Synchronisation

Standard presentations of quantum theory assume that “time” in Hilbert space runs in lockstep with “time” in physical space. The state vector rotates by an angle proportional to elapsed time, and the clock on the measuring instrument ticks along at the same rate. The two are said to be “synchronised,” as though Hilbert space and 3D space were performers keeping in perfect rhythm.

But what is being synchronised here? Once again, a metaphor has hardened into ontology. “Time” in Hilbert space is not time at all — it is a parameter in a theory, a measure of change in potential configurations. “Time” in physical space, by contrast, is already relational, defined along worldlines and interactions. To conflate the two under a shared symbol t is to pretend that mathematical order and experiential ordering are the same.

The effect is to smuggle in an absolute clock through the back door. It installs a God’s-eye synchrony where, in practice, each cut, each construal, establishes its own temporal ordering. Relationally, time is not a universal metronome but an alignment of sequences within a frame of reference. There is no cosmic beat with which Hilbert vectors must march.

This illusion of synchronisation conceals the constructive act: physicists align theory and measurement by design. The synchrony is not discovered but imposed — a convention that allows predictions to work, not a window into some deeper essence of time.

From a relational standpoint, there is no puzzle of “keeping Hilbert space and physical time in step,” because the premise itself is misguided. There is only the symbolic alignment of potential with event, system with instance. The synchrony is not a fact of nature but a choice of cut.