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

Atoms

The Arrow of Time in Quantum Theory

J P Connerade

Published Oct 26, 2025• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

In Classical Mechanics, time is reversible, i.e. implies no particular choice: only the observer knows in which direction it flows. The present Comment re-examines whether this remains true in Quantum Mechanics. In the context of Atomic Physics, it is concluded that the existence of an arrow of time depends on the manner in which the radiation field is introduced, which must be non-perturbative.

DOI
10.3390/atoms13110086

Related papers

Time, the Arrow of Time, and Quantum Mechanics

Gerard ’t Hooft

It is brought forward that viable theories of the physical world that have no variable at all that can play the role of time, do not exist; some notion of time is one of the very first ingredients a candidate theory should possess. Almost by definition, time has an arrow. In contrast, time reversibility, or even the possibility to run the equations of motion backwards in time, is not at all a primary requirement. This means that the direction of the arrow of time may well be uniquely defined in the theory, even locally. It is explained that a rigorous definition of time, as well as a formulation of the causality and locality concepts, can only be given when one has a model for the physical phenomena described. The only viable causality condition is one that is symmetric under time reversal. We explain these statements in terms of the author’s favoured deterministic cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, also to be referred to as 'vector space analysis', and expand on these ideas. It is also summarised how our more rigorous causality condition affects Bell’s theorems. What distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is our fundamental inability to control the microscopic details of the initial state when phenomena are studied in the light of some theoretical model.

arXiv:1804.01383•Frontiers in Physics•Aug 29, 2018•53 citations

The Arrow of Time

Ted Dace

The foundation of irreversible, probabilistic time -- the classical time of conscious observation -- is the reversible and deterministic quantum time of the wave function. The tendency in physics is to regard time in the abstract, a mere parameter devoid of inherent direction, implying that a concept of real time must begin with irreversibility. In reality time has no need for irreversibility, and every invocation of time implies becoming or flow. Neither symmetry under time reversal, of which Newton was well aware, nor the absence of an absolute parameter, as in relativity, negates temporal passage. Far from encapsulating time, irreversibility is a secondary property dependent on the emergence of distinct moments from the ceaseless presence charted by the wave function.

Cosmos and history•Dec 12, 2018•1 citation

Time's Arrow and Irreversibility in Time‐Asymmetric Quantum Mechanics

Mario Castagnino, Manuel Gadella, Olímpia Lombardi

The aim of this paper is to analyze time‐asymmetric quantum mechanics with respect to the problems of irreversibility and of time’s arrow. We begin with arguing that both problems are conceptually different. Then, we show that, contrary to a common opinion, the theory’s ability to describe irreversible quantum processes is not a consequence of the semigroup evolution laws expressing the non‐time‐reversal invariance of the theory. Finally, we argue that time‐asymmetric quantum mechanics, either in Prigogine’s version or in Bohm’s version, does not solve the problem of the arrow of time because it does not supply a substantial and theoretically founded criterion for distinguishing between the two directions of time.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science•Oct 1, 2005•14 citations

A subquantum arrow of time

Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen

The outcome of a single quantum experiment is unpredictable, except in a pure-state limit. The definite process that takes place in the apparatus may either be intrinsically random or be explainable from a deeper theory. While the first scenario is the standard lore, the latter implies that quantum mechanics is emergent. In that case, it is likely that one has to reconsider radiation by accelerated charges as a physical effect, which thus must be compensated by an energy input. Stochastic electrodynamics, for example, asserts that the vacuum energy arises from classical fluctuations with energy 1/2 ℏω per mode. In such theories the stability of the hydrogen ground state will arise from energy input from fluctuations and output by radiation, hence due to an energy throughput. That flux of energy constitutes an arrow of time, which we call the "subquantum arrow of time". It is related to the stability of matter and it is more fundamental than, e.g., the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows.

arXiv:1409.3131•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Apr 14, 2014•3 citations

A time-reversible quantum causal model

Jacques Pienaar

Modern approaches to causal modeling give a central role to interventions, which require the active input of an observer and introduces an explicit `causal arrow of time'. Causal models typically adopt a mechanistic interpretation, according to which the direction of the causal arrow is intrinsic to the process being studied. Here we investigate whether the direction of the causal arrow might be a contribution from the observer, rather than an intrinsic property of the process. Working within a counterfactual and non-mechanistic interpretation of causal modeling developed in arXiv:1806.00895, we propose a definition of a `quantum observational scheme' that we argue characterizes the observer-invariant properties of a causal model. By restricting to quantum processes that preserve the maximally mixed state (unbiasedness) we find that the statistics is symmetric under reversal of the time-ordering. The resulting model can therefore accommodate the idea that the causal arrow is observer-dependent, indicating a route towards reconciling the causal arrow with time-symmetric laws of physics.

arXiv:1902.00129•Jan 31, 2019•4 citations

Seeking for a Fundamental Quantum Arrow of Time: Time Reversal and the Symmetry-To-Reality Inference in Standard Quantum Mechanics

