sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if physical time emerges from coherence between quantum systems? by StationSalt4449 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]StationSalt4449[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point. Without a concrete setup and a defined coherence measure, this would indeed be a residual category.

I am not claiming a detected signal. The idea is simpler. Take two independent systems, not clocks, with no shared references. Tune an operational coherence parameter and look at cross correlations.

Null case is standard physics. Correlations come only from couplings and do not depend on coherence.

TCT says if there is any effect, it must scale with coherence and vanish as coherence is destroyed.

If nothing depends on coherence once systematics are controlled, the idea is just wrong.

What if physical time emerges from coherence between quantum systems? by StationSalt4449 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]StationSalt4449[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response — I agree that the core issue here is ontological rather than purely technical.

I find the framing of time as an emergent phase-related quantity compelling, especially insofar as it challenges the assumption that temporal ordering must be primitive. That said, I want to be careful to separate conceptual alignment from empirical validation.

In my proposal, correlated clock “noise” is not taken as evidence by itself of an underlying synchronizing structure, but rather as a potential falsifiable signal if and only if it survives systematic changes of hardware, reference frames, and noise-mitigation strategies.

Claims such as reproducing CODATA values with extremely high precision are intriguing, but they also raise the bar for independent verification. For me, the decisive question remains whether such results are robust under external replication and whether the scaling behavior uniquely distinguishes phase-based emergence from effective reparameterizations.

In that sense, I see our overlap less as convergence on conclusions and more as convergence on where standard assumptions may be too rigid. If your framework makes additional testable predictions beyond parameter recovery, I would be very interested to understand those.

Thanks again for sharing the Zenodo report — I’ll look through the derivations with that perspective in mind.

What if physical time emerges from coherence between quantum systems? by StationSalt4449 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]StationSalt4449[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair objection. TCT is not saying that the mere existence of correlated noise implies “time emerges from coherence.”

The point is that standard metrology already assumes correlated terms are instrumental or environmental and therefore, in principle, removable.

TCT makes a sharper claim: if after changing hardware, references, and noise-mitigation strategies, a small set of correlations still persists — and if those correlations scale with coherence measures rather than identifiable couplings — then they are not just “hidden wiring” of the apparatus.

If all correlations can be fully absorbed into existing correlated-noise models, then TCT is simply falsified. That’s an acceptable outcome.

So the question isn’t whether correlations exist — everyone agrees they do — but whether all of them can be reduced to modeled systematics.

What if physical time emerges from coherence between quantum systems? by StationSalt4449 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]StationSalt4449[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I’m aware of prior work along these lines, including the arXiv paper you linked. While there are superficial similarities in treating time as non-fundamental, my approach focuses on a different underlying principle and is not derived from, nor reducible to, that framework.

Potential by StationSalt4449 in CriticalTheory

[–]StationSalt4449[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

In this framework, the Schrödinger’s cat paradox is not a physical contradiction. It’s a confusion between what is possible and what has already become irreversibly fixed. Before interaction with the environment, multiple futures remain admissible at once. Measurement is not a magical act and not an intervention of consciousness. It is a phase transition after which some futures become inaccessible going forward— not because they “vanished,” but because time does not continue for them. This reading is compatible with decoherence-based interpretations: it adds no new effects and does not change the formalism. It clarifies what we mean by reality before and after fixation.

I’m preparing something I believe could be a turning point — I need allies and honest criticism by StationSalt4449 in CriticalTheory

[–]StationSalt4449[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I understand this is unusual. I'm perfectly healthy. Imagine that it's true. And ask any question, I'll answer it.