Two-Time Relativistic Bohmian Model of Quantum Mechanics

Giuseppe Ragunı́∗
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidad de Murcia, E-30071 Murcia, Spain.

Two-Time relativistic Bohmian Model (TTBM) is a theory in which the apparently paradoxical
aspects of Quantum Mechanics are the effect of the existence of an extra unobservable time dimen-
sion. In this paper, the model is first rigorously and thoroughly summarized: definition, salient
properties and observational explanations (double-slit experiment). Secondly, the theory is applied
to a generic spherical atomic orbit, obtaining oscillations of the electron in the new time dimension,
τ , that demonstrate the static nature of the orbitals. Something very similar happens in the case
of a particle in box, where τ -oscillations cause the particle to spread out at steady states. Some
speculations about spin and astrophysical follow. Finally, strengths and pending tasks of the model
are summarized.
Keywords: Quantum Mechanics Foundations; de Broglie-Bohm Theory; Zitterbewegung; Uncer-
tainty principle verification; Extra dimensions, Definition of time in Quantum Mechanics, Atomic
orbitals, Spin, Dark matter

I. INTRODUCTION II. TTBM DEFINITION AND PROPERTIES

Two-time physics has been considered in various con-

texts. An additional temporal parameter is considered
e.g. in [14–20] and, with a different approach, in [21–24]
In the search for a relativistic generalization of in order to more accurately explain different quantum
Bohmian Quantum Mechanics, one of the crucial points is properties or obtain supersymmetries. But in all these
the definition of simultaneity [1]. Until a couple of years theories the expectation value of the new time is not in-
ago, the most accredited theories were proposing models dependent from the old one.
which, while respecting Lorentz invariance, must admit In TTBM, the new time variable, called τ , is indepen-
superluminal speeds and complex space-time structures dent of the usual time, even if it causes, in the way we
[2–9]. The TTBM theory, introduced recently [10, 11], will see, the indeterminacy on a measure of t.
defines simultaneity by introducing an additional time If X, Y, Z are the coordinates of the particle, taking
τ , independent of the usual time t. Motions in τ are only X(t, τ ) into consideration for simplicity, we get two
instantaneous with respect to t time and, while not di- velocities, one classic and one intrinsic:
rectly observable, are supposed to generate the quantum
uncertainties of the observables. They are caused by a ∂X ∂X
Bohmian-type Quantum Potential and find the basic ex- vcx ≡ vi x ≡ , (1)
∂t ∂τ
ample in the famous Zitterbewegung motion [12, 13], of
which a more general law is achieved. Beyond the empiri- having so: dX = vcx dt + vix dτ . If we suppose that vcx
cism of standard Quantum Mechanics, the model foresees and vix depend, respectively, only on t and τ , we have
a relativistic anisotropic modification of the uncertainty
principle, which could be tested in high energy accelera- Zt Zτ
tors. X(t, τ ) = Xt0 + Xτ0 + vcx (ξ) dξ + vix (ζ) dζ, (2)
0 0

having set t0 = τ0 = 0. Due to its total independence

In this paper we dedicate the following two sections to on t, τ is hidden: the intrinsic motions are not directly
define and present the main features of the model, while observable and are perceived as instantaneous with re-
the third one elucidates the interpretation of the dou- spect to time t, measured in any reference system, for
ble slit experience. A section follows where the intrinsic any value of the intrinsic velocity. Naturally, this simul-
movements within the atomic orbitals are determined, taneity is totally different from the one that can exist
thus justifying their static nature relative to the t-time. between two t-events, which is considered (and rightly
The particle in box is covered in section VI, while the VII relativised) in Special Relativity. Here the generic hid-
one outlines some basic points about spin and Field The- den motion occurs with respect to a new and independent
ory in relation to the proposed model. This is followed temporal parameter and therefore, as long as the object
by section VIII, which discusses some possible astrophys- does not interact with something to constitute a t-event,
ical consequences, and section IX, containing the aid of it must be considered as simultaneous in any reference
TTBM in the context of the issue of defining time in system (x, y, x, t).
Quantum Mechanics. A final section X contains general Eq. (2) allows to the particle, observed in its trajec-
conclusions. tory as a function of t, to jump instantly from one point of
 2

space to another, in principle arbitrarily distant, through

the time dimension τ ; and this has to be generalized in
every direction of space. Actually, Quantum Mechanics ∂R2 ⃗ 2 = 0,
+ ⃗vc · ∇R (7)
has accustomed us to these surprising facts, not only for ∂t
an electron spreaded in an atomic orbital, in quantum
and holds for any function of any-order derivative of R
diffraction and entanglements, but really in any motion.
over t or space. But this would not be sufficient to apply
In fact, according to Feynman’s sum over histories inter-
it to VQ : from eq. (4), being H − V = m γc c2 + VQ , we
pretation (which is equivalent to the standard one) the
obtain for the Quantum Potential
physical event ”the particle (or photon) moves from A
to B ” is only correctly explained by admitting that it s
has traveled all the possible paths from A to B at once, 2 2 ℏ2 ∂2R
VQ = −mγc c + mγc c 1 + 2 2 4 ( 2 − c2 ∇2 R),
also interacting with every possible virtual particle of the m γc c R ∂t
vacuum [25, 26]. (8)
The theory starts from the wavefunction depending, so, also on vc . However, we will show later
i
that this dependence is not at all as important as that
ψ(⃗r, t, τ ) = R(⃗r, t, τ ) e ℏ S(⃗r,t,τ ) , (3) 2
one on the factor R1 ∂∂tR2 −c
2 ∇2 R
R , and hence eq. (7) - valid
without restrictions for VQ in the case of a free particle
with R > 0 and S real functions, admitting the validity of - in any case can be applied to VQ to obtain at least a
the Klein-Gordon equation. Beginning with the free case ∂V
(V = 0), by taking the gradient and then the divergence good estimate of ∂tQ .
of eq. (3) and, separately, differentiating it twice with From eqs. (5) and (6) a noteworthy equation can be
respect to time, one can obtain [10] obtained (proof in Appendix A):

