All the arguments of a wavefunction are defined at the same instant, implying the notion of simultaneity. In a somewhat related matter, certain phenomena in quantum mechanics seem to have non-local causal relations. Both concepts contradict the special relativity. We propose defining the wavefunction with respect to the invariant proper time of special relativity instead of the standard time. Moreover, we shall adopt the original idea of Schrodinger, suggesting that the wavefunction represents an ontological cloud-like object that we shall call “individual fabric” that has a finite density amplitude vanishing at infinity. Consequently, the action of measurement can be assimilated to the introduction of a confining potential that triggers an inherent nonlocal mechanism within the individual fabric. This mechanism is formalised by multiplying the wavefunction with a localising Gaussian, as in the GRW theory, but in a deterministic manner.
All the arguments of a wavefunction are defined at the same instant, implying the notion of simultaneity. In a somewhat related matter, certain phenomena in quantum mechanics seem to have non-local causal relations. Both concepts contradict the special relativity. We propose defining the wavefunction with respect to the invariant proper time of special relativity instead of the standard time. Moreover, we shall adopt the original idea of Schrodinger, suggesting that the wavefunction represents an ontological cloud-like object that we shall call “individual fabric” that has a finite density amplitude vanishing at infinity. Consequently, the action of measurement can be assimilated to the introduction of a confining potential that triggers an inherent nonlocal mechanism within the individual fabric. This mechanism is formalised by multiplying the wavefunction with a localising Gaussian, as in the GRW theory, but in a deterministic manner.
Abstract The concept of simultaneity is relative in special relativity whereas, it seems to have a definite meaning in quantum mechanics. On the other hand, theory and experiments in quantum mechanics have revealed the existence of non-local causal relations. We propose to use the invariant space-time interval introduced by special relativity as a benchmark for constructing a spacetime framework presenting a notion of an invariant time. We suggest that a physical system creates a non-local field within the spacetime framework and that the wavefunction of the physical system is an ontological entity that represents this non-local field. We propose to explain measurement and entanglement by using de Broglie Bohm theory in the context of the constructed spacetime framework.
In Newtonian physics, the equation of motion is invariant when the direction of time (t→−t) is flipped. However, in quantum physics, flipping the direction of time changes the sign of the Schrödinger equation. An anti-unitary operator is needed to restore time reversal in quantum physics, but this is at the cost of not having a consistent definition of time reversal applicable to all fundamental theories. On the other hand, a quantum system composed of a pair of entangled particles behaves in such a manner that when the state of one particle is measured, the second particle ‘simultaneously’ acquires a determinate state. A notion of absolute simultaneity seems to be inferred by quantum mechanics, even though it is forbidden by the postulates of relativity. We aim to point out that the above two problems can be overcome if the wavefunction is defined with respect to proper time, which in fact is the real physical time instead of ordinary time.
The theories of special relativity and quantum mechanics both rely on continuous rotation groups to describe physical systems, yet one is formulated on a real spacetime manifold while the other employs a complex Hilbert space. This work investigates whether this distinction may arise from the treatment of time itself. By examining the consequences of describing a relativistic system using a single global time parameter, we explore whether such a description naturally requires a mathematical structure capable of encoding observer-dependent proper times as complex phase information. Within this framework, quantum superposition is investigated as a possible coordinate-level representation of unresolved relativistic frame assignments, while wavefunction collapse is conceptualised as the physical resolution of this ambiguity through interaction. exploring whether aspects of the quantum formalism may be understood as consequences of describing the invariant structure of Minkowski spacetime from a local perspective using a rigid notion of time.
