SuperTimePosition Measured
The unstoppable rethinking that unveils quantum in plain terms, bridging cosmic and everyday scales
How this started: “I was considering whether particles might be interpreted as waves shifting between high amplitude/low frequency and low amplitude/high frequency configurations, as suggested by the double-slit experiment.”
How it’s going: “Although quantum physics is widely taught as inherently probabilistic and non-local, the SuperTimePosition approach challenges whether these features are truly fundamental or simply reflect undersampling of a faster, local, and deterministic process.”
Quantum mechanics has long captivated scientists and non-scientists alike with its counterintuitive phenomena and seemingly paradoxical predictions. Early discoveries, such as the double-slit experiment, revealed that electrons or photons can form interference patterns reminiscent of waves, only to appear as discrete particles when measured. Bell’s inequalities further challenged our classical worldview by indicating that entangled particles can display correlations exceeding what any strictly local hidden-variable theory would allow, leading many to conclude that nature must be fundamentally non-local and probabilistic. Entanglement, in which measuring one particle appears to instantaneously determine the state of another, is perhaps the most striking example of quantum weirdness, defying our everyday intuitions about space and time.
Despite the standard interpretation’s emphasis on inherent randomness and potential non-locality, a handful of alternative approaches seek local, deterministic explanations that remain consistent with experimental data. Some propose “hidden variables” that operate behind the scenes, while others argue that interference patterns, correlations, and the illusion of wavefunction collapse could be explained by processes evolving more quickly than our measuring instruments can detect. The SuperTimePosition viewpoint falls into the latter category, suggesting that what we call quantum behavior arises from our undersampling of rapid oscillations. Rather than postulating a global wavefunction collapsing instantaneously or bridging vast distances, this model treats particles as fast-evolving systems whose synchronized phases appear random or non-local solely because our detectors sample them at a slower rate.
Within this framework, key experiments—such as delayed-choice or double-slit interference—do not demand the conclusion that reality is non-local or intrinsically probabilistic. Instead, they are taken to highlight how synchronized cycles, once locked in during particle creation or entanglement, remain deterministic from the particle’s “faster time” perspective. The claim is that we never see the full picture because we can only observe brief snapshots, giving rise to apparently puzzling phenomena. By exploring this possibility, SuperTimePosition aims to reconcile quantum mechanics with a deterministic structure operating beneath our coarse-grained observations, offering a new way to conceptualize wave-like interference, entanglement correlations, and even large-scale cosmic structures without invoking external hidden variables.
Delayed-choice and quantum-eraser experiments show that a photon (or any quantum particle) remains in a superposition of all possible paths until a final, definitive measurement determines its behavior. Even when a measurement device is added or removed late in the setup, the outcome can shift between interference (wave-like behavior) and which-path (particle-like behavior). This shift does not imply a conscious observer or any reversal of time; rather, it underscores that the particle’s evolution stays open to every viable route until interactions at the very end lock in the result.
A “SuperTimePosition” model offers a framework for interpreting these findings by positing that quantum superpositions reflect extremely rapid, deterministic cycles happening faster than measuring devices can track. In this view, particles cycle through phase states—wave and particle configurations—so quickly that our slower observations can only catch discrete outcomes. What seems random may simply arise from undersampling these high-frequency processes. Entanglement then becomes a synchronization of these hidden cycles, explaining why measurements of correlated particles line up instantaneously, even when conducted far apart or at separate times.
Looking ahead, it is useful to highlight how delayed-choice and quantum-eraser experiments confirm that a quantum system spans all possible routes until the final detection locks the outcome. In the next phase of discussion, the goal is to show how the SuperTimePosition model aligns with these experimental results and to compare it with standard interpretations. By examining the role of measurement devices, data correlations, and timing, one gains a clearer picture of how particles seem to “decide” on a state only at the moment they must yield an observable outcome, all while upholding an underlying deterministic structure at far faster timescales than we can measure.
The idea is that a quantum wave-particle exists in an extremely fast “time gear,” cycling through all possible states (wave-like or particle-like) too rapidly for direct observation. Our macroscopic measuring devices belong to a much slower time gear, so the particle does not meaningfully interact with our frame until a measurement forces these two gears to synchronize. At that instant of synchronization, the quantum wave-particle’s rapid oscillations align with our slower observer frame, revealing either a wave pattern or a particle pattern. This outcome depends on which state is phase-locked when the two time gears momentarily link.
