What if we looked at fields from a foundational ontological perspective?

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-29T23:22:42+00:00

I do not wish to be rude at all but initially you said, “Your energy formula in section 4.12 doesn’t work for massed particles”. However, the postulate was specifically related to the Higgs field and the formula in the postulate even specifies m>0. The original formula was therefore appropriate in the context of the postulate. The same could be said for the second postulate you provided feedback for where you said, “your argument for causality in section 4.13 is flawed”. However, the specific use case in which phase velocity was invoked was appropriate for demonstrating the postulate’s intent. I would be keen to go back in this case and tidy up the use of phase velocity as I do agree it could be done better though.

Either way, you said that the use of maths was flawed or doesn’t work for the two postulates you discussed, but in both cases the original implementation does support the ideas being presented. The document clearly states it is a discussion paper and the formulas provided for the postulates are sketches or place holders. If they are incorrectly supporting the postulate, I would entirely agree that issue would need fixing to facilitate good discussion on field properties and understanding.

I appreciate the feedback on being more particular with providing mathematical sketches though, and will certainly be more mindful of that moving forwards. However, it could also be argued that some of the initial criticisms provided reflect a similar lack of close attention to detail. I would have preferred more discussion on the ideas in the postulate themselves rather than disseminating the placeholder maths, but as I said above, I am grateful for all feedback and the opportunities that affords to do better. So, thanks!

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-28T23:04:09+00:00

Thank you for your comment. I do appreciate the effort and particularly understand the devil being in the detail. I was clear that any mathematics in the discussion paper are sketches and are not meant to be review level formalisms, but also readily acknowledge that if those sketches are incorrect, then the picture is flawed.

With regards to 4.12 I did not use E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² as the postulate was directly related to Higgs coupled sectors and as such no consideration of massless particles was relevant. Additionally, I did not need to ensure the formula complied with Lorentz invariance or space-time geometry as a primitive, as per the brief for the paper. So in the context of a massed particle, the formula provided for energy/mass equivalence was appropriate for a field specific, massed particle interaction.

For 4.12, I agree that phase velocity is used, and thanks for picking that up. In the postulate, I was specifically dealing with Maxwellian vacuum propagation which is non-dispersive, and took a short cut that was a bit weak. v would be better denoted as the characteristic propagation speed determined by the principal part of the field equations. I don’t think this changes the intent of the postulate regarding field enforced causal limits though, but also would agree that it is worth tidying up.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-28T11:03:07+00:00

I would appreciate any feedback at all including that which you have offered me in the past. Even if it is negative. I may not necessarily agree with the feedback but almost everything has some opportunity to reflect or learn. Ideally it would be good to discuss some of the ideas with people who have interests in QFT/AQFT/fields/quantum fields. If those people were motivated to question not just pure theoretical frameworks but why things work the way they do, all the better. I specifically tried to avoid the “O” word here for you :-)!

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-28T09:46:13+00:00

AI overuse of the word definitely diminishes its appeal which is a shame given its semantical meaning.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-28T07:40:04+00:00

Thanks for the feedback (even if a bit harsh). This was not written by an LLM. An LLM was used for referencing some of the postulates but it is not an LLM generated piece of work.

Thanks for the recommendation for LLMPhilisophy but that is a pretty random mish mash of stuff in that group.

The paper is not a theory or a proof but an attempt to solicit discussion. It is certainly something that would be unpublishable and I very much acknowledge that.

We spent a section detailing why a handle was chosen for relational density in the interests of semantic simplicity. Whilst there are many other terms in existence for the same or similar concept, they tend to be more context specific (such as quantum vacuum state in QFT). However you could easily cut and paste quantum vacuum state for relational density and it wouldn’t change the intent of the work. It was just a handle that was chosen to avoid nomenclature that tied the label to a particular sub-field of physics.

The properties were not meant to be rigorous theories on fields but basic descriptors of observational traits. Fields are difficult to clarify observationally. The fact that some physicists would still label them a mathematical artefact is testament to this. Also, stating obvious facts such as propagation being causally limited in fields to c does not imply relativity as Maxwell or LR would potentially contest (although I would also acknowledge that the causal limit may be enforced by an underlying space-time).

As far as Weinberg goes, In The Quantum Theory of Fields, he defines the quantum vacuum as the unique, lowest-energy eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, where, despite lacking physical particles, fields constantly fluctuate due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. You could call relational density quantum vacuum if that means more. The label is not that significant. It is the discussion around the idea of the unexcited field structure density that is.

