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

Journal of Modern Physics

Unification Might Be Achievable by a Hypothesis of Instantaneous Time-Jumps during Photon and Graviton Interactions (A Brief Note)

Eugene Terry Tatum

Published Jan 1, 2022• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum theory according to the Copenhagen interpretation holds that, when a quantum interaction is observed (i.e., “measured”), the observer’s measuring devices temporarily become a part of the quantum system. Relativity theory holds that the event clock of the absorbed or emitted photon or graviton is frozen in time relative to all clocks outside the observed system. If we harmonize both theories, this would appear to imply that time continuity must be interrupted at each instant of observed photon or graviton interaction with matter. It is as if a segment of space-time is clipped out during each such observed interaction. If so, we must dispense with the notion of an absolutely smooth and continuous space-time and replace it with an observation-dependent, discontinuous, relativistic/quantum space-time. Mathematical physicists should be able to model this hypothesis (call it a “time-jump hypothesis”) and its inherent discontinuous space-time in their further efforts at unification.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2022.135042

Related papers

Space-Time in Quantum Theory

H. Capellmann

Abstract Quantum Theory, similar to Relativity Theory, requires a new concept of space-time, imposed by a universal constant. While velocity of lightcnot being infinite calls for a redefinition of space-time on large and cosmological scales, quantization of action in terms of a finite, i.e. non vanishing, universal constanthrequires a redefinition of space-time on very small scales. Most importantly, the classical notion of “time”, as one common continuous time variable and nature evolving continuously “in time”, has to be replaced by an infinite manifold of transition rates for discontinuous quantum transitions. The fundamental laws of quantum physics, commutation relations and quantum equations of motion, resulted from Max Born’s recognition of the basic principle of quantum physics:To each change in nature corresponds an integer number of quanta of action. Action variables may only change by integer values ofh, requiring all other physical quantities to change by discrete steps, “quantum jumps”. The mathematical implementation of this principle led to commutation relations and quantum equations of motion. The notion of “point” in space-time looses its physical significance; quantum uncertainties of time, position, just as any other physical quantity, are necessary consequences of quantization of action.

arXiv:2006.00503•Foundations of Physics•Apr 1, 2021•15 citations

Are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory Consistent?

Eugene Paul Wigner

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•1 citation

Change without time. Relationalism and field quantization

Johannes Simon

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?

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos

Ugo Lanciano

Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record contains the four-page summary of the framework, in English and in Italian: the question of why physical laws hold everywhere with nothing to enforce them; the Great Reversal; the non-local phase and its empirical trace in Bell-type experiments; the five postulates with the example of 3 and 5; the matrix; the equals sign as a mirror; a clock made of 3 and 5, whose two means give Einstein's slowing of moving clocks (a known identity: Bondi 1964; Knuth and Bahreyni 2014); and the comparison with two measured numbers. The full overview, with the list of all records, is at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22667516. The author is not a professional physicist; the framework and its premises are the author's own. The texts were written with the help of AI assistants. There has been no review by human referees.

•Oct 21, 2026•4 citations

Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics

Valentin Malinov

Why scientists stating that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they are not compatible, and one of them probably is wrong?

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Is quantum theory compatible with special relativity?