Introduction One of the crucial issues about protective measurements is the extent to which they provide (additional) grounds for some realist understanding of the wave function. This issue is notoriously subject to debate, which is not the aim of this chapter. Rather, this chapter aims at clarifying the further issue of the ontological picture corresponding to the realist understanding of the wave function possibly suggested by protective measurements. Oddly enough, proponents of a realist reading of protective measurements remain in general rather vague about ontology (see for instance Aharonov et al. (1993, 4624), who assimilate the wave function to an “extended object” without further details, or the brief and somewhat unprecise discussion in Dickson (1995, 135–136) of the interpretation of the wave function within Bohmian mechanics (BM) and within the theoretical framework elaborated by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (GRW); in this volume, Gao does propose a more elaborated ontological model for quantum mechanics (QM) based on protective measurements). Despite this vagueness (or maybe because of it), it seems that the most obvious ontological intuition resulting from protective measurements points towards some form of straightforward realism about the wave function understood in the sense of a real, physical field: indeed, protective measurements are claimed to allow measuring expectation values of observables on a single quantum system, thereby providing the possibility of reconstructing (i.e. “measuring” in some sense) the wave function of a single quantum system. Aharonov et al. (1996, 125) clearly express this intuition: “We can observe the expectations values of operators, and we can observe the density and the current of the Schrödinger wave. We can “see” in some sense the Schrödinger wave. This leads us to believe that it has physical reality.” Therefore, this kind of intuition seems in line with a realist conception of the wave function, according to which the wave function is considered as a real substantial, material in some sense) entity on its own (this view is often called “wave function realism”).
Modern quantum mechanics, despite its relativistic extensions, provides intriguing support for a present-centered view of time. This paper argues that quantum phenomena – indeterminacy, wavefunction collapse, the Born rule, and temporal asymmetries in measurement – challenge the static block universe of eternalism and instead elevate the present moment to ontological prominence. Remaining largely interpretation-neutral, we draw on a range of perspectives (from Einstein’s relativity to collapse models, and thinkers like Heisenberg, Rovelli, Maudlin and others) to show that quantum theory operationally distinguishes past, present, and future in a way classical physics did not. We examine how the measurement problem and the randomness of quantum outcomes resist a fully eternalist description, highlight how quantum mechanics introduces an arrow of time at a fundamental level, and consider proposals (e.g. GRW theory, delayed-choice experiments) that make a global present – or something akin to it – conceptually necessary. Classical philosophers and physicists from Einstein to Schrödinger are discussed alongside contemporary voices. While stopping short of endorsing any single ontology outright, we contend that the empirical success of quantum theory re-opens the case for presentism or related “A-theoretic” models of time. In closing, we introduce Existential Realism as a novel metaphysical framework aligning with these insights – one which preserves the special status of the present while accommodating the reality of past and future in a more dynamic ontology. The result is a rigorous yet accessible interdisciplinary inquiry: quantum physics, we conclude, prefers the present, suggesting time’s passage and the now are more than mere illusions.
One of the major concerns of Schrodinger, Lorentz, Einstein, and many others about the wavefunction is that it is defined on the 3N-dimensional configuration space, rather than on the 3-dimensional physical space. This gives the impression that quantum mechanics cannot have a 3D-space or spacetime ontology, even in the absence of quantum measurements. In particular, this seems to affect interpretations which take the wavefunction as a physical entity, in particular the many worlds and the spontaneous collapse interpretations, and some versions of the pilot wave theory.
Here, a representation of the many-particle states is given, as multi-layered fields defined on the 3-dimensional physical space. This representation is equivalent to the usual representation on the configuration space, but it makes it explicit that it is possible to interpret the wavefunctions as living in the physical space. As long as only unitary evolution is involved, the interactions are local. I intended this representation to capture and formalize the non-explicit and informal intuition of many working quantum physicists, who, by considering the wavefunction sometimes to be defined on the configuration space, and sometimes on the physical space, may seem to researchers in the foundations of quantum theory as adopting an inconsistent view about its ontology. This representation does not aim to solve the measurement problem, and it allows for Schrodinger cats just like the usual one. But it may help various interpretations to solve these problems, through inclusion of the wavefunction as (part of) their primitive ontology.
In an appendix, it is shown how the multi-layered field representation can be extended to quantum field theory.