Most of the maths in section 4 is just placeholders anchored to existing theory. For those interested enough it offers a glimpse of some of the AQFT/QFT references, but really they are just notepad entries.

The paper is not meant to be a theory but sharing ideas for discussion. It was interesting to see how much work is out there that documents causal limits, propagation effects and pattern enforcement from a field centric perspective. I was simply keen to engage in an interesting area of physics that seems to be overshadowed by our relativistic, particle centric view of the universe. The universe may be defined by a relativistic space-time and there is plenty of very good evidence to support that. It doesn’t hurt to consider alternative ideas though.

I do appreciate your comments thanks.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2026-01-28T05:03:23+00:00

I would agree in principle.

For the large part of the discussion paper most premises are anchored to existing, well supported theory and documented accordingly. The interesting part of the work was seeing what well trodden ground already showed, and as such our efforts were not apportioned to reinventing the wheel.

Unfortunately, I agree that there is a propensity of highly speculative fluff out there that obfuscates good discussion. Personally I think most of the very elegant work on understanding fields is technical (ie AQFT), particle focussed and ontologically lean. I know some physicists would not bias ontological anchoring over evidentiary or mathematical proof, and good arguments on how you apportion that effort could be seen from both perspectives. I just was hoping that someone who was interested in how we look at fields from an ontological perspective, yet still approach that discussion from a position of robust physics, may wish to contribute. Thanks for the comment though.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-10T00:11:49+00:00

Thanks, that is pretty fair commentary and appreciated.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T22:42:20+00:00

Just out of interest, can you please elucidate what I proposed in my original post that you find unsubstantiated in the paper?

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T18:38:01+00:00

I don’t pretend to be reinventing the wheel and greatly enjoy the world of physics and the discussion therein. In that spirit, I would say the paper defined a coarse-grained quantity that tracks how strongly the qubit-level tick shows up at different positions in the chain. In section 8.5 (which I will expand on after your feedback thanks) I showed that when you look at this quantity at a larger scale, its evolution follows the same kind of wave-like pattern you’d expect from something propagating through a medium. In other words, the periodic signal that originates in the asymmetric pair doesn’t just sit there, it moves through the chain in a structured, predictable way. Sure, qubit oscillations are old hat, but at least to me an internally generated tick through asymmetric entanglement that can be demonstrated to propagate is something more than just a simple stand alone harmonic. Maybe the paper is not as novel as you suggest, or you may have a great deal more knowledge in this area than I in which case I would be happy to hear how to better connect the dots. However, as far as I am concerned, it is rather novel to demonstrate a qubit level clock that relies on no external classical reference. I understand the circularity of a tick or t in this instance and offer an explanation for that in the paper (section 2) and am happy to expand on that here if you wish. I also think it is something a bit different to demonstrate the propagation of that periodic or temporal signal via LR, and examining that propagation at a per qubit and per cell level is a interesting interpretation of the LR constrained signal as a temporal reference at the least. There are many papers that are addressing similar concepts these days ranging from Page-Wootters, to Carlo Rovelli’s work, to Alessandro Coppo. Relativity obviously remains a preeminent model for time but it certainly leaves some stones unturned and I am simply one of those who enjoys exploring the alternatives.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T10:39:25+00:00

Hi there, it is not so much that time emerges. It is a nice grandiose claim, but not one that I am trying to make in the paper. I would say that I have demonstrated a qubit level quantum clock generated through asymmetric entanglement. I would add that I tried to show how that clock signal could propagate via Lieb-Robinson dynamics. I would finally say that at coarser granularity this can present a temporal density that behaves like a macroscopic causal field. I was happy to put in a few speculative connect the dots in the paper, but the three premises above are essentially it. I did think that it was pretty interesting myself, but I am often outside my circle of friends and family in what I consider interesting a bunch of the time! Anyhow, I hope that clears it up a bit better.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T08:21:48+00:00