Cristian López

In this paper I shall shed some doubts on a widely-held claim: standard quantum mechanics is time-reversal invariant, and thereby, blind to the direction of time. Building bridges between physics and philosophy, I shall argue that such a claim features some puzzling assumptions that are frequently overlooked in the literature. In particular, I shall first argue that the claim involves some methodological and metaphysical commitments that should be evaluated more prudently from philosophy and from physics. Second, I shall point out that the common inference that goes from symmetry to metaphysical conclusions needs some correction and refinement to be acceptable for time symmetry and the debate around the arrow of time

Frontiers in Physics•Sep 19, 2018•4 citations
In Classical Mechanics, time is reversible, i.e. implies no particular choice: only the observer knows in which direction it flows. The present Comment re-examines whether this remains true in Quantum Mechanics. In the context of Atomic Physics, it is concluded that the existence of an arrow of time depends on the manner in which the radiation field is introduced, which must be non-perturbative.
It is brought forward that viable theories of the physical world that have no variable at all that can play the role of time, do not exist; some notion of time is one of the very first ingredients a candidate theory should possess. Almost by definition, time has an arrow. In contrast, time reversibility, or even the possibility to run the equations of motion backwards in time, is not at all a primary requirement. This means that the direction of the arrow of time may well be uniquely defined in the theory, even locally. It is explained that a rigorous definition of time, as well as a formulation of the causality and locality concepts, can only be given when one has a model for the physical phenomena described. The only viable causality condition is one that is symmetric under time reversal. We explain these statements in terms of the author’s favoured deterministic cellular automaton interpretation of quantum mechanics, also to be referred to as 'vector space analysis', and expand on these ideas. It is also summarised how our more rigorous causality condition affects Bell’s theorems. What distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is our fundamental inability to control the microscopic details of the initial state when phenomena are studied in the light of some theoretical model.
The foundation of irreversible, probabilistic time -- the classical time of conscious observation -- is the reversible and deterministic quantum time of the wave function. The tendency in physics is to regard time in the abstract, a mere parameter devoid of inherent direction, implying that a concept of real time must begin with irreversibility. In reality time has no need for irreversibility, and every invocation of time implies becoming or flow. Neither symmetry under time reversal, of which Newton was well aware, nor the absence of an absolute parameter, as in relativity, negates temporal passage. Far from encapsulating time, irreversibility is a secondary property dependent on the emergence of distinct moments from the ceaseless presence charted by the wave function.
The aim of this paper is to analyze time‐asymmetric quantum mechanics with respect to the problems of irreversibility and of time’s arrow. We begin with arguing that both problems are conceptually different. Then, we show that, contrary to a common opinion, the theory’s ability to describe irreversible quantum processes is not a consequence of the semigroup evolution laws expressing the non‐time‐reversal invariance of the theory. Finally, we argue that time‐asymmetric quantum mechanics, either in Prigogine’s version or in Bohm’s version, does not solve the problem of the arrow of time because it does not supply a substantial and theoretically founded criterion for distinguishing between the two directions of time.
The outcome of a single quantum experiment is unpredictable, except in a pure-state limit. The definite process that takes place in the apparatus may either be intrinsically random or be explainable from a deeper theory. While the first scenario is the standard lore, the latter implies that quantum mechanics is emergent. In that case, it is likely that one has to reconsider radiation by accelerated charges as a physical effect, which thus must be compensated by an energy input. Stochastic electrodynamics, for example, asserts that the vacuum energy arises from classical fluctuations with energy 1/2 ℏω per mode. In such theories the stability of the hydrogen ground state will arise from energy input from fluctuations and output by radiation, hence due to an energy throughput. That flux of energy constitutes an arrow of time, which we call the "subquantum arrow of time". It is related to the stability of matter and it is more fundamental than, e.g., the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows.
Modern approaches to causal modeling give a central role to interventions, which require the active input of an observer and introduces an explicit `causal arrow of time'. Causal models typically adopt a mechanistic interpretation, according to which the direction of the causal arrow is intrinsic to the process being studied. Here we investigate whether the direction of the causal arrow might be a contribution from the observer, rather than an intrinsic property of the process. Working within a counterfactual and non-mechanistic interpretation of causal modeling developed in arXiv:1806.00895, we propose a definition of a `quantum observational scheme' that we argue characterizes the observer-invariant properties of a causal model. By restricting to quantum processes that preserve the maximally mixed state (unbiasedness) we find that the statistics is symmetric under reversal of the time-ordering. The resulting model can therefore accommodate the idea that the causal arrow is observer-dependent, indicating a route towards reconciling the causal arrow with time-symmetric laws of physics.
In this paper I shall shed some doubts on a widely-held claim: standard quantum mechanics is time-reversal invariant, and thereby, blind to the direction of time. Building bridges between physics and philosophy, I shall argue that such a claim features some puzzling assumptions that are frequently overlooked in the literature. In particular, I shall first argue that the claim involves some methodological and metaphysical commitments that should be evaluated more prudently from philosophy and from physics. Second, I shall point out that the common inference that goes from symmetry to metaphysical conclusions needs some correction and refinement to be acceptable for time symmetry and the debate around the arrow of time