d (mγc c2 ) ∂(R2 VQ )
1∂ R 2
∇ R 2 R2 + = 0, (9)
Hf2ree = m2 γc2 c4 + ℏ2 ( − c2 ), (4) dt ∂t
R ∂t2 R
relating the temporal variation of the relativistic mass
to that of the Quantum Potential; in particular, to neg-
∂(R2 Hf ree ) lige this latter implies to neglige variations of relativistic
⃗ · (R2 p⃗c ) = 0,
+ c2 ∇ (5) mass.
∂t
The last equation required by the model is a wave equa-
having assumed ∇S ⃗ = p⃗c = mγc⃗vc and ∂S = −Hf ree . tion for the generic τ -motion:
∂t
If we set Hf ree ≡ mγc c2 + VQ to define the Quantum
Potential VQ , eq. (4) attests that it is not zero in general.
∂R2 ∂R2
In presence of a scalar potential V ̸= 0, one has: H = − vi s = 0, (10)
mγc c2 +VQ +V and these equations continue to hold with ∂τ ∂s
H − V replacing Hf ree , by using the generalized Klein- for any direction ŝ. It describes a regressive wave, i.e. one
Gordon equation. It’s easy to show that eq. (5) is nothing that moves in a mirror-like manner with respect to the
other than the well-known continuity equation that can τ -motion of the particle. The justification for eq. (10) is
be obtained by applying the Klein-Gordon equation to ψ based on the fact the operation of finding the particle in a
and ψ ∗ and which fails to represent the conservation of unit volume (whose probability is R2 ) specifies a t̄-event
a probability density (see, e.g. [27] ). Indeed, our model and any t̄-event has uncertainty of about half a period
explicitly requires the validity of the following continuity of the intrinsic oscillation of the particle. This effectively
equation means that the particle must perform half an oscillation
- the cause of uncertainty - before the measurement is
∂R2 ⃗ achievable, ending up in antiphase with R2 .
+ ∇ · (R2⃗vc ) = 0, (6) Since τ -motion is not directly influenced by V, vis only
∂t
depends on τ ; then, eq. (10) holds for any function of
which expresses the conservation of the probability of any-order derivative of R over t or space. In this case,
finding the particle in a unit volume. There should be then, and still assuming that we do not consider the de-
no doubt that eq. (6), accepted without discussion in pendence of ⃗vc on space, it can be applied without prob-
the non-relativistic case, also holds in the relativistic lems to VQ , because ⃗vc does not depend on τ .
case, because it is independent of the relativistic mass The motion is decomposed into a classical and a purely
of the particle and could depend only on its dimensional quantum part. The law of classical motion is well known;
Lorentzian contraction; which is neglected when treating in particular, if V is conservative, the classic total energy
the particle as a material point. is constant:
It is worth highlighting that eq. (6) simplifies when
the variability of ⃗vc from space is not considered (as in
analytical mechanics): mγc c2 + V = const ≡ Ec , (11)
 3

and deriving over time one can get 2. The particle is represented by the wavefunction (3),
∂St
where ∂S 2
∂t = ∂t = −H = −mγc c − V − VQ and
⃗ = ∇S
∇S ⃗ t = p⃗c = mγc v⃗c . It obeys the general-
d⃗
pc ⃗ ∂ ∂
= −∇V. (12) ized (standard replacements: iℏ ∂t → iℏ ∂t − V and
dt ⃗ ⃗ ⃗
−iℏ∇ → −iℏ∇ − P ) Klein-Gordon equation.
On the other hand, due to its omnidirectionality, the 3. For t-motion and each τ -motion the continuity eq.
intrinsic velocity cannot be treated as a vector. The (6) and the wave eq. (10), respectively, hold.
model assumes that the intrinsic motions are the direct
cause of the quantum uncertainties. This implies that 4. The original Bohm’s law of motion is replaced by
Special Relativity cannot hold for them, as demonstrated eqs. (12) and (14) to get, respectively, t-motion and
in [10]. Since the mass experiences only the relativis- generic τ -motion; for the latter the Special Relativ-
tic increase due to ⃗vc , the conservation of energy for the ity is not valid.
generic τ -motion reads
It should also be noted that, although each τ -motion
does not respect the Special Relativity, the maximum
1 value of vi is c: in fact it represents the quantum uncer-
VQ + mγc vi2s ≡ Eqs , (13) tainty on the generic component of ⃗vc , which cannot be
2
greater than c.
that is a purely quantum total energy, independent on τ .
Taking the ∂τ∂
of eq. (13) and using eq. (10) with VQ in The model therefore adds a Newtonian time to the
2 usual four-dimensional t-spacetime. As we will see in
place of R , one finds
the next sections, the motions in the new time variable
are absolutely negligible for macroscopic objects. Con-
dvis ∂VQ versely, when this is not the case, it happens that, even
mγc =− . (14) assuming to know the Quantum Potential with a good
dτ ∂s
approximation, due to the absolute independence of the
So, in TTBM, the Bohm’s original motion equation two times and the omnidirectionality of the τ -motions,
[28]: d⃗p ⃗ ⃗ the function ⃗r(t, τ ) does not represent the commonly un-
dt = −∇V − ∇VQ does not hold : the motion is
instead described by eqs. (12) and, for each spatial di- derstood trajectory, but rather a three-dimensional ob-
rection ŝ, (14)1 . ject of t-spacetime. In particular, while t remains con-
After these outcomes, we can identify the expression stant, we will find that the particle can τ -oscillate an ar-
of the two-time action in eq. (3), that is S = St + Sτ , bitrary number of times in any arbitrary direction. How-
where ever, this is an indeterminism linked to the non-existence
of a specific function τ (t) and no longer to a conceptual
−mc2 dualism, as in the standard interpretation. In this model
Z Z
1
St = ( − VQ − V )dt; Sτ = ( mγc vi2s − VQ )dτ. we still have a corpuscular and a wave point of view,
γc 2
(15) the latter analogous to the standard one. However, there
⃗
In Appendix B we verify that ∇S = p⃗c and ∂t = ∂S is no incompatibility between them, but the wave point
of view is necessary due to the described constitutional
−mγc c2 − VQ − V , as required by the model.
insufficiency of the corpuscular description.
We will discover that, in respect to two arbitrary
different directions ŝ and û, it results vis ̸= viu , although
only for vc comparable with c. It is thus recognized A. Some fundamental properties
that the ψ, depending on s through Sτ , is actually a
ψs : the particle comes to be represented with a different
wavefunction for each direction of space. a. VQ , and consequently H, explicitly depends on t
and τ . Dependence on t is due to the particle t-
motion: in the free case, we will see that both are
The new Bohmian model can thus be so summarized:
waves that follow the particle. Dependence on τ is
1. The spatial coordinates of the particle have to vary the cause of its quantum uncertainty and generates
as a function of two independent temporal param- the Zitterbewegung of the particle. We explicitly
eters, t and τ . Motions in τ occur in all directions; will show this in the free case.
2
they are responsible for quantum uncertainties and b. VQ is basically connected to the term ∂∂tR 2 2
2 −c ∇ R
not directly observable. which never is zero in all space (for photons, we
will find that it vanishes just in direction of mo-
tion). Moreover, the second addend inside the root
in eq. (8) never is small compared to 1, even in the
1 In [10] eqs. (10) and (14) are incorretly written with the total case of non-relativistic approximation. For a free
derivative with respect to s, however without consequences. particle, for example, we will find that VQ oscillates
 4