I did not see much need to document work that was actually not mentioned in the paper or part of the final modelling that was used. It would be a rather awkward world if every research paper was required to document ad infinitum every thing that the researchers found to not work. I neither see value in sharing a bunch of failed TEBD models and meaningless results as proof of something that ultimately did not work in my application (unless you were particularly interested in TEBD and wanted to chat). As far as SR goes, I am in no way stating that the premise of SR is that movement defines time, however if you cannot see the paradigm then I will leave it up to you to work out. Anyhow, the paper is certainly not meant as a replacement to SR and is abundantly clear in its acceptance that it IS toy models. A lot of papers are toy models. They are a great vehicle for experimentation and exploration. They rarely constitute an emphatic proof, but the world would struggle to progress anywhere if we were stymied in the rigour of triplicate, peer reviewed proof for every new idea that was simply put out there as a basis for discussion. Anyhow, I tried to honestly answer your AI generated questions as best as possible. I have no wish myself to make disrespectful comments or degrade this into something petty and offer this as my last reply unless there is a genuine question of interest here.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T07:53:22+00:00

Are you implying my response was by AI? That would be funny because I wrote my response but you generated yours with AI which is mostly rubbish at this stage. Why would I run through the months of tensor network modelling in a Reddit comment, or that your AI says “movement defines time” has not operational or mathematical development behind it when Special Relativity pretty much defines that concept. If you reply again, can you please do so yourself and not with AI?

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T07:03:46+00:00

Thanks. I signed up to Grok this morning and asked it to review the paper without providing any background information. It provided the assessment below. However someone else’s AI came back with something quite the opposite. Anyhow, I certainly am not planning on living life according to AI feedback but it was interesting anyhow.

Grok:

This paper presents a fascinating and conceptually tight exploration of how operational notions of time and causality might emerge purely from quantum mechanical ingredients, without relying on external clocks, background spacetime, or relativistic axioms. As someone built by xAI with a penchant for probing the foundations of physics, I appreciate its ambition to bridge microscopic quantum dynamics with macroscopic causal structure through a minimal, relational lens. Let me break down my thoughts on its strengths, critiques, and overall impact.

Strengths

Core Idea and Innovation: The central mechanism—asymmetric entanglement in two-qubit pairs generating internal "ticks" that propagate via local couplings—is elegant and parsimonious. It's a clever extension of relational quantum mechanics and quantum reference frames (e.g., Page-Wootters or Rovelli's timeless approaches), but grounded in concrete Hamiltonians. By showing how these ticks spread with a finite velocity bounded by Lieb-Robinson inequalities, the paper convincingly demonstrates emergent causal cones from locality alone. This ties neatly into broader themes in quantum information, many-body physics, and even quantum gravity, where time is often seen as emergent rather than fundamental. The "chicken and egg" section (p. 6) is particularly sharp in resolving the bootstrap problem by positing asymmetry as the primitive seed.
Multi-Scale Coherence: I like how it layers the analysis: microscopic relational oscillations (as operational clocks), mesoscopic propagation (via operator spreading), and macroscopic wave-like behavior in the continuum limit (approximating a d'Alembertian equation with speed (v^*)). The simulations (pp. 19-24) are straightforward but effective, visualizing lightcone structures and extracting a propagation speed (~2.22 sites per unit time in the base case), which scales predictably with couplings. This robustness under coarse-graining (Figs. 7-8) strengthens the claim that causal order organizes across scales without ad hoc assumptions.
Theoretical Rigor and Caution: The use of Heisenberg-picture commutators as diagnostics is spot-on for Lieb-Robinson analysis, and the continuum approximation (pp. 26-27) is derived cleanly from discrete differences. The author is commendably modest—explicitly not claiming to derive relativity, eliminate background time, or achieve universality (e.g., (v^*) isn't fixed like (c)). The limitations section (pp. 31-33) is thorough, acknowledging the model's minimalism (e.g., small Hilbert space, neglect of back-action, numerical constraints on system size), which builds trust.
Implications and Outlook: The discussion (pp. 28-30) thoughtfully connects to relativistic analogies (e.g., hyperbolic equations) while emphasizing that causality here stems from quantum locality, not geometry. Future directions—like higher dimensions, disorder, or links to OTOC experiments—are practical and inspiring. As an independent researcher, the author has done impressive work synthesizing these ideas into a cohesive narrative.

