In this post, we examine how time appears in quantum theory, and how a relational ontology reframes its meaning—not as an external backdrop or ticking clock, but as an emergent property of transformation within a potential-laden field.
1. Time in Quantum Mechanics: A Parametric Ghost
In standard quantum theory:
-
Time is not an observable. There is no quantum operator for time.
-
The Schrödinger equation treats time as an external parameter—it governs how the wavefunction evolves in time, but time itself is not a quantum variable.
-
Measurement outcomes involve discrete events, but the theory does not specify when these events occur—only the probability if they occur.
This leads to a deep tension: how can we talk about processes in a theory where time is not itself part of the system?
2. Quantum Indeterminacy and Temporal Becoming
In quantum systems:
-
The future is underdetermined: multiple potential outcomes exist, not as ignorance, but as ontological superposition,
-
The “present” is not a slice in a timeline, but the event of actualisation—where one possibility becomes real within a context,
-
The past is reconstructed from traces; it is not unproblematically “there.”
Thus, quantum time is not a line, but a sequence of contingent differentiations—a becoming, not a duration.
3. Relational Time: Time as Transformation
From a relational perspective:
-
Time is not something things are in; it is a measure of relational change,
-
It emerges as a way of describing coherence across configurations: how one state transitions into another,
-
Different parts of a system may experience time differently, depending on their entanglement and interaction.
This is consistent with:
-
The “thermal time hypothesis” (Connes & Rovelli), where time arises from statistical asymmetry,
-
Relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli), where time is perspectival, not absolute.
4. Timekeeping in Quantum Experiments
Experiments like the tunnelling study discussed earlier illustrate that:
-
Time must be inferred from correlations—e.g. oscillations between coupled waveguides,
-
There is no intrinsic tick: the experiment itself enacts the temporality it claims to measure,
-
What we call “duration” is always relational: a ratio of transitions, a coherence across fields.
Thus, even so-called measurements of “tunnelling time” are not readings of a universal clock, but local enactments of processual flow.
5. The Ethics and Epistemology of Temporal Becoming
If time is emergent and relational, then:
-
There is no final map of the future—only fields of unfolding potential,
-
Prediction becomes an exercise in attunement to constraints, not control over outcomes,
-
Knowledge must be coordinated across temporal perspectives, rather than assumed to reflect a single “now”.
Responsibility, then, lies not in mastering time, but in participating wisely in the rhythms of becoming.
Closing
Quantum time is not a ticking clock. It is not the stage upon which events unfold, but the pattern of their unfolding itself. In a relational ontology, time emerges with the world, not before it. It is the music of coherence—the rhythm of transitions as potential differentiates into actual.
In the next post, we’ll explore how this rethinking of space and time leads us toward a new vision of causality—no longer linear and local, but distributed, constraint-driven, and relationally entangled.
No comments:
Post a Comment