with an amplitude 21 mγc c2 . However, although this RM is the maximum value of R and f an adimensional
energy is high, it only governs a not directly observ- positive arbitrary constant3 .
able motion which instantly spreads out the parti- Starting to study the rectilinear trajectory, called ⃗x =
cle in a volume of t-spacetime. It is then clear why xvˆc , eq. (7), written for R, becomes
the standard treatment of stationary solutions (as
determination of orbits and stationary states of a ∂R
+ vc Ṙ = 0, (17)
box) is successful even though it ignores the Quan- ∂t
tum Potential. The latter is instead necessary to
where a dot denotes x-derivative. Deriving again, we get
describe the intrinsic motions and the t-evolution
of the probability of finding the particle. ∂2R
− vc2 R̈ = 0, (18)
c. The Bohm’s non-relativistic result [28]: VQ = ∂t2
ℏ2 ∇2 R
− 2m R is incorrect. It could be obtained from also valid, with no restrictions, for VQ and H: they are
2
eq. (8) by negleging ∂∂tR 2 with respect to c2 ∇2 R so waves that follow the particle in t-motion. By replace-
and then considering small the second addend in- ments, eq. (4) becomes:
side the root; but both things are wrong: the for-
mer generally (being possible if ⃗vc ⊢ ∇R ⃗ and in ℏ2 R̈
(mγc c2 + VQ )2 = m2 γc2 c4 − , (19)
other appropriate situations), the latter always. In- γc2 R
deed, to deduce it, Bohm uses the time-dependent
Schrödinger equation iℏ ∂ψ ℏ2 2 and substituting VQ we obtain
∂t = − 2m ∇ ψ + V ψ; but
this equation is no longer correct if R depends on 2
space and time, because it is no longer the non- RM R̈
(1 + f 2
)2 = 1 − λ2 , (20)
relativistic limit of the Klein Gordon equation. R R
2
d. To obtain the non-relativistic limit it is sufficient where λ2 ≡ m2ℏc2 γ 4 .
v2 c
approximate γc with 1 + 2cc2 in all equations; this Recalling that R > 0, a first integration provides
holds also for γc → 1. In the case of a free particle,
√ r 2
we still will get a Zitterbewegung motion, even at RM f R
rest (although the case vc = 0 is singular). How- Ṙ = ± f M − 4ln R + c1 , (21)
λ R2
ever, it is possible to obtain the following general-
ized Schrödinger equation (see Appendix A): with c1 arbitrary constant. By imposing that RM is a
relative maximum, c1 is determined from Ṙ(xM ) = 0.
ℏ2 ∇2 ψ ℏ2 ∇2 R One gets
− = H − V − VQ − +
2m ψ 2m R √ r
(16) RM f R2 RM
ℏ ∂(R2 (mγc c2 + VQ )) Ṙ = ± f( M − 1) + 4ln , (22)
+i 2 2
, λ R2 R
2mc R ∂t
where γc has been left for easier comparison with with R determined by integrating:
the eq. (9). It reduces to the time-independent Z √
2 dR RM f
Schrödinger for VQ = 0 (⇒ ∂∂tR 2
2 = ∇ R = 0), from
q = − | x − xM | +c2 .
RM2
RM λ
eq. (9). f ( R2 − 1) + 4 ln R
(23)
This integral cannot be simplified by means of standard
III. FREE PARTICLE functions. However, we can obtain the following approx-
imation for R → RM [10]
A Zitterbewegung motion in the τ variable emerges af-
ter three integrations by studying the free particle in a f (f + 2)
R ≃ RM (1 − (x − xM )2 ), (24)
fixed direction. 2λ2
For a free particle, V = 0 and the classical motion eq.
(12) just informs us that p⃗c is constant. From eq. (9) we from which one gets
obtain VQ = Rk2 , with k an arbitrary constant2 . From
eq. (8) it can be seen that VQ has the relativistic mass f (f + 2)
as a factor; therefore we will set k = mγc c2 RM2
f , where VQ ≃ mγc c2 f (1 + (x − xM )2 ), (25)
λ2

2 In [10, 11] we do not consider eq. (9), deducing this by integrat- 3 By imposition that R(x) is a bell curve, one can easily find that
ing an equation obtained from eqs. (4), (5) and (7). f ≤ 0 leads to inconsistency.
 5

that is the potential of a harmonic oscillator. By replac- f . Nonetheless, the τ -motions can be negligible in am-
ing it into the eq. (14) and imposing xM = X(t, 0) = plitude, as happens for a macroscopic body. It is also
Xt0 + Xτ0 + vc t, we get the following approximate solu- surprising that, although the existence of VQ is due to ℏ,
tions its maximum and minimum values do not depend on it:
c p only the frequency of its oscillation does.
X(t, τ ) ≃ Xt0 + Xτ0 + vc t + ∆X sin( f 2(f + 2))τ ) This result is able to justify the physical origin of the
λ
(26) phase to be associated with each path in Feynman’s for-
mulation of Quantum Mechanics. The approach has been
c p c p specified in [29], through a particle’s oscillation forward
vix (τ ) ≃ ∆X f 2(f + 2)) cos( f 2(f + 2))τ ),
λ λ and backward in t-time. In our model, that type of mo-
(27) tion arises spontaneously: it is just the Zitterbewegung in
where, according to point 1 of the theory, the amplitude i
τ , represented by the extra phase factor e ℏ Sτ .
∆X represents the positional indeterminacy in x of the
particle. By imposing vixM AX = c, we obtain ∆X =
√λ , which generalizes the standard Zitterbewegung
f 2(f +2) A. Zitterbewegung in arbitrary direction
if f is of the order of unity. The uncertainty principle is
then To generalise the result to an arbitrary spatial direction
λ ℏ ℏ ŝ ̸= v̂c it is convenient to refer to a polar coordinate
p × mγc c = p ∼ , (28) system (s, θ, ϕ), where θ ̸= 0 is the angle between ŝ and
f 2(f + 2) f 2(f + 2)γc γc
v̂c and ϕ the azimuth (fig. 1). Using the polar expressions
with an unexpected Lorentz factor to divide. On the
other hand, in eq. (8) γc decreases the influence of ℏ.
At ultrarelativistic speeds, the quantum positional un-
certainty in direction of motion should be negligible.
The amplitude of the τ -oscillation - i.e. the quantum
positional uncertainty - is inversely proportional to the
rest mass. Then, for a particle of one picogram we find
it about 15 orders of magnitude smaller than for an elec-
tron. However, this is not the only reason that explains
the evanescence of the τ -motions for macroscopic bodies,
as we will show in the next section.
The considered ∆X represents the minimum positional
uncertainty of the particle; only by means of a wave
packet description is it possible to take into account
larger positional uncertainties (and smaller momentum FIG. 1. Polar coordinate system for studying the Zitterbewe-
uncertainties). gung in an arbitrary direction s.
For x = X in eq. (25), we get the dependence of
VQ on τ : it oscillates, and so does H, with an amplitude ⃗ and ∇2 R we get [10]
for ∇R
1 2
2 mγc c ; this value represents so the quantum uncertainty
in a measure of energy, for a free particle with minimal s
positional uncertainty. Multiplying by half-period of os- c2 R′′ 2ℏ2 c2 ′
cillation - which represents the quantum uncertainty in H= m2 γc2 c4 − ℏ2 2
− R , γcs ̸= γc , (30)
γcs R sR
a measure of t-time - we can find again an uncertainty
principle similar similar to the previous one [10, 11].
and
The purely quantum total energy Eqx ≡ VQ + 12 mγc vi2x
is independent of x: R′ 1 ∂H
vcs (m γc c2 − H) + = 0, (31)
R 2 ∂t
1 1
Eq = VQmin + mγc c2 = mγc c2 (f + ), (29)
2 2 where vcs = vc cos θ and the apostrophe indicates deriva-
tive over s. In line with our choice to limit ourselves to
and so constant in every direction; it also is the maximum small neighborhoods of the maximum RM to integrate
value of VQ , corresponding to the minimum value of R: eq. (23), we now can neglect the last addend of eq. (30)
Rmin = qRM 1 . and thus lead back to the already studied eq. (19). Plac-
1+ 2f 2
We have therefore found not simply that the Quan- ing: λ2 ≡ m2 c2ℏγ 2 γ 2 , we so get back the same equations
c cs
tum Potential is never negligible, but that its maximum found before. By imposing the τ -motion equation, we
value, which represents the total purely quantum energy, obtain an intrinsic harmonic motion described again by
is at least of the order of mγc c2 , regardless of the value of eqs. (26) and (27), but with the new value of λ.
 6

