Time may be an illusion derived from quantum entanglement

Time has always seemed like the one thing physics could count on. Matter changes, stars die, particles flicker in and out, but time keeps moving. That assumption sits so deep in modern science that it often passes without notice. Now a new theoretical study argues that time may not exist in the way physicists have long treated it.

Instead, the work suggests time could emerge from quantum entanglement, the strange connection that links separate systems at the microscopic level. In this view, time is not a universal stage on which events unfold. It appears only when one quantum system is used to track another.

The paper, published in Physical Review A, revisits the Page and Wootters mechanism, a proposal first introduced in 1983. The idea has hovered for decades at the edges of debates over quantum gravity and the foundations of physics. By building an explicit model, the authors argue that the mechanism can recover both ordinary quantum motion and, in the right limit, the familiar time of classical physics.

That matters because physics still holds two incompatible pictures of time.

In quantum mechanics, time is treated as an external parameter, something imposed from outside the system. It is the ruler used to measure change, but it is not itself an observable inside the theory. General relativity treats time very differently. There, time is woven into spacetime and can stretch or slow depending on gravity and motion.

“It seems there is a serious inconsistency in quantum theory. This is what we call the problem of time,” Alessandro Coppo of Italy’s National Research Council said.

The mismatch is more than a technical annoyance. It blocks one of physics’ biggest goals, a theory that can connect the microscopic world of quantum mechanics with the large-scale structure of the universe described by relativity.

The Page and Wootters approach starts with a radical step. It assumes the universe as a whole can sit in a timeless quantum state. Nothing evolves globally. There is no master clock ticking in the background.

What looks like motion appears only inside that frozen whole, through correlations between subsystems. One part serves as a clock, the other is the system whose change gets tracked. If the two are entangled in the right way, the second system appears to evolve relative to the first.

Without that internal relationship, there is no time in any meaningful sense, only a static quantum state.

To test the idea in a concrete setting, the authors modeled two noninteracting but entangled systems. One was a harmonic oscillator, a standard physics model for an object that vibrates or swings back and forth. The other was a magnetic spin system that acted as the clock.

The oscillator’s evolution did not come from an outside time variable. It came from its entangled relationship with the clock system. Under those conditions, the dynamics matched the Schrödinger equation, the central equation of quantum mechanics.

That is the heart of the claim. Time, in this picture, is not fundamental. It is relational.

The paper also found limits on when that picture works.

In the fully quantum version of the model, the clock could only track part of the oscillator’s possible behavior. Because the clock system had a finite structure, it could not label the oscillator’s full infinite range of states. That meant not every quantum clock is good enough to generate the kind of time physics usually assumes.

This turned out to be a key point. For the mechanism to recover ordinary dynamics, the clock has to approach a classical limit. In the model, that meant making the magnetic clock large enough that its behavior could be described more like a classical object than a sharply quantum one.

The study found that once the clock became macroscopic, the usual time parameter of the Schrödinger equation emerged more naturally. The same framework also identified a second parameter tied to the energy of the evolving system.

“We strongly believe that the correct and logical direction is to start from quantum physics and understand how to reach classical physics, not the other way around,” Coppo said.

That line captures the broader ambition of the work. Rather than treating classical time as primary, the authors try to show how it could arise from a deeper quantum description.

The model goes even further. When both the clock and the oscillator were pushed into their classical limits, the equations reduced to the standard Hamiltonian equations that describe motion in classical physics. In other words, the familiar flow of time seemed to emerge from the same entangled framework.

For all its elegance, the idea remains speculative.

“Yes, it is mathematically consistent to think of universal time as the entanglement between quantum fields and quantum states of 3D space,” said Vlatko Vedral, a professor of quantum information science at the University of Oxford. “However, no one knows if anything new or fruitful will come out of this picture, such as modifications to quantum physics and general relativity, and corresponding experimental tests.”

That caution reflects a larger truth in foundational physics. A theory can be logically neat and still fail to describe nature. The Page and Wootters mechanism has drawn renewed interest in recent years, partly because of advances in quantum information theory and work on quantum reference frames. But direct experimental confirmation remains out of reach.

The new study does not settle that problem. It offers a worked-out example, not proof that the universe actually uses time this way.

Still, the paper sharpens the debate by showing what such a world would require. Time would not be an ingredient poured into the laws of physics from the start. It would be something that appears only under specific conditions, especially where entangled systems can play the roles of clock and observer.

Adam Frank, a theoretical physicist at the University of Rochester, put the issue in more human terms. “Maybe the only way to understand time is not from some God’s-eye perspective, but from the inside, from a perspective of asking what is it about life that manifests such an appearance of the world,” he said.

That thought pushes the question beyond equations. If time is emergent, then the flow people experience may say as much about perspective and relationships as it does about the deep architecture of reality.

There is something unsettling in that possibility. A timeless universe is not one where clocks stop. It is one where time never existed as a basic feature in the first place.

What we call past, present, and future would then be less like fixed rails and more like patterns arising from quantum correlations. The apparent motion of the world would be real in experience, but not fundamental in the underlying description.

That is a difficult idea to test, and maybe harder to accept.

If this approach holds up, it could help physicists think more clearly about quantum gravity, the long-running effort to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity.

It also gives researchers a more concrete framework for studying quantum clocks, reference frames, and the transition from quantum behavior to classical physics.

For now, its main value is conceptual: it offers a mathematically detailed way to ask whether time is basic to nature or something that only emerges when parts of the universe become entangled in the right way.

Research findings are available online in the journal Physical Review A.

The original story "Time may be an illusion derived from quantum entanglement" is published in The Brighter Side of News.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.