M BAHRAMI, Afshin Shafiee, Mehdi Saravani +1 more

Pramana•Mar 1, 2013•0 citations
Quantum theory according to the Copenhagen interpretation holds that, when a quantum interaction is observed (i.e., “measured”), the observer’s measuring devices temporarily become a part of the quantum system. Relativity theory holds that the event clock of the absorbed or emitted photon or graviton is frozen in time relative to all clocks outside the observed system. If we harmonize both theories, this would appear to imply that time continuity must be interrupted at each instant of observed photon or graviton interaction with matter. It is as if a segment of space-time is clipped out during each such observed interaction. If so, we must dispense with the notion of an absolutely smooth and continuous space-time and replace it with an observation-dependent, discontinuous, relativistic/quantum space-time. Mathematical physicists should be able to model this hypothesis (call it a “time-jump hypothesis”) and its inherent discontinuous space-time in their further efforts at unification.
Abstract Quantum Theory, similar to Relativity Theory, requires a new concept of space-time, imposed by a universal constant. While velocity of lightcnot being infinite calls for a redefinition of space-time on large and cosmological scales, quantization of action in terms of a finite, i.e. non vanishing, universal constanthrequires a redefinition of space-time on very small scales. Most importantly, the classical notion of “time”, as one common continuous time variable and nature evolving continuously “in time”, has to be replaced by an infinite manifold of transition rates for discontinuous quantum transitions. The fundamental laws of quantum physics, commutation relations and quantum equations of motion, resulted from Max Born’s recognition of the basic principle of quantum physics:To each change in nature corresponds an integer number of quanta of action. Action variables may only change by integer values ofh, requiring all other physical quantities to change by discrete steps, “quantum jumps”. The mathematical implementation of this principle led to commutation relations and quantum equations of motion. The notion of “point” in space-time looses its physical significance; quantum uncertainties of time, position, just as any other physical quantity, are necessary consequences of quantization of action.
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?
Common introduction to all the records of this series. The content of this record follows below. Mathematical Materiality (MM) in brief. Why are the laws of physics the same everywhere and at every instant, even though nothing forces matter to obey them? MM proposes an answer: the laws are not rules imposed on matter from the outside; rather, matter itself is made of mathematical relations. And mathematics cannot change: a relation binds two distinct terms everywhere and always. In logic, nothing exists on its own: to exist means to be in relation to another logical entity, and outside this web of relations nothing can exist, not even other universes. This reading already meets experimental measurements at two points. First, the ratio of dark to ordinary matter is read as 3√3 = 5.196; when left free in the fits, Planck and DESI DR2 data give 5.21–5.22 (as registered in record 2.44, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23329080). Second, the acceleration scale of galaxies is read as a₀ = cH₀/6, the same scale that appears in Verlinde's emergent gravity: the computed value is 1.09–1.18 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s² against the measured value of 1.20 (record 2.46.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23506655). Both readings were formulated with the measurements already known; the tests to check them against future data are registered in the same records. In the first logical nexus between space and time — which became homogeneous with Einstein — there is a non-local phase, made only of a pure logical distinction: space is not time. Between the two there is no relation of quantitative calculation, only the logical entity they have in common, which is needed to make them exist with respect to each other. This level is not distant: it is present in every phase of reality, in every place and at every instant. It shows in entanglement, where two distant systems remain correlated more strongly than any explanation based on separate properties and free of faster-than-light influences allows, without anything physically travelling between them. In this non-local phase the two distinct terms, space and time, share only one logical element, which we shall call their greatest common divisor (GCD), just as the numbers 3 and 5 have only 1 in common. The local world arises when a relation is counted through this GCD: its multiples and its fractions form a matrix. Seen by an observer inside the system like us, the multiples appear as time and the fractions as space. When that same multiple is directly contained in the matrix of the point of observation, it turns into mass — that is, into concrete matter as we usually understand it. There is therefore a close link between time and mass, in full agreement with Einstein's relativity, which ties mass to spacetime. The observed objects, while being logically autonomous entities in their local relations, enter into relation with the observer through a logical diffraction — that is, a decomposition into fractions — of the observer's matrix. This reading also gives a reason for the limit of the speed of light, which in Einstein's relativity is instead taken as a starting principle. The speed of light is the fixed exchange rate between the multiples and the fractions of the same GCD, meaning how much space a single step of time is worth: exceeding it would mean, for some observer, covering space without counting time, and thus leaving the local world. Logic always starts from a logical relative, and this exchange rate has nothing absolute in itself either: it is a necessary relative which, inside the system, becomes an absolute hypothesis, the same for everyone and impossible to exceed. Outside the system, by contrast, it has no justification at all, because outside there is only non-existence: justifying something requires another term to relate it to, and out there there is none. Asking for a reason from outside is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The same theoretical framework that reads space, time, mass and the observed objects also admits quantum mechanics. The non-local phase and the mirror-like logical reciprocity between the two ends of the nexus give a reason for the probabilistic behaviour of matter. When the observed object is large enough, its mass fixes it in the matrix of the point of observation: for this reason we see it in one precise place and at one precise instant. When instead the object falls below a certain mass threshold, the principal GCD (that of the point of observation) and the GCD of the diffraction that generates the object are forced to become equal, reflecting each other as in a mirror. At that point the object no longer occupies a single point of the spacetime generated by the observer, but spreads over several possible positions, and we observe it as probability. It is like having to describe the number 10 using only the number 1: the only way is to distribute the 1 over ten positions, one for each unit of the 10. Today we know that even objects made of thousands of atoms behave in this way, and no experiment has yet found the boundary. The idea that the passage from quantum to classical behaviour depends on mass is close to that of Penrose and Diósi; in MM the threshold is the point where the two GCDs, the principal one and that of the local diffraction, become equal. For all these reasons the universe behaves like a simulation without really being one. It follows exact rules, made of counts, everywhere and at every instant, but no machine runs them and no programmer wrote them: a structure of mathematical relations does not need to be computed in order to exist. Tegmark (2008) had already noted that such a simulation need not be run, while Vazza (2025) estimated that running it physically on a machine would require resources that the very laws of the universe do not allow. The work is shared openly so that it can be judged by as many readers as possible: anyone who knows someone interested can pass on this single link, valid for the whole framework (with an overview in English and Italian): https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The entry page, with the complete list of all records, is https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22667516. To cite the framework: Lanciano, U. (2026). The number 1 in front of the mirror: Mathematical Materiality from the nexus to the cosmos. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23535916. The records have been deposited since 5 August 2026, each with its own date, and are released under CC BY 4.0: anyone may use them by citing the source. Objections and errors found are welcome at riverantares@gmail.com, since Zenodo has no space for comments. This record contains the four-page summary of the framework, in English and in Italian: the question of why physical laws hold everywhere with nothing to enforce them; the Great Reversal; the non-local phase and its empirical trace in Bell-type experiments; the five postulates with the example of 3 and 5; the matrix; the equals sign as a mirror; a clock made of 3 and 5, whose two means give Einstein's slowing of moving clocks (a known identity: Bondi 1964; Knuth and Bahreyni 2014); and the comparison with two measured numbers. The full overview, with the list of all records, is at DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22667516. The author is not a professional physicist; the framework and its premises are the author's own. The texts were written with the help of AI assistants. There has been no review by human referees.