The different value of λ therefore causes a dependence

of the oscillation amplitude and frequency on the spa-
tial direction: this is precisely the relativistic anisotropy
vis ̸= viu that we anticipated in section II. Remarkably,
this is reflected in a spatial anisotropy of the uncertainty
principle, where we have the presence of γcs instead of γc
to divide:
ℏ
∆s · ∆ps ∼ . (32)
γc s
For photons the uncertainty principle is null in the direc-
tion of their motion; this can also be deduced from eq.
(19), which implies VQ = 0, for vc = c. But in any other
direction this does not happen and they have oscillatory
motions in τ -time. This is in agreement with the fact
that for photons quantum diffraction patterns analogous
to those of any other particle are observed.
In any case, for ŝ tending to be perpendicular to v̂c , FIG. 2. Interpretation of the two slits experience in TTBM:
γcs → 1 and the standard uncertainty principle, inde- with respect to the hidden time τ , independent of the normal
pendent of speed, is re-established. However, the case of time t, the particle reaches the slits at two different instants;
exact perpendicularity is singular: for vcs = 0, eq. (31) but with respect to t its presence in them is simultaneous.
implies H = const ⇒ VQ = const ⇒ vis = const, instead
of being oscillatory.
initial instant the particle has the minimum po-
sitional uncertainty previously found, called ∆s0 ,
B. Non-relativistic limit. Singularity in vc = 0 during motion, as long as the energy of the parti-
cle does not change, the growth of the positional
uncertainty is the standard one
For the non-relativistic (vc ≪ c) and vc → 0 cases, it
is sufficient to approximate γc in the previous equations r
v2
∆p2s0 2
(respectively, with 1 + 2cc2 and 1), obtaining still high ∆s = ∆s20 + t . (33)
m2
frequency oscillatory motions in τ . In vc = 0 there is
another singularity; in fact, by eqs. (7) and (9) we get At a fixed instant t̄, ∆s represents the radius of a
again VQ = const ⇒ vis = const for any ŝ, contrary to sphere-like figure within which the particle, due to
the case vc → 0. the omnidirectional τ -motions, is spread; in other
words, at instant t̄ it is simultaneously present in
every point of this volume.
C. Standard Zitterbewegung
2. This simultaneity is not in conflict with Special Rel-
− 2i ativity, because the generic τ -motion itself, as long
The standard Zitterbewegung, i.e. vi ∝ c e ℏHt
, can as the energy of the particle does not change, does
be re-obtained by imposing that H is constant and in- not constitute a t-event: t̄ is frozen in any reference
terpretating the oscillatory motion in τ as occurring in t system.
[10].
3. These infinite ”self-particles” can interfere in τ -
time with each other in all possible physical ways:
IV. TTBM EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT: each kind of interacting particles (photons, vector
DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT bosons, etc.) oscillates itself in τ -time according
to the same laws found. Mutual exchanges of such
While more details are presented in [10], here we particles correspond to what in the standard point
will summarize the main points about the empiricism of view is described as emission and reabsorption
of TTBM, focusing in particular on the interpretation of of virtual particles, obtaining excellent experimen-
the double-slit experiment (Fig. 2). tal verifications.
1. Excluding the relativistic anisotropy of the uncer- 4. In addition to τ -interacting like particles, self-
tainty principle, in TTBM the empirical predic- particles τ -interfere like waves, exactly as predicted
tions of standard Quantum Mechanics are fully re- by the standard interpretation, according to the
spected. In particular, the standard wave packet Feynman description [25, 26]. The model simply
description, compliant the de Broglie relation, is specifies that the different histories are actually re-
maintained. If we assume for simplicity that at the alized in time τ . When the particle reaches the
 7