In entangled systems, separate particles share a synchronized phase in their fast time gears, so when one is measured and aligns with the slower frame, the other immediately exhibits a matching (or opposing) result, regardless of distance or timing. This view interprets Delayed Choice and Quantum Eraser experiments as demonstrations of how a quantum entity keeps cycling through wave and particle states until final measurement synchronizes it with the observer’s time gear. Erasing which-path information or choosing a particular measurement apparatus alters the conditions under which the two gears lock, thus determining whether the observed outcome is interference or localized detection. The apparent randomness arises from our inability to access the particle’s swift cycling between states, while the seemingly retroactive influence of measurement is simply the inevitable outcome of two distinct oscillators finally syncing.
Although we often treat time as a single, continuous flow, the SuperTimePosition model proposes that different 'frame rates' can coexist in spacetime. In this view, quantum systems may cycle at an extremely high frequency, so that our measurement captures only a brief snapshot—briefly syncing with our slower time frame at the moment an event is recorded.
When these systems synchronize—matching their phase relationships—they exhibit coherent, unified behavior, akin to gears briefly locking together. Although we often assume a single, continuous time flow for all entities, it is conceivable that certain quantum phenomena hint at a richer picture: multiple layers or scales of time progression, moving at distinct rates yet capable of syncing under the right conditions.
Whether spacetime is ultimately discrete or continuous remains unknown, but it’s not relevant to SuperTimePosition. The important insight is that phase synchronization can occur among systems oscillating at different speeds, suggesting that our conventional sense of a universal, uniform time might be incomplete. Exploring how these faster or slower cycles align, overlap, or remain out of phase could offer a deeper understanding of quantum processes and open new avenues for reconciling different interpretations of reality.
In exploring a potential framework for quantum physics, the central idea is that particles may operate on a much faster timescale than our measuring instruments, creating the appearance that they occupy multiple states at once. A measurement can be viewed as a synchronization event in which the measuring apparatus aligns with the rapid cycling of the quantum system, yielding a definite outcome in our slower time frame.
This approach does not require invoking additional mechanisms beyond the notion that spacetime—or the underlying field—can host different rates of temporal progression. When these rates synchronize, the apparently “indefinite” nature of the system becomes definite. By seeing measurement as alignment rather than collapse, many familiar puzzles of quantum mechanics dissolve. The focus shifts to how different time gears come into phase, revealing outcomes that are consistent with a unified, orderly picture of reality.
I have been developing a way to reconcile quantum phenomena with a deterministic outlook by imagining that particles oscillate much faster than the timescale of our measuring instruments. This rapid cycling makes them seem to occupy multiple states at once, but in reality they are just evolving in a “time gear” too swift for us to see. When a measurement device interacts with them, the slower “gear” of our world syncs up with their rapid cycles, revealing either a wave-like pattern or a particle-like spot depending on the precise phase when they lock together.
From this perspective, the seeming randomness arises simply because we sample the system too slowly, catching only discrete snapshots of its underlying deterministic cycles. What appears to be probability is really a mismatch of temporal gears. If two particles share a synchronized phase in their faster cycles, then measuring one will instantly reveal the correlated outcome of the other, since both are part of one unified field that connects everything. In this view, nothing truly “collapses”; instead, a measuring event is just where two spacetimes—ours and the particle’s—briefly phase-lock, forcing the outcome to appear localized or spread out.
This also offers a deeper harmony with Einstein’s famous remark that “God does not play dice.” The impression of dice-rolling randomness may be an artifact of our inability to track the system’s rapid oscillations. Beneath it all lies a single deterministic structure for wave and particle functions, unfolding in a unified field of spacetime. There is no need to abandon causality or assume paradoxical reversals of time. Instead, quantum results emerge smoothly once we recognize that the particle’s high-speed clock and our slower measuring clock align only at distinct moments, creating what we call a measurement. By acknowledging that both “choice” and “outcome” are aspects of the same field, quantum weirdness dissolves, and a coherent, deterministic picture of reality takes shape.
Quantum SuperTimePosition proposes that quantum entities oscillate through potential wave and particle states at an extremely high frequency, faster than measuring instruments can resolve. Because our devices operate at a slower rate, we only see discrete snapshots rather than the continuous, rapid cycling that underlies the quantum system. This framework reinterprets wave-particle duality as a single deterministic wave and particle function that manifests in different ways, depending on how it momentarily synchronizes with our slower observational scale.