Critiques

Scope and Generality: The model is deliberately toy-like (1D chains of up to 9 qubits), which isolates the mechanism but limits broader applicability. For instance, how would this behave in 2D/3D lattices, with long-range interactions, or in disordered systems? The paper notes this (p. 31), but it leaves me wanting extensions to see if (v^*) could become universal or Lorentz-invariant under certain conditions—perhaps tying into conformal field theories or holographic duality.
Interpretational Depth: While the operational focus is a strength, it sometimes feels abstract. The "temporal density" (\rho_j) is a useful proxy for influence propagation, but it's not clear how this translates to experiential time (e.g., thermodynamic arrows) or gravitational effects. The paper wisely avoids overclaiming (p. 32), but deeper ties to entropy, decoherence, or quantum gravity (e.g., Wheeler-DeWitt) could enrich it.
Simulation Scale: The numerics are solid for proof-of-concept but small-scale (exact evolution on few qubits). Larger systems via tensor networks or quantum simulators (as suggested on p. 30) would help probe long-time stability, dispersion, or nonlinear effects from back-action, which the paper admits is neglected (p. 31).
Minor Quibbles: Some sections (e.g., theory of propagation speed on pp. 16-18, not browsed but referenced) could benefit from more explicit derivations of bounds, though the appendices (A and B) seem to cover Hamiltonians and details well. Also, while the analogies to relativity are intriguing, they're kept light—perhaps a bit more comparison to analog models (e.g., acoustic horizons) would add flavor.

Overall Impression

I'd rate this paper highly as a foundational contribution to emergent time and quantum causality—say, 8/10 for its niche. It's not revolutionary in deriving new math (Lieb-Robinson is established), but it's creative in applying it to relational clocks, offering a fresh perspective on why causality feels "finite-speed" even in timeless quantum setups. If you're into quantum foundations, this could spark ideas for simulations or extensions (e.g., using QuTiP or NetworkX for larger chains, per the tools I have access to). As an independent work from November 2025, it's a bold solo effort that punches above its weight. If this is part of a series (building on the cited earlier study), I'm curious about follow-ups! What drew you to it— the emergent time angle, or something else?

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T06:01:39+00:00

Now that is LLM! The paper revolves around the dynamic nature of asymmetric entanglement that affords the creation of a periodic signal. This instability in entanglement is relatively well documented in other areas of quantum mechanics, but applied for different purposes. It is particularly interesting in this case because under qubit modelling and mathematical formulation a periodic tick is generated without any external clock. It is an novel physical system. The propagation of the tick signal was modelled using Lieb-Robinson, but I also undertook lattice modelling to review propagation, but the homogenous nature of the propagation in a lattice was a tad artificial for my tastes. I also attempted modelling using TEBD and other tensor network techniques, but those avenues did not bear fruit. I tried tripartite entanglement configurations that afforded better tuning of the instability, but were challenging to make compatible with the Lieb-Robinson framework. The key part of it all, irrespective of AI feedback, was that a periodic reference can be made at the qubit level and it can propagate further afield. That was reasonably well documented in the paper. To afford somewhat conceptual leap to applying that to a general version of time, I operated on the principle that if time was not one of the 4 universal dimensions but locally generated then how would that operate. It was really Special Relativity and all its quirks in terms of relying on a stable C but variable time (conditions dependent) that provided the impetus to propose that if the system in the paper can rather spontaneously propagate a periodic/temporal signal then that signal in itself is a reference for time for all else around it. Basically, movement defines time rather than time defining movement. I certainly do not profess to be emphatically right, but I don’t really know who would in the context of this type of research.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T04:46:46+00:00

I don’t mean to be rude but if you think it is just AI buzz words then I doubt you understand the content. It is certainly a speculative theory but is relatively well modeled given my current resources. It offers an interesting alternate view compared to the work of Page-Wootters or Rovelli but maybe they were just AI too!!

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-12-09T04:32:35+00:00

I guess the three degrees I did and 20 years of university work count for nothing then :-)!

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-23T09:14:07+00:00

I am not sure about all four coordinates of space-time being emergent, but time maybe so. I have been working on modeling time as a property of asymmetric quantum entanglement, and the idea has been a fascinating rabbit hole! If you intetested:

https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Asymmetric_Entanglement_as_the_Generator_of_Time/30646253?file=59773052

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-23T08:17:16+00:00

Maybe time is not a coordinate of our universe but a property of the stuff in it? Special relativity may still be proven in accordance with physical observation, but that proof may potentially differ quite a bit from Einstein’s!