wall, diffraction is observed if the sphere-like vol- any kind of direct experimentation because it only
ume includes the two slits. involves the τ -motions. Actually it is virtual, in
the same sense used in standard view. TTBM
5. Zig-zag trajectories which violate the conservation explains so why the increasingly larger energies
of t-momentum - but admitted as legitimate paths predicted by entering the infinitesimal are real (as
in the Feynman interpretation - are properly phys- experiments excellently confirm) but never directly
ical in TTBM, being able to be obtained by com- observed.
position of p⃗c with one or more p⃗is . This should
also make the path integral a properly mathemati-
cal object, unlike what is in the original Feynman’s V. ATOM ORBITALS
formulation.
6. With respect to time t (that is, relative to an ob- Orbitals of an atom are nothing more than spread out
server), the particle travels all the possible paths electrons, due to their instantaneous (with respect to t)
between the initial point and the slits at once, pro- motion in τ . In this section we will find the oscillatory
vided that they are included in the volume swept by τ -motions, tangential and radial, which, combined with
the sphere-like figure. In this, therefore, the model the classical orbital t-motion, give rise to static orbitals.
differs from the standard sum of histories interpre- The standard approach, which considers stationarity
tation, where there is no limitation for the paths. ( ∂R
∂t = 0) and VQ = 0, is impeccable for the determina-
tion of quantized orbits, as in a hydrogen-like atom; but
7. The apparent observational ”collapse” is an ex- only inside the new model it possible to demonstrate, fi-
treme case of destructive interference that occurs nally, the static nature of the orbitals of any atom. We
after an energy variation of the particle for inter- will limit ourselves to analyzing spherical orbitals, so get-
action with an external particle or field: what hap- ting, in a polar reference system with center in the nu-
pens is that the packet wavefunctions located in the cleus, just a dependence R = R(r, θ, t, τ ).
impact area abruptly change their phase propor- In a small arc of an orbit of radius r̄ we can use eq.
tional to St and then interfere destructively (sta- (18) with x = r̄ θ, obtaining
tistically) with those located elsewhere. Hence the
packet reconfigures itself - instantaneously, with ∂2R
= R̈ ω̄c2 , (34)
respect to t-time - by centering itself in the im- ∂t2
pact area and restricting its dispersion. From a where ω̄c = v̄r̄c is the angular velocity and the dot in-
corpuscular point of view, the Quantum Potential dicates derivative with respect to θ. Due to the con-
no longer allows the particle to τ -move away from stancy of the classical velocity modulus, eq. (9) gives us
the proximity of the impact. So, a non-zero en-
VQ = Rk̄2 , with k̄ an arbitrary constant. Eq. (4) in polar
ergetic interaction constitutes an observable (but
coordinates, substituting VQ and using eq. (34), becomes
not necessarily observed) t-event, capable of dra-
then
matically restricting ∆s, its minimum value being
of the Compton length order. From a macroscopic
view, the intrinsic movements stop. Observation k̄ 2
itself has no special role: this happens regardless of (µγc c2 + ) − µ2 γc2 c4 =
R2 (35)
whether the external particle is from a detector or ℏ2 2 2R′ Ṙ cos θ R̈
residual air. (ω̄c R̈ − c2 ( + R′′ + 2 + 2 )),
R r r sin θ r
8. There is another fundamental reason that normally where the apostrophe indicates derivative with respect
prevents a macroscopic body from spread out in to r and µ is the reduced mass. At this point we have
space through intrinsic motions: compared to a to distinguish between the cases of radial and tangential
particle, it is vastly more likely that it interacts en- oscillation.
ergetically with other matter or fields: in fact, even
a small wave phase variation is capable of making
it collapse in the way described, canceling out sig- A. Tangential τ -oscillation
nificant quantum uncertainties.
9. The paradox that the particle, being t- For a small pure tangential displacement, we can ne-
simultaneously in every point of a certain glect R′ and R′′ and replace r, cos θ and sin θ with r̄, 1
macroscopic volume, violates the conservation of and θ into eq. (35), obtaining
mass and of number of particles is only apparent: k̄ 2 2µγc c2 k̄ ℏ2 2 c2 ℏ2 c2 Ṙ
a particle search experiment will always detect 4
+ 2
= (ω̄c − 2 )R̈ − ( 2 ). (36)
only one particle. The total purely quantum R R R r̄ R r̄ θ
energy distributed in the sphere-like volume at Substituting ω̄c and simplifying, one gets the following
any t-instant is indeed infinite, but it is beyond Emden-Fowler equation
 8

but this time we directly conclude that R′ (r̄) is zero,

because the probability of finding the electron at r = r̄
ℏ2 ℏ2 k̄ 2 θ θ is maximum. Specifying eq. (41) in r = r̄, we so get
2 2
θ R̈ + 2
Ṙ + 2 3
+ 2µγc k̄ = 0. (37)
γc r̄ r̄ c R R
k̄ 2 2µγc k̄
We will find the second order approximate solution in the R′′ (r̄) = − 2 2 3
+ 2 = 0. (43)
ℏ c R(r̄) ℏ R(r̄)
neighborhood of θ = 0, i.e.
2 ¯
Imposing k̄ = µγc c2 RM f , R(r̄) = RM and substituting
R̈(0) 2 into the eq. (42), one obtains
R(θ) ≃ R(0) + Ṙ(0)θ + θ , (38)
2
f¯(f¯ + 2)
following the method outlined in [30]. R(r) ≃ RM (1 − (r − r̄)2 ), (44)
2λ2 γc2
First, eq. (37) for θ = 0 gives Ṙ(0) = 0. After its
differentiation, we get in θ = 0 which still is very similar to eq. (24). Also in radial direc-
tion we so find a harmonic τ -oscillation of the electron,
2
capable of causing a static (for t-time) thickness of the
k̄ 2µγc k̄
− c2 R(0) 3 − R(0)
orbital. Of course, this time ∆r remains small because
R̈(0) = ℏ2 1
(39) the electron cannot move away from the quantized orbit.
r̄ 2 (1 + γc2 )

Similarly to what was done for the free case, we set k̄ = VI. PARTICLE IN BOX
2 ¯
µγc c2 RM f , where RM is the maximum value of R and f¯
an adimensional positive arbitrary constant. We can say
The previous case is conceptually analogous to that of
not only that f¯ → f for r̄ → ∞, but more generally that
a particle in a box, provided that it hits its walls in a per-
f¯ and f always are comparable, since in any orbital the
fectly elastic way. Again, the standard treatment, which
Coulomb potential is small compared to µγc c2 . Setting
considers stationarity ( ∂R
∂t = 0) and VQ = 0, gives us the
R(0) = RM , eq. (38) becomes
possible states of the particle, quantized in energy. But
according to the new model, we furthermore obtain still
f¯(f¯ + 2) 2 2
R(θ) ≃ RM (1 − r̄ θ ), (40) oscillatory τ -motions that spread out the particle inside
2λ2 (γc2 + 1) the box, just like an orbital. Again, they have character-
2
istics very similar to the τ -oscillations of a free particle,
where λ2 = µ2ℏc2 γ 4 . From comparison with eq. (24), tak- because the potential merely confines the particle, while
c
ing into account that it is always γc ≃ 1, we can conclude inside the box it is zero.
that again a harmonic oscillatory τ -motion with charac- However, for a real gas enclosed in a container, we
teristics very close to those obtained for the free particle cannot conclude the spreading of its molecules, unless
is obtained. Assuming that an electron that has just the pressure tends to zero (or the volume to infinity) and
reached an empty orbit has minimum localization (∼ λ), the gas can be treated as ideal. Is it possible that the
it takes a very short time to convert into an orbital: tak- latter thing could happen if the ”container” is a galaxy
ing ∆ps0 ∼ µc2 in eq. (33), we find, e.g., that ∆s equals or a cluster of galaxies? We’ll hazard a guess in a later
the circumference of the fundamental orbit of hydrogen section.
in about 10−18 s.