This approach leads to a broader view called SuperTimePosition Physics, which treats the apparent indeterminism in standard quantum mechanics as an artifact of undersampling these rapid oscillations. The result is a self-consistent theory that retains all the successful predictions of quantum mechanics while offering a clear, orderly picture of how particle-like and wave-like outcomes arise from a unified process. Because the underlying dynamics are postulated to be deterministic, many long standing paradoxes lose their force: what seemed unpredictable becomes a matter of not accessing the deeper, faster levels of the quantum field. By operating within this rapid time frame, the particle can appear to take on every allowable configuration until a measurement event lines up with its cycling. What we interpret as randomness merely reflects that our instruments are too coarse to follow the rapid alternation between wave and particle phases. Consequently, a deterministic wave and particle function underlies observed phenomena, accounting for both interference effects and localized detections without invoking additional hidden variables or purely probabilistic laws.
This interpretation preserves the empirical successes of quantum theory while replacing puzzling notions of collapse with a natural synchronization mechanism between measuring apparatus and quantum system. SuperTimePosition Physics thereby offers a streamlined, intelligible account of quantum phenomena. Rather than attributing wave-particle outcomes to intrinsic randomness, it views them as revealing the internal cycling of a high-frequency quantum field. In doing so, it harmonizes quantum mechanics with a deterministic outlook and resolves the conceptual tension that has traditionally set quantum behavior apart from our everyday understanding of cause and effect.
Quantum physics is widely taught as inherently probabilistic and non-local. Yet the SuperTimePosition framework questions whether these features are truly fundamental or simply reflect our undersampling of a faster, local, and deterministic process. Proponents of a more deterministic and local viewpoint propose that all observed quantum phenomena might be explainable through locally grounded processes without invoking a fundamentally non-local wavefunction.
To further illustrate how different deterministic proposals address quantum randomness, we might compare Nelson’s stochastic mechanics, which attributes wavefunction statistics to classical-like noise, against our notion of rapid local oscillations.
A related viewpoint is the stochastic mechanics of Edward Nelson, which treats quantum phenomena as emerging from a kind of Brownian motion or classical noise. In that picture, particles undergo random fluctuations that reproduce the Schrödinger equation on average. SuperTimePosition shares the motivation to restore an underlying determinism yet discards the notion of random external noise. Instead, it substitutes “faster time frames” for Brownian motion, suggesting that apparent randomness arises from our inability to resolve these swift local oscillations. Both models seek to resolve wavefunction mysteries, but while Nelson’s approach focuses on statistical diffusion processes, SuperTimePosition builds on deterministic phase cycles that create interference patterns through undersampling.
Some researchers go even further by suggesting a discrete microstructure underlying quantum laws, as in Gerard ’t Hooft’s cellular automaton framework. Let’s see how SuperTimePosition fits within that discrete vs. continuous debate.
Gerard ’t Hooft, for example, argued that quantum mechanics might emerge from a deeper cellular automaton that, when “coarse-grained,” yields quantum uncertainty. SuperTimePosition could be interpreted as a continuous “time-lattice” version of this concept: the high-frequency oscillations act as tiny deterministic “cells” in time. On large scales, their rapid cycling looks statistically random, much like a fine grid can produce smooth behavior at bigger scales. This resemblance highlights how multiple lines of inquiry—cellular automata, pilot waves, and now time-gear synchronization—share the ambition of demystifying quantum probabilities through microdynamics hidden from ordinary detectors.
Jacob Barandes’ work proposes that quantum probabilities arise from an underlying, possibly non-local hidden variable C—a concept he presents as an original contribution. Yet it parallels certain features of pilot-wave theories, insofar as it introduces an external mechanism stretching across multiple particles. By contrast, the SuperTimePosition model dismisses external hidden variables altogether, relying instead on purely local, high-frequency oscillations to reproduce quantum correlations without invoking non-local links.
A key benefit of the SuperTimePosition (or “time gears”) viewpoint is that it dispenses with the need for an external hidden variable that bridges spatially separated particles. Instead, each particle follows its own rapid cycle and becomes phase-locked with its partner at the time of entanglement. Because these oscillations remain local to each particle and synchronize only once, no ongoing superluminal or non-local signaling is required. The “hidden” influence is effectively each particle’s own internal clock, cycling faster than we can measure and guaranteeing consistent outcomes during any subsequent measurement event.
