory and especially Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle challenges not only our imagination but violates some fundamental principles of classical logic as such. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is refuted.
In the 20th century, physics was split into quantum mechanics on the microscale, classical mechanics on the macroscale, and general relativity on the cosmic scale, each with a distinct conceptual framework. On the contrary, a simple realistic picture of fundamental waves can provide the basis for reunifying physics on all scales. This neoclassical synthesis combines aspects of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics, but is distinct from each of them. Electrons are soliton-like waves with quantized spin, which locally define time and space. In contrast, nucleons and atoms are simply composites, with no wave nature of their own. There are no point particles, quantum entanglement, or gravitational singularities. Furthermore, mathematical abstractions such as curved spacetime and complex quantum waves in Hilbert space are not fundamental at all. This approach makes predictions that differ from orthodox theory, which can be tested.
Abstract Underlying any physical theory is a layer of conceptual frames. They connect the mathematical structures used in theoretical models with the phenomena, but they also constitute our fundamental assumptions about reality. Many of the discrepancies between quantum physics and classical physics (including Maxwell's electrodynamics and relativity) can be traced back to these categorical foundations. We argue that classical physics corresponds to the factual aspects of reality and requires a categorical framework which consists of four interdependent components: boolean logic, the linear‐sequential notion of time, the principle of sufficient reason, and the dichotomy between observer and observed. None of these can be dropped without affecting the others. However, quantum theory also addresses the “status nascendi” of facts, i.e., their coming into being. Therefore, quantum physics requires a different conceptual framework which will be elaborated in this article. It is shown that many of its components are already present in the standard formalisms of quantum physics, but in most cases they are highlighted not so much from a conceptual perspective but more from their mathematical structures. The categorical frame underlying quantum physics includes a profoundly different notion of time which encompasses a crucial role for the present. The article introduces the concept of a categorical apparatus (a framework of interdependent categories), explores the appropriate apparatus for classical and quantum theory, and elaborates in particular on the category of non‐sequential time and an extended present which seems to be relevant for a quantum theory of (space)‐time.