VII. SPIN AND FIELD THEORY

B. Radial τ -oscillation
The idea of assigning the cause of spin to the τ -motions
If in eq. (35) we require that θ remains constant and is very spontaneous and has motivated, with a certain
r varies slightly around r̄, we get the following Emden- hazard, the very choice of the adjective ”intrinsic” for the
Fowler equation: τ -movements. If it is really so, then the correct and com-
plete description of the spin would not belong properly to
a law involving t-time, such as the Klein-Gordon, Dirac,
k̄ 2 r 2µγc k̄ r Proca, Rarita-Schwinger or Pauli-Fierz equations. For
r R′′ (r) + 2 R′ (r) + 2 2 3
+ 2 = 0. (41) example, the results obtained from the Dirac equation,
ℏ c R(r) ℏ R(r)
although extraordinarily precise for s = ± 12 , should just
As before, we look for a second order approximate solu- be an approximation resulting from considering the τ -
tion in the neighborhood of r = r̄, i.e. oscillations as t-oscillations. Without forgetting that its
(non-univocal) derivation is, in Pauli’s words, acrobatic
R′′ (r̄) [31]. Only the Klein Gordon’s one would maintain a fun-
R(r) ≃ R(r̄) + R′ (r̄) (r − r̄) + (r − r̄)2 , (42) damental role, because it, consistently with his dealing
2
 9

with t-time, totally ignores the spin, implicitly assigning effectively facilitate the resolution of a problem involving
it a null value. particles with a certain spin. We would rather like to be
Anyway, let’s start exploring the very simple idea that, able to deduce, albeit with appropriate approximations,
in the free case, the wavefunction phase factor expected the equations of Dirac, Proca, etc. by requiring a certain
by the model for a τ -motion perpendicular R to the par- value of spin on a single general equation. The only in-
i 1
Si⊥ 2 trinsic phase factor on the wavefunction, assuming that
ticle t-motion, i.e. e ℏ , with Si⊥ = ( 2 mγc vi⊥ −
isα
VQ )dτ , might represents the spin factor e , with s = really it represents the spin, does not seem adequate for
0, ± 21 , ±1, ± 32 , ±2... and α the generic system reference this purpose. It is likely that more information may come
τ -rotation angle. In particular, it should result by studying TTRM within the Field Theory: a pending
task.
Z T
1 ?
( mγc vi2z − VQ )dτ = s2πℏ (45)
0 2
VIII. SOME ASTROPHYSICAL
where T is the period of the τ -oscillation and ẑ a perpen- CONSEQUENCES
dicular direction
q to the t-motion. For a free particle, be-
R2 First of all, let us reiterate that the infinite quantum
ing vis = c 1 − 2f ( RM2 − 1) (obtainable from eqs. (13)
and (29) for any ŝ), replacing VQ and changing the in- energy, due to Eq = mγc c2 (f + 12 ) in every direction, af-
tegration variable by dτ = dτ dzdz dR dR fects only the τ -movements and is therefore virtual, that
dR = viz Ṙ , eq. (45) is, hidden from direct observation. In particular, it can-
becomes not constitute a gravitational source that adds to mγc .
R2 On the other hand, the same considerations apply to ev-
RM
f + 1 − 2f RM2
Z
? ery other property of the particle: e.g. if the particle has
2mγc c q 2 2
dR = s2πℏ, (46)
Rm RM
Ṙ 1 − 2f ( R2 − 1) a charge, it is impossible to directly detect the (virtual)
infinite spread charge due to the intrinsic motions.
with a dot denoting derivative over z. How could the As a final speculation, we venture the possibility that,
integral of this equation provide discrete values? For ex- in intergalactic space, even macroscopic matter could
ample, if it were equal to a hypergeometric function that spread. As you move away from the nucleus of a galaxy,
does not diverge only for discrete values of the parameter the pressure decreases more and more. Here, on the ba-
f. sis of our model, under the condition that the probability
Particularizing eq. (30) for γcs → 1 (remember that of its energy variation through collisions with other mat-
the case θ = π2 is singular), we obtain ter is practically zero, there would be no impediment for
cold and inert matter, even of stellar size, to spread out
R̈ 2ℏ2 c2 Ṙ through τ -motions. More and more as time grows, ac-
(VQ + mγc c2 )2 = m2 γc2 c4 − ℏ2 c2 − . (47) cording to eq. (33). This spread matter, since it does not
R zR
interact with anything (in particular by neither emitting
Replacing VQ and simplifying, one arrives at the following nor absorbing photons) would be completely invisible,
differential equation: apart from curving spacetime. The same thing could
happen between clusters of galaxies. But an estimate of
2y ′ f2 2f this possible effect to constitute part of the dark matter
y ′′ + + 3 + = 0, (48)
ρ y y is beyond the scope of this article.

where y = RRM , ρ = λzc (with λc = mγℏc c ), and the apos-

trophe indicates derivation with respect to ρ. Assuming IX. TTBM AND THE PROBLEM OF TIME IN
we find y ′ , substituting Ṙ = RλM
c
y ′ into eq. (46) would QUANTUM MECHANICS
allow us to complete the calculation (and note that we
obtain an integral in variable RRM between q 1 1 and 1, In Dirac’s mathematical formalization of standard
1+ 2f
Quantum Mechanics, only quantities with certain math-
independent of the relativistic mass). Unfortunately, the
ematical properties are considered as observable. It turns
Emden-Fowler differential eq. (48) cannot yet be solved
out that the traditional time t cannot satisfy them [32, 33]
and so our speculation cannot proceed further4 .
and to make it fit into the theory it must be treated as a
However, even if this idea were to work, it does not ap-
classical and Newtonian parameter, external to the the-
pear that a simple wavefunction phase factor is able to
ory. Of course, this is unsatisfactory: it is equivalent
to supposing the existence of a ”universal clock” which,
under penalty of contradiction [33], cannot be studied
4 Note dated 2/12/2024: A numerical calculation, assuming f=1/2, within the theory itself; which thus remains incomplete.
showed me that the idea does NOT work. However, I prefer to Related to this problem is the derivation and in-
leave the reasoning also because it highlights a key differential terpretation of the Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation
equation in TTBM. (TEUR):
 10