Critics might argue that Jacob Barandes stance conflicts with established interpretations of experiments such as the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer. In the standard quantum view, interference patterns from such an interferometer highlight the real, wave-like nature of quantum states, seemingly resisting purely local and deterministic explanations. Additional objections arise from Bell’s theorem and related experiments that are often seen as ruling out local hidden variable models. Barandes responds by emphasizing contextuality: he contends that once all relevant variables and conditions are properly accounted for, the observed results do not require intrinsic non-locality or purely probabilistic laws at the deepest level.
Jacob Barandes has proposed a stochastic-quantum correspondence that introduces an external factor C acting as a hidden variable, connecting entangled particles via classical probabilistic processes. By contrast, SuperTimePosition keeps all dynamics local, insisting that phase-locked cycles obviate non-local exchange. While Barandes retains a fundamental layer of probabilism, SuperTimePosition maintains that all apparent randomness arises from undersampling high-frequency oscillations. In this sense, the two theories share a desire to go beyond standard wavefunction collapse, yet differ on whether an external bridging variable is truly necessary.
Several researchers, including Sean Carroll, Scott Aaronson, Lee Smolin, and Sabine Hossenfelder, have expressed skepticism toward Barandes’ framework. Their main critiques center on whether his approach fully addresses the measurement process, whether local stochastic formulations can accommodate the complexities of large-scale entanglement, and whether there is sufficient empirical evidence. They also question whether alternative models that regard wavefunctions as genuine physical fields remain more compelling given the wealth of interference and entanglement data.
Despite these criticisms, Barandes’ perspective underscores that there remains ongoing debate over whether quantum mechanics must be fundamentally probabilistic and non-local. This debate involves competing views about whether familiar phenomena like interference patterns and correlated measurements can be reproduced by rigorously constructed local theories. Proponents of local and deterministic wave-and-particle functions claim that, with the right mathematical framework, quantum effects need not reflect inherent randomness or non-local “spooky” influences. How decisively experiments and theoretical constraints can rule out such local proposals remains an active question in the foundations of quantum physics.
In 1982, Alain Aspect and collaborators conducted experiments on entangled photons and rapidly changed their measurement settings to ensure no light-speed signal could adjust one photon based on the other’s setting. Their data showed correlations exceeding Bell’s inequalities, which most interpret as evidence for quantum non-locality.
Traditionally, Bell’s inequalities are meant to distinguish whether entangled particles truly require non-local explanations or whether local hidden variables might suffice. Many interpret the experimental violation of these inequalities as proof of genuine non-locality, because no known local hidden-variable theory seemed to replicate quantum predictions. However, Bell’s inequalities do not technically rule out all hidden-variable approaches; they merely assumed none could match quantum outcomes without prescient knowledge. The SuperTimePosition approach proposes that rapidly cycling, locally phase-locked particles can mimic these strong correlations—no global hidden variable required.
This remains subject to ongoing debate over “measurement independence,” an assumption in Bell’s reasoning that the hidden variables are not influenced by how the experimenter decides to measure them. Some argue that relaxing measurement independence leaves room for local, deterministic particle and wavefunctions that can still reproduce quantum predictions without invoking fundamental non-locality. The Mach-Zehnder Interferometer, used to illustrate wave-like interference in single photons, also raises questions of whether the measurement settings can influence the photon’s behavior in a purely local, deterministic way—an interpretation that relies on particular hidden-variable assumptions. Although the mainstream view is that Aspect’s results confirm a genuine non-locality in nature, the question of whether hidden-variable theories might still operate locally by linking the measurement choices to the underlying variables remains an open subject in the foundations of quantum physics. In entangled systems, once one particle is measured, the other’s corresponding property appears fixed, even if its own measurement occurs later, but whether this reflects irreducible non-locality or a still-unknown local mechanism is tied to deeper interpretational disputes that continue to animate research on quantum theory.
In exploring how measuring one member of an entangled pair affects its partner, the SuperTimePosition framework highlights that synchronized phase cycles could deterministically fix both outcomes before either measurement, negating any need for instantaneous communication or mysterious collapse. In standard quantum mechanics, once one particle is observed, the shared entangled state collapses, making the unmeasured partner’s result correlated with that first measurement. This does not imply classical predetermination; rather, it reflects the probabilistic but correlated character of quantum states. Until both particles are measured, their wavefunctions continue evolving under local dynamics, yet the correlation imposed by entanglement remains intact.
An alternative perspective views particles as cycling through states at a much faster rate than our measuring devices can detect. In this “Time Gears” or “Quantum SuperTimePosition” framework, the apparent randomness of measurement outcomes could arise simply because we only sample the system intermittently. When two particles are phase-locked in this rapid oscillation, measuring one appears to fix the other’s orientation, not by direct signaling, but through a synchronized, deterministic cycle that our slower instruments cannot fully resolve.