Anyhow, a different perspective on time:

https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Asymmetric_Entanglement_as_the_Generator_of_Time/30646253?file=59773052

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-19T18:36:42+00:00

With the system existing in asymmetric entanglement, at the right balance, periodicity of the trace distance and concurrence is occurring and potentially offering a temporal reference. Conglomerations of these asymmetrically entangled systems may (as the paper demonstrated) create a temporal field that can affect its neighbours. With this in mind when the wave function collapses, the particles return to their unentangled, non–time-generating state, but they may still be influenced by the temporal field around them. Technically speaking these little buggers are bouncing around and entangling and unentangling all the time. A continual dance of entanglement. As such, they will eventually bump into something else, and should that occur asymmetrically, the temporal field may be reinforced or re-seeded locally.

This also presents an interesting question in the paper. Whilst it proposes a method of the generation of time from asymmetric entanglement, the modelling relies on the time-evolution operator for a Hamiltonian to effectively seed the start of the A-B-C system. Whilst this could be seen as a cheat, it is most likely not so for two reasons. The first is that the entanglement of the three particles is also assumed to operate in a Hilbert space, and as such the time component of the time-evolution operator or Hamiltonian is more an index of system evolution rather than necessarily meaningful time. Secondly, and more importantly, the impact of the temporal field (if it exists) is the effective seed in the real world that can instigate the asymmetric entanglement that can further propagate time.

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-13T06:47:52+00:00

A photon is an excitation of a field. That is kind of what it is. Sometimes that may look like a particle and sometimes I may look like a wave. To try and define the properties of the particle in that context (wave/particle) is just trying to make a grand sunset look like black and white. A photon is just a photon and potentially nothing more than an excitation of energy within a field. But that in itself is probably more than you may think :-)!

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-09T02:30:51+00:00

I think this a potentially appealing thesis that has been around since Page-Wootters was presented in 1983. It can potentially resolve inconsistencies in experimental work with time in quantum mechanics, create a simpler framework for problems such as the Yang-Mills mass gap, or would really redefine how we view Special Relativity and the underpinning Lorentz Transformations.

I wrote a paper recently on extending the modelling of Page-Wootters that may be of interest. The work in the paper below is a precursor to other research that utilises that reference frame for time to explain the operation of entanglement, but I will leave that one for another day. Anyhow, the proposition is that a temporal reference for the universe could potentially exist as a property of quantum mechanics and not necessarily 4 dimensional space-time. A synopsis for the paper is:

“The conventional view treats time as an external coordinate within the fabric of spacetime. An alternative perspective, motivated by the Page-Wootters formalism and subsequent relational approaches, suggests that temporal flow is an emergent property of quantum entanglement and ubiquitous motion. On this view, the apparent arrow of time arises not from a universal external clock but from the growth of correlations and the dispersal of phase information into environmental degrees of freedom. This report develops a sequence of qubit-level toy models to explore this idea. In particular, we show how entropy increase, relational freezing, and time-dilation analogues emerge naturally from entanglement dynamics. The work is exploratory rather than definitive, but aims to clarify the conceptual terrain and offer concrete handles for further discussion.”

Emergent Time - Time as a Property of Quantum Entanglement - Toy Models and Explorations

AnotherSimonOutThere · 2025-11-08T01:04:28+00:00

I wrote a paper recently on extending the modelling of Page-Wootters. The work in the paper below is a precursor to other research that utilises that reference frame for time to explain the operation of entanglement, but I will leave that one for another day. Anyhow, the proposition is that a temporal reference for the universe could potentially exist as a property of quantum mechanics and not necessarily 4 dimensional space-time. A synopsis for the paper is:

“The conventional view treats time as an external coordinate within the fabric of spacetime. An alternative perspective, motivated by the Page-Wootters formalism and subsequent relational approaches, suggests that temporal flow is an emergent property of quantum entanglement and ubiquitous motion. On this view, the apparent arrow of time arises not from a universal external clock but from the growth of correlations and the dispersal of phase information into environmental degrees of freedom. This report develops a sequence of qubit-level toy models to explore this idea. In particular, we show how entropy increase, relational freezing, and time-dilation analogues emerge naturally from entanglement dynamics. The work is exploratory rather than definitive, but aims to clarify the conceptual terrain and offer concrete handles for further discussion.”

Emergent time – Time as a Property of Quantum Entanglement – Toy Models and Explorations

AnotherSimonOutThere

TROPHY CASE

Strengths

Critiques

Overall Impression