Talk:Problem of time

"external observers of the Universe"

"They confirmed for photons that time is an emergent phenomenon for internal observers but absent for external observers of the universe just as the Wheeler–DeWitt equation predicts."

The cited articles in Phys Rev A and D refer to some "internal" and "external" observers of a quantum system so it will be better to delete this phrase about the "external observers of the Universe". TV8phys (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@TV8phys, I edited the sentence. Please review if you have a chance Merlin.anthwares (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Perennial sources / Academic repositories entry explicitly includes Zenodo

For clarity, Wikipedia policy does not treat Zenodo as a categorically unacceptable source. Zenodo is listed under academic repositories (alongside arXiv, HAL, etc.), and material hosted there is evaluated based on the underlying work rather than the platform itself. It is inaccurate to frame the removal as being required because “Zenodo is not acceptable.” Policy guidance instead indicates that repository sources can be used. I’m noting this distinction... so the basis for the deletion is what exactly?, rather than a blanket exclusion of Zenodo as a platform. ERT is some serious work, that Physics will find useful. ~2026-16474-28 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary by @Paradoctor was not quite correct in that Zenodo itself is just an upload site. Conceivably a peer-reviewed and published source might be uploaded by a copy-right holder as a form a archive and we could link it as such.

I agree with Paradoctor in the revert of the content related to "ERT". The source is WP:Selfpublished and there is no evidence that this is a WP:reliable source. Please do not add this material to Wikipedia until a peer-reviewed version has been published. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-16474-28, @Johnjbarton: The citation gave Zenodo as publisher. That is never an acceptable citation. If a paper is reliably published elsewhere, you need to cite that. If a paper is self-published, the author is the publisher. The basis for the deletion is exactly that: Zenodo is not a reliable publisher. Paradoctor (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that as publisher, Zenodo would never be appropriate. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: ERT is some serious work, that Physics will find useful Maybe, but that is not sufficient for inclusion.

WP:V: Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Copyright / provenance notice (ERT / ERT SPEC)

Extended content

This Talk‑page note records the rights and restrictions position for material from Event‑Restricted Temporality (ERT) / ERT‑SPEC that appeared here without authorisation.

COPYRIGHT. © 2026 O. Oye‑Atta. All rights reserved. ERT / ERT‑SPEC (including protected expression) are original works of authorship and copyright subsists in jurisdictions recognising copyright protection.

NO LICENCE GRANTED. No licence of any kind (express, implied, incidental, statutory, equitable, or otherwise) is granted by access to, possession of, awareness of, or reference to ERT‑SPEC or the governing Owner Notice (ERT Notice v1.1).

NO CONSENT BY PUBLICATION. Public availability, circulation, hosting, transmission, publication, or prior deposit of ERT‑SPEC materials does not constitute consent, licence, permission, or authorisation for any use beyond what is strictly compelled by non‑waivable law.

REPOSITORY / “ANCHOR” CLARIFICATION. Any repository deposit or archival posting (including for timestamping or citation) is an attribution anchor only; it does not grant any licence or permission, does not designate the repository as a canonical source, and does not authorise republication, mirroring, summarisation, extraction, or substitute specifications of protected expression.

NO SUBSTITUTE SPECIFICATIONS / RESTATEMENTS. No third party is authorised to publish, maintain, or circulate any substitute specification, restatement, summary, translation, teaching edition, or derivative specification that reproduces, paraphrases, structurally restates, or functionally re‑expresses protected expression from ERT‑SPEC, or that has the purpose or effect of serving (in whole or part) as a substitute reference, except where strictly compelled by non‑waivable law.

NO AUTOMATED EXTRACTION / ML. Automated or semi‑automated extraction or processing of protected expression (including scraping, mining, parsing, summarisation, vectorisation/embedding, OCR/transcription, or machine‑learning / LLM processing) is not authorised, except where strictly compelled by non‑waivable law.

NO ENDORSEMENT / CERTIFICATION / “COMPATIBILITY” CLAIMS. No third party may claim or imply that any work, document, tool, or service is “official”, “authorised”, “certified”, “compliant”, “ERT‑compatible/ERT‑conformant”, or otherwise endorsed or governed by the rightsholder without prior written permission.

TRADE MARKS. “Event‑Restricted Temporality”, “ERT”, and “ERT‑SPEC” are trade marks of O. Oye‑Atta. No trade mark licence is granted; third‑party use is limited to accurate nominative reference only and excludes branding/handles/domains or presentation implying affiliation or official status.

NO WAIVER / NO ESTOPPEL / NO IMPLIED LICENCE. No waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, or implied licence is created by publication, access, citation, archival deposit, silence, or delay in enforcement. Silence or non‑response does not grant permission.

This is a licensing/rights clarification so editors/admins can address any copyright issues under Wikipedia’s normal processes. If any infringing text persists in page history, administrators should consider the standard copyright‑cleanup workflows, including selective redaction where appropriate.

~2026-16474-28 (talk) 11:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

First off, this is bordering on WP:LEGAL.

Secondly, there is currently no ERT-related content in this article, so this comment was not helpful.

Lastly, if you are (a representative of) Oye-Atta, and you see any content you think infringes your copyright, you may find the advice at Wikipedia:Copyright violations § Information for copyright owners helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: I just realized that you are apparently the person who added the content in the first place. Can you explain this? Paradoctor (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Article would benefit from a reference to RQM

> Quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.

This sounds like it could benefit from more nuance? DaniloRezende (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence could be clearer. How about:

• Quantum mechanics assumes time is identical at every point in a quantum system and progresses at the same rate. General relativity regards time as local with synchronized clocks varying with their path through spacetime and their relation to mass and energy in space. No combination of these theories has been successful, but it is widely believed that time will be an important aspect of such a combination.

Relativistic quantum mechanics combines quantum mechanics with special relativity. I don't know of a source that addresses its impact on the problem of time. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I think what I meant with referencing RQM and my issue with your phrasing is that it makes no mention of how QM can be (somewhat?) compatible with SR. I'm not a physicist so my input on the matter can only be from a perspective of a learner. Cheers! DaniloRezende (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

My understanding from reading Quantum field theory is that special relativity is already incorporated into typical modern quantum mechanics models, and so the term "QM" without any qualifiers is assumed to incorporate SR, hence why in researching this I could only find articles discussing "non relativistic quantum mechanics" as specific models useful for analyzing the problem of time. But in general the conclusion I draw is that the problem of time is only about integrating general relativity. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

In my experience most textbooks present QM without SR, so in an encyclopedia we should consider QM to mean without SR. That is why we have an article on Relativistic quantum mechanics. QFT on the other hand includes SR. QM is based on extending classical mechanics; RQM is a different extension using a SR expression for energy. QFT is a field theory interpreted to particle as transitions.

It is my understanding that "the problem of time" is specifically between QM (global time) and GR (local time). RQM uses the energy concept of SR, but it is not a spacetime based theory. I believe there are quantum theories that are spacetime based but they are not successful.

In any case if we want content about RQM and the problem of time we need a source. I guess we won't find one exactly, because the issue is between QM and GR, not SR. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2026 (UTC)