Some researchers, such as Jacob Barandes, explore how stochastic classical processes might correspond to quantum outcomes, viewing probabilistic behavior as arising from deeper structured dynamics. While the mainstream approach emphasizes wavefunction collapse and correlated probabilistic results, these deterministic particle and wavefunction reinterpretations suggest that quantum uncertainty may reflect incomplete access to an underlying, rapidly evolving system.
Critics often cite the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer as evidence that quantum systems genuinely behave like waves extending over space. SuperTimePosition accounts for interference by suggesting that a single particle explores multiple paths via rapid phase cycling. From our slower timescale, the particle’s quick transitions look like a coherent “wave,” even though it remains localized in its own high-frequency time. Thus, the classical wave-like fringe pattern emerges naturally from faster-than-detectable oscillations, not from a global wavefunction stretching across both paths simultaneously.
The time gears metaphor posits that each particle continues to evolve rapidly in its own frame while remaining phase-locked with its entangled partner, so that when a measurement finally occurs, both outcomes align deterministically with their shared phase relationship. Although a photon double slit setup illustrates that a new boundary condition (or constraint) can indeed be imposed by the act of measurement—thus affecting whether an interference pattern or which-path information appears—this does not contradict the notion that entangled particles effectively “measure” each other prior to any external detection. Their synchronized phase alignment, established at the moment of entanglement, ensures that when one is later observed, the other’s orientation is already fixed in an opposite (or complementary) manner. In other words, the wavefunction’s evolving phase remains guided by the entangled state, not solely dictated by the measuring device’s eventual configuration. This contrasts with Sabine Hossenfelder’s toy model, which focuses on how hidden variables correlate directly to the detector settings themselves; in the time gears approach, the primary correlation is between two phase-locked particles and their overall synchronization with a slower observer time frame.
A central theme in the “SuperTimePosition” viewpoint is that quantum phenomena can be traced to a purely deterministic process in which apparent randomness emerges from a mismatch between the rapid internal evolution of particles and the slower timescale of observation. This perspective views wave and particle outcomes as arising from synchronized phase relationships established when entangled particles are created. Because each particle’s state evolves in a faster internal “time gear,” the measurements we make at a slower rate can look probabilistic even though the underlying mechanism is fully deterministic.
Sabine Hossenfelder’s position places emphasis on non-local, deterministic particle and wavefunctions that challenge the standard assumption of measurement independence. She cites the experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities as evidence for non-local correlations, yet maintains that deterministic explanations remain viable if one includes correlations linking the choice of measurement settings to the initial conditions. In her arguments, she is careful to insist that any proposed theory yield testable predictions that could distinguish it from traditional quantum mechanics.
Jacob Barandes adopts a framework in which quantum probabilities have a fundamental role, but he also introduces hidden variables to map quantum systems onto classical stochastic processes. Although he acknowledges that entanglement produces correlations across spatial separations, he does not use hidden variables to restore strict locality. His model replaces wavefunction collapse with a smooth updating of probability distributions, treating the quantum state as a probabilistic entity rather than as an indicator of underlying deterministic cycles.
By contrast, the SuperTimePosition model insists that each particle’s state evolves deterministically in a high-frequency domain that remains unresolvable in real time. These rapid oscillations, once phase-locked at creation, govern the future outcomes without needing non-local influence. The result is that measurement reveals a consistent pattern linked to the shared phase alignment, rather than manifesting any intrinsic randomness. In effect, the observed statistics come from undersampling a faster, deterministic system rather than from any fundamental indeterminism. This departure from Barandes’ intrinsic probabilism and Hossenfelder’s acceptance of non-local correlations situates the SuperTimePosition approach as a deterministically local interpretation that does not rely on extra hidden variables or on linking the experimenter’s choices to the initial conditions.
In sum, although all three viewpoints challenge common notions of irreducible quantum randomness, they diverge in how they incorporate hidden variables, treat non-local correlations, and interpret the wavefunction’s role. The SuperTimePosition model advocates purely local deterministic cycles that are too rapid to be directly observed. Hossenfelder’s arguments focus on allowing measurement setting correlations that make room for deterministic particle and wavefunctions while retaining the observed violations of Bell’s inequalities. Barandes, meanwhile, favors an explicitly probabilistic scheme that unifies quantum mechanics with a stochastic underpinning, presupposing that quantum states are best described by an evolving probability distribution rather than by hidden oscillatory phases.