X. CONCLUSIONS

ℏ
∆t ∆E ≳ , (49) In Feynman’s - however standard - formulation of
2 Quantum Mechanics, when a particle moves from one
for a review and discussion of which we recommend the point to another, it is as if it followed all possible paths
works [34–36] and references contained therein. In a fun- between the two points at once. The proposed TTBM is
damental paper [37], Aharonov and Bohm have shown a theory in which the particle really does so. The most
both that all previous claims of TEUR are not general, interesting properties of the model are the following:
and that it is indeed possible to measure E with infinite
1. The quantum uncertainties - and Heisenberg’s un-
precision in a finite time. These conclusions are unexcep-
certainty principle itself - have a deterministic ex-
tionable because they are a consequence of the external
planation: they are due to the movements with re-
nature of the time variable and are not incompatible with
spect to the independent time τ , caused by a Quan-
the fact that, in certain quantum systems, various forms
tum Potential that originates from the particle’s
of TEUR may be valid; as, for example, in the quan-
own wavefunction.
tum system considered by Mandelstamm and Tamm [38],
where ∆t is the lifetime of a decaying system state and 2. The empirical predictions of standard Quantum
∆E the uncertainty energy. Indeed Busch [39] distin- Mechanics are fully respected for non-relativistic
guished the different types of ∆t that can be considered speeds. Yet, a relativistic anisotropy of the uncer-
in eq. (49) and reiterated that: 1. An observable TEUR, tainty principles is predicted, which could be tested
with a constant positive lower bound for the product of in high-energy accelerators.
inaccuracies, is not universally valid; 2. A full-fledged
quantum mechanical theory of time measurements is still 3. The model allows us to interpret the zig-zag paths
waiting to be developed. predicted by Feynman’s formulation as real physical
According to Altaie et al. [40] “the proposal set forth trajectories (although unobservable), justifying the
by several authors of considering an intrinsic measure- phase of each path. This could also make the path
ment of quantum time, besides having the conventional integral a properly mathematical object, unlike the
external time [t], is compelling”. In this direction, Page current state of Feynman theory.
and Wootters [41] hypothesized that this intrinsic time
could be represented by an appropriate dynamic variable 4. The virtual interactions of a particle with itself
internal to the system studied. But which one? In 41 (and in general every possible ”history”) predicted
years no dynamic variable has been proved suitable. The by the current standard model - and excellently ver-
solid reasons advanced by Unruh and Wald [33] about ified in experiments - are interpreted in TTBM as
the inexistence of a dynamic variable that can correlate actually realized in τ -time. In the model we find the
monotonically with t seem to have been confirmed. infinite quantum energy predicted in the infinites-
In the same article, these authors propose an alterna- imal as really distributed in the spreading volume
tive that recalls the premises of our TTRB: they suggest of the intrinsic motions of the particle. But since
the consideration of a non-dynamic and non-measurable it only influences the τ -motions, it is hidden from
intrinsic time that “provides the essential background direct observations and divergences at infinity are
structure of Quantum Mechanics”. Despite essential dif- empirically avoided.
ferences with respect to the TTRB model (a monotonic
5. The observational wavefunction collapse is deter-
function τ = τ (t) is admitted, H is assumed constant, a
ministically interpreted as a destructive interfer-
non-relativistic treatment is used and more) some con-
ence that occurs after an energetic interaction of
clusions are in agreement with it. The most important is
the particle; the observation itself has no special
the following: ”in this viewpoint, an observer has access
role.
to time [t] orderings of his observations given by the label
τ whose numerical values are of no significance except 6. TTBM allows finally to demonstrate that atomic
for the ordering they provide”. This also recalls a pro- orbitals are nothing but spread electrons: because
posal presented in 1980 by Peres [42] in which time t is of their τ -motion, they diffuse t-instantly.
quantized in multiples of an elementary time interval of
an intrinsic clock. Actually, even in TTRB - where the 7. It is expected that diffusion in τ -time could in-
only link between τ and t is the fact that the τ -oscillation volve, under ideal conditions of non-interaction,
semi-period T /2 represents the uncertainty ∆t - time t even macroscopic matter. If such conditions occur
can be seen to emerge as an ordered set of “instants” in intergalactic spaces, it is not excluded that cold
nT /2 (of course, not a universal quantization, but one stellar matter could spread, making itself invisible.
connected to the studied system). And in TTBM, fi- The same thing could happen between clusters of
nally, TEUR arises directly from the premise (1) of the galaxies with cold matter on the order of entire
Model, multiplying T /2 by the uncertainty of the energy galaxies. This matter could constitute part of the
[10, 11]. dark matter.
 11

To this, we add the stimulating considerations made in APPENDIX A

the previous section, which ensure that the TTBM pre-
dictions about the nature of time in Quantum Mechanics We prove here the eqs. (9) and (16).
are in line with several other researches and furthermore
foresee, for the first time, a direct and general derivation For eq. (9): multiplying by mγc c2 eq. (6) and adding
of TEUR. However, the theory is in its infancy and there ⃗
and subtracting R2 ∇(mγ 2
cc ) · ⃗
vc we get:
are several issues to be explored. The most important
seem to be the following: ∂R2
mγc c2 ⃗
− R2 ∇(mγ 2 ⃗ · (R2 p⃗c ) = 0. (50)
vc + c2 ∇
cc ) · ⃗
∂t
1. Although it would seem spontaneous that spin can
be described by τ -movements, this connection has Substituting the last term by eq. (5) and considering
2 2
not yet been demonstrated. In particular, it would ⃗
that ∇(mγ 2
vc = d(mγ
cc ) · ⃗ dt
cc )
− ∂(mγ
∂t
cc )
, one obtains:
be important to derive - through approximations
that the model foresees as necessary - the different ∂R2 d(mγc c2 ) ∂(mγc c2 ) ∂(R2 Hf ree )
quantum equations relating to the different spins, mγc c2 −R2 +R2 − = 0.
∂t dt ∂t ∂t
in primis the Dirac equation. (51)
Now we replace Hf ree with mγc c2 + VQ :
2. Perhaps connected to the previous point is the de-
termination of the parameter f , still obscure. For ∂R2 ∂(mγc c2 ) ∂(R2 mγc c2 )
example, by taking f = 1/2, one gets, in any direc- mγc c2 + R2 − −
∂t ∂t ∂t (52)
tion, a purely quantum energy mγc c2 , equal to that
d(mγc c2 ) ∂(R2 VQ )
of the particle. But we can’t find any argument to −R2 − = 0,
conclude whether this is the (or an) appropriate dt ∂t
value. from which, simplifying, eq. (9) follows.
For eq. (16): taking the gradient and then the diver-
3. How does TTBM fit with Field Theory? It is possi- gence of ψ (eq. (3)), one obtains [10]:
ble that, in this integration, the Theory will prove
itself by filling its gaps and likely revealing impor-
∇2 ψ ∇2 R p2 i ⃗
tant properties. = − 2+ 2 ∇ · (R2 p⃗c ) = 0. (53)
ψ R ℏ R ℏ

4. The determination of the Quantum Potential Substituting the last term by eq. (5) and multiplying by
−ℏ2
presents insurmountable difficulties even in the free 2m , we get:
case, where an approximation is necessary. It is
clear that in the presence of an external potential
−ℏ2 ∇2 ψ −ℏ2 ∇2 R p2 ℏ ∂(R2 Hf ree )
things get worse, probably requiring radical simpli- = + +i = 0,
fications. 2m ψ 2m R 2m 2mc2 R2 ∂t
(54)
from which, substituting mγc c2 + VQ for Hf ree and re-
5. The wavefunction interferences that explain the ob- p2
placing 2m with H − VQ − V , eq. (16) follows.
servational collapse have only been sketched: it
would be opportune to show them explicitly in a
simplified example. APPENDIX B

