Science Forums 2

[Boof-head]

If you want to really consider the 'reality' of time, then ultimately you have to accept that time is "something that evolves" in QM interactions, or something that "started" when the universe did, in relativistic terms.

We still have no 'real' idea how to reconcile these two kinds of time; the QM time evolves spontaneously, as if 'created' by what we call a unitary evolution, of a quantum state.
In the universal, ongoing 'continuous' time, there is the conundrum that time also looks like space. In QM these are most definitely not interchangeable.

So there is a 'real' universal time which depends on a 'past worldline', and a future. Past and future aren't in the frame in QM, there's just a 'unitary time'; quantum interaction appears to be fundamentally distinct somehow from a universal frame with a relative position (in the L-frame).

Interactions between particles can also be 'particles' - the photon is a transfer function for electron momenta, electrons are a 'massive' transfer function for photon momenta - these pictures are equivalent; in GR mass is qualitatively, and quantitatively, bounded and evolves 'in' time, as momentum; the particle space/time boundaries in QM are non-commutative.

In that sense, QM forces us to consider two distinct kinds of time and space, since 'we' are embedded in the same generally relativistic frame, though at low speed so time isn't 'stretched' over the universal frame we're in (but it is for 'particles' with a high velocity). We think we have to reconcile these ontologies (or find a solution that places them in the same kind of physically real frame), but maybe we don't...?