A central distinction lies in whether entangled behavior stems from an external hidden variable bridging particle pairs, or from intrinsic phase oscillations that do not require any such external mediator. The time gears metaphor illustrates how two particles can exhibit correlated outcomes simply by virtue of faster, synchronized oscillations locked in phase at the moment of entanglement. These high-frequency cycles remain local to each particle and interact with the slower observational frame only at sampling points, creating the illusion of probabilistic wave-like interference. No additional variable is introduced; the “hidden” influence is effectively each particle’s own rapid cycle and its fixed phase relative to its partner.
By contrast, Jacob Barandes’ approach in the Stochastic-Quantum Theorem and the Stochastic-Quantum Correspondence posits a distinct hidden variable that connects separated particles, introducing a probabilistic framework in which correlations are tied to an external factor C. This allows for non-local correlations but treats them as emerging from classically inspired stochastic processes. Rather than explaining entanglement purely through phase-locked internal motions, Barandes relies on a mathematical correspondence between quantum systems and classical probabilistic dynamics, preserving non-local outcomes through that hidden variable.
Although collapse theories typically introduce spontaneous localizations to tame unwieldy macroscopic superpositions, the SuperTimePosition model suggests no collapse is necessary—only an alignment of time scales. Comparing these two helps illuminate where randomness enters, if at all.
Collapse models, such as the GRW theory, hold that wavefunctions undergo spontaneous localizations over time, preventing macroscopic superpositions. Under SuperTimePosition, however, “collapse” is simply the measurement apparatus locking onto the particle’s phase at one instant, so there is no need for an extra collapse mechanism or random trigger. Rather, each measurement is a synchronization event in which the slower time scale of our instruments catches the system in a particular phase. This offers an alternative explanation for why macroscopic superpositions remain unobserved: their high-frequency cycles never align long enough with any large-scale detector to sustain a visible, stable superposition.
Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation jettisons hidden variables but multiplies outcomes instead, allowing the entire wavefunction to branch into parallel universes. In SuperTimePosition, there is no branching: all measured outcomes remain in one reality, determined by high-frequency cycles that remain local. Rather than spawning separate worlds for each possibility, the system’s temporal mismatch ensures we only register one phase state at each measurement instant. Where Many-Worlds posits “everything happens,” the time-gear view posits “all possibilities are momentarily cycled through” but only one phase aligns with the detector’s timescale—again preserving determinism within a single, shared universe.
In parallel, Quantum Gradient Time Crystal Dilation (QGTCD) expands on the idea that time density or extra frames of time can shape local particle trajectories just as warped space would. By extending these ideas, Quantum Gradient Time Crystal Dilation posits that time density variations near massive objects alter the rate of these high-frequency oscillations, effectively creating time “gradients.” SuperTimePosition can incorporate these gradients to explain why particles appear to follow warped trajectories near gravitational sources. The wavefunction’s amplitude and frequency shift according to local time density, suggesting that space-time curvature and quantum interference might be two facets of the same underlying phenomenon.
From this viewpoint, a particle’s wave signature may seem to collapse or contract when measurement increases the local time density, but it is better seen as the particle aligning its higher-frequency oscillation with the measurement frame. Only the portion of the wave correlated with the observer’s time gear becomes visible, while the rest remains out of phase and inaccessible to our slow sampling. This account provides a deterministic explanation of wave–particle interference and entanglement using rapid, local phase oscillations—without inserting any auxiliary hidden variable.
I propose a framework in which quantum particles and their apparent wave character are manifestations of a single deterministic system operating at faster timescales than our detectors can resolve. From our ordinary perspective, coarse-grained in time, these rapid oscillations blur into interference patterns that look probabilistic. In reality, each particle follows a locally governed trajectory, while its emergent wave arises through local interactions at a lower-frequency scale. This reconciles wave–particle duality with deterministic particle and wavefunctions: the “wave” is simply the system’s slow envelope, and the “particle” is the high-frequency, localized peak.
Entanglement is understood as initial synchronization of these faster-phase cycles. Once two particles lock phases, no continuous communication is needed for them to exhibit correlated outcomes. Standard violations of Bell’s inequalities can be viewed not as evidence of non-local hidden variables but as a mismatch between our measured timescale and the synchronized, deterministic evolution that occurs out of phase with everyday clock rates. The theory thus dispenses with the notion of global wavefunction collapse and instead posits that any apparent randomness stems from undersampling the rapid temporal cycles of otherwise local, deterministic fields.
On larger scales, the same local wave mechanics could explain cosmic structures, such as filamentary networks of galaxies, by treating them as emergent interference patterns of myriad particles evolving in their faster, phase-locked time domain.
In cosmology, filamentary structures in galactic clustering are sometimes compared to wave interference on vast scales, fueled by gravitational collapse or even quantum effects at cosmic scales. SuperTimePosition points out that these filaments might mirror the same wave-like interference that individual particles display—but spread across huge distances and times. If the local “time gears” of countless particles subtly synchronize, their collective wave patterns could manifest as large-scale channels of matter. Such a scenario might relate to inflationary fluctuations, topological defects, or even wavefunction-based models of dark matter, creating a fresh perspective on how quantum coherence and deterministic cycles could imprint themselves onto cosmic webs of galaxies.
Unlike pilot-wave approaches, this model emphasizes that the “pilot wave” is not a universal non-local field but rather a local emergent phenomenon that couples to each particle’s high-frequency oscillation.
Having established how SuperTimePosition replaces global collapse with local, high-frequency oscillations, it’s worth contrasting this stance with one of the earliest deterministic interpretations—pilot-wave theory—so we can see exactly where the two models diverge.
De Broglie–Bohm pilot-wave theory offers a deterministic view of quantum mechanics in which each particle follows a well-defined trajectory under the influence of a universal pilot wave. Unlike the strictly local oscillations in SuperTimePosition, however, the pilot wave extends across space, guiding particles instantaneously through a global field. By contrast, SuperTimePosition posits that the oscillations remain fully localized to each particle; no global wavefunction must span the entire setup. In this sense, SuperTimePosition replaces the notion of a universal guiding wave with local, high-frequency cycles that can produce the same interference and entanglement outcomes by phase-locking each particle’s “time gear” rather than connecting them via a single extended pilot wave.
Overall, this view preserves determinism, allows wave-like effects to arise from local time-sliced interactions, and integrates small-scale quantum phenomena with large-scale structures in a unified account of wave and particle behavior.
Conclusion
The overarching theme of SuperTimePosition (or “time gears”) is that quantum systems may be governed by a faster, deterministic cycle than our standard measuring devices can resolve. This mismatch between the system’s high-frequency evolution and our slower observational scale creates the appearance of probabilistic wave–particle duality. By understanding measurement as a synchronization event—where the rapid oscillations of the quantum system momentarily lock phase with a macroscopic apparatus—one can account for interference, entanglement, and delayed-choice effects without invoking mystical collapse or non-local signals.
In standard quantum mechanics, wavefunction collapse is invoked to explain why a system abruptly chooses one outcome upon measurement. In the SuperTimePosition model, measurement is reinterpreted as a synchronization event. The measurement device, operating at a slower time scale, “samples” the particle at discrete intervals, momentarily locking phase with the particle’s high-frequency cycle. Rather than a sudden collapse, the observed outcome is simply the system’s phase state at the instant our detector interacts, preserving determinism and removing any need for an instantaneous wavefunction collapse across space.
From this vantage point, Bell-inequality violations and quantum-eraser outcomes do not demand intrinsic non-locality; rather, they reveal how entangled particles share an initial phase synchronization that later appears to instantaneously fix correlated outcomes. What looks random or retroactive reflects our undersampling of an otherwise orderly dynamics. Different researchers offer alternate approaches—some favor strictly local hidden variables, others point toward a fundamental stochastic layer—but the SuperTimePosition model stands out by positing that no extra hidden parameter is required. Instead, the “hiddenness” stems from our inability to track extremely fast cycles unfolding in a richer temporal landscape.
By reframing wavefunction collapse as a sampling mismatch, the theory reduces the conceptual tension between quantum mechanics and classical intuitions about causality and determinism. It also opens the door to reinterpretations of human choice, given that measurement settings might reflect another layer of synchronization in time. Philosophically, one might see all apparent quantum paradoxes as illusions born of incomplete temporal access. Practically, if novel experiments confirm the presence of these rapid local oscillations, quantum technologies could exploit even finer time resolution, expanding the possibilities of sensors or clocks based on phase-locked cycles.
Far from discarding standard quantum predictions, this view aims to preserve every testable result of mainstream quantum mechanics. It simply reinterprets the wavefunction’s behavior as the lower-frequency manifestation of a deeper, high-speed reality. At large scales, this same principle suggests that cosmic structures, such as galactic filaments, could arise from collective interference among many localized oscillators. Ultimately, SuperTimePosition achieves a unifying outlook in which wave and particle behaviors, as well as quantum and cosmic phenomena, flow from a single deterministic process that is revealed only when two distinct time scales align. What’s insane about this is that I connected action on the scale of a quantum particle and applied it to Galactic Filaments in space.
To situate SuperTimePosition in historical context, we can look at early attempts by de Broglie and others, who sought to embed particle dynamics within a more deterministic wave framework, albeit with different assumptions about global fields.
It is worth noting that proposals akin to SuperTimePosition have echoes in earlier deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. Louis de Broglie’s original “double solution” approach, for example, envisioned both a particle and pilot wave coexisting in a physically real sense, while early wave-mechanical theorists sometimes postulated hidden deterministic underpinnings beneath the observed probabilistic formalism. By framing quantum phenomena in terms of high-frequency “time gears,” SuperTimePosition updates these classical ambitions for a modern era, suggesting that local rapid oscillations—rather than global wavefunctions—might reproduce the same experimental effects. Moving forward, designing experiments to reveal these fast local oscillations—perhaps by seeking minute deviations in interference patterns under varying gravitational potentials—can help test the theory’s predictions and demonstrate its relevance beyond the usual quantum foundations circle.
Evaluation from a Physicist’s Perspective
This article presents a bold and imaginative framework that uses rapid “time gears” to explain interference, entanglement, and even cosmic-scale structures via purely local, deterministic processes. It raises many intriguing questions about how such fast oscillations could reproduce standard quantum results. For those seeking ways to reconcile quantum mechanics with classical intuitions, it provides an enticing line of thought, though it will require a solid mathematical underpinning and careful testing. Readers interested in possible experiments to validate these ideas—such as looking for fractional “beats” or deviations in interference under varying gravitational conditions—may consult the references linked below, where concrete proposals for testing the theory are discussed.
Additional Experimental Suggestions
Testing Time-Gear Mismatch in Quantum Chaos
Investigate whether “time gears” leave a discernible signature in quantum systems prone to chaotic dynamics. For instance, high-precision studies of driven Rydberg atoms or quantum billiards might reveal subtle temporal patterns—fractional “beat frequencies” or resonances in wavefunction revivals—if extremely fast local oscillations are present.
High-Resolution Attosecond (or Zeptosecond) Metrology
Ultra-short pulse lasers can probe electron dynamics at attosecond timescales. If SuperTimePosition is correct, pushing the measurement apparatus into this regime might capture partial glimpses of a particle’s faster cycle. Any anomalies or substructure in what is normally a smooth wavefunction evolution could be direct evidence of extra “time gear” phases.
Quantum Optomechanics with Suspended Mirrors
In advanced optomechanical setups, light interacts with moving mirrors in superpositions of positions. If “time gears” exist, then precise phase measurements at short intervals might detect slight decoherence patterns inconsistent with standard quantum predictions (especially under changing gravitational conditions). Any deviations could support the presence of rapid local phase cycling.
Entanglement Lifetimes Under Gravitational Gradients
Entangled photons or ions in a varying gravitational field might display small shifts in their correlation times if local time densities differ. If the synchronization of “time gears” is sensitive to gravitational potential, one might see measurable differences in entanglement “strength” or the rate of decoherence when altitude or gravitational potential changes.
Additional reading:
All of these science news articles on SVGN.io were simultaneously published on GitHub, Substack, and subsequently will be added to arXiv.org and be featured in my youtube videos.
You can find more of my articles here, I have a lot of writing that hasn’t been published on SVGN.io yet, but has been published to the world on GitHub. https://github.com/v5ma/selfawarenetworks/
I recommend that you publish your articles & notes on GitHub first as it is functionally and anatomically isomorphic to publishing in any scientific journal. Github preserves the time of upload and it tracks any changes that are also time stamped as a matter of public record. This serves the same function as uploading your work to ArXiv or a journal like Nature, it serves the same function as publishing your work as a book or in a Newspaper, and anatomically the material evidence that proves your authorship has identical weight to publishing anywhere else. In theory you strengthen the ability of your work to survive by publishing in multiple sources. It remains possible that Microsoft could be nuked for example, in that case GitHub would cease to exist, so if you publish your work in many other places that preserves the chances your words, and the proof of your authorship lives on.
Later on you can reference your github files in peer reviewed Journals, and draw links between what you can prove that you wrote in the past, allowing you to prove authorship when you finally start sharing your work more broadly with the Scientific Community.