Compared to spacetime structures planned by the cur- We show here that ∇S ⃗ = p⃗c (first proof) and ∂S =
∂t
rent most accredited theories, introduction of a second 2
−mγc c −V −VQ (second proof), where S = St +Sτ , with
time variable is a more radical but also mathematically St and Sτ given by eq. (15), assuming that dependence
simpler criterion which, neither logically nor physically, of ⃗vc on space is not considered. The premise is that the
differs in essence from the introduction of an extra spa- extremes of the integral Sτ must be recognized to differ
tial dimension. By traveling in a hidden time, you can by one period of the intrinsic oscillation period. In fact,
deterministically explain why a particle or photon is able called it T , each extreme of the integral St is defined with
to interact instantly with more slits in a diffraction, to an uncertainty T /2, the total uncertainty being then T .
run across multiple paths between two points, to admit For the first proof, we consider that the first addend
entanglements with other arbitrarily distant particles, to of Sτ can be written:
emit and reabsorb many species of virtual particles, etc.
Inside TTBM, the non-locality and apparent indetermin- ZT ZT
1 1
ism of Quantum Mechanics are just the manifestation of mγc vi2s dτ = mγc vis ds, (55)
an extra hidden time dimension. 2 2
0 0
 12

and applying the gradient, in the broad hypothe- that integrated in dτ between 0 and T still gives zero;
ses in which it can enter the integral, we ob- and so for any other component. The other addendum
RT
1 ⃗ i ds = 1 mγc ŝ T ∇v ⃗ i · d⃗s = relative to Sτ is:
R
tain: 2 mγc 0 ∇v s 2 0 s
1
RT
2 mγ c ŝ 0
dv is
= 0, given the sinusoidal-like trend of vis . ZT ZT
On the other hand, from eq. (14), the x component of ∂ 1 1 ∂γc
mγc vi2s dτ = m vi2s dτ =
⃗ Q is: mγc dvix , which integrated in dτ between 0 and
−∇V ∂t 2 2 ∂t
dτ
0 0
T still gives 0; this being valid for any other component. (57)
Thus it remains demonstrated that ∇S ⃗ τ = 0. ZT
1 vc
m vi2s γc3 ac dτ ,
R Moving on Rto St ,dvthe x component of the integral 2 c2
⃗ Q dt is mγc ix dt = mγc ai dt, where ai , al-
R
−∇V dτ x x
0
though independent on t, must be considered as medi-
ated in the total uncertainty interval of the extremes of where the part of the integrand on the right of vi2s , al-
integration, i.e. T /2 + T /2 = T ; resulting then zero, though independent on τ , must be considered as medi-
due to its sinusoidal trend. And this for any other ated in the t-uncertainty interval correspondent to T ,
component. Furthermore, we have ( −mc
R 2 that is dt. In dt, γc and vc have their instantaneous
γc − V )dt = values, while ⃗ac is zero because ⃗vc would need a further
R −mc2
( γc − Ec + mγc c2 )dt, with Ec constant. For all this, dt to change. With this it remains demonstrated that
⃗ is obtained by taking the gradient of: ∂S ∂St
∇S ∂t ≃ ∂t .
Finally, we have by definition:
−mc2
Z Z Z
d⃗r
( + mγc c2 )dt = mγc vc2 dt = mγc⃗vc · dt = 2
γc dt dSt
≡
∂St ⃗ t = −mc − VQ − V,
+ v⃗c · ∇S (58)
Z dt ∂t γc
= p⃗c · d⃗r
⃗ t = p⃗c . So:
where ∇S
(56)
∂St mc2
resulting in p⃗c . = −mγc vc2 − −VQ −V = −mγc c2 −VQ −V, (59)
As for the second proof, we observe that, with good ∂t γc
approximation, it is possible to use eq. (7) for VQ , getting
∂V ∂V dv that completes the proof.
for the x component: ∂tQ ≃ −vcx ∂xQ = vcx mγc dτix ,

∗
[email protected] , [email protected] [13] Dirac P A M 1958 The Principles of Quantum Mechanics
[1] Tumulka R 2007 The ’unromantic pictures’ of quantum (Oxford University Press) 261
theory J. Phys. A: Math. Th. 40 3245 [14] Fock V 1937 Proper time in classical and quantum me-
[2] Dürr D, Goldstein S, Bernld K and Zanghı́ N 1999 Hy- chanics Phys. Z. Sowjetunion 12 404
persurface Bohm-Dirac models Phys. Rev. A 60 2729 [15] Stückelberg E 1941 Remarque à propos de la création de
[3] Tumulka R 2001 Closed 3-forms and random worldlines paires de particules en théorie de la relativité Feynman
Ph.D. thesis school lmu R P Elv. Phys. Acta 14 588
[4] Dürr D, Goldstein S, Norsen T, Struyve W and Zanghı́ [16] Fanchi J 1986 Parametrizing relativistic quantum me-
N 2014 Can Bohmian mechanics be made relativistic? chanics Phys. Rev. A 34 1667
Proc. R. Soc. A 470 20130699 [17] Fanchi J 1993 Review of invariant time formulations of
[5] Dürr D and Lienert M 2014 On the description of sub- relativistic quantum theories Found. Phys. 23 487
systems in relativistic hypersurface Bohmian Mechanics [18] Fanchi J 2011 Manifestly covariant quantum theory with
Proc. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sc. 470 20140181 invariant evolution parameter in relativistic dynamic
[6] Struyve W and Tumulka R 2014 Bohmian trajectories for Found. Phys. 41 4
a time foliation with kinks J. Geom. Phys. 82 75 [19] Aharonov Y and Gruss E Y 2005 Two-time interpretation
[7] Nikolić H 2012 Relativistic-covariant Bohmian mechanics of quantum mechanics arXiv:quant-ph/0507269
with proper foliation arXiv: 1205.4102 [20] Aharonov Y, Cohen E and Landsberger T 2017 The two-
[8] Struyve W and Tumulka R 2015 Bohmian mechanics for time interpretation and macroscopic time-reversibility
a degenerate time foliation Quant. Stud.: Math. Found. Entropy 19 111
2 349 [21] Bars I, Deliduman C and Andreev O 1998 Gauged du-
[9] Galvan B 2015 Relativistic Bohmian mechanics without ality, conformal simmetry, and spacetime with two time
a preferred foliation J. Stat. Phys. 161 1268 Phys. Rev. D 58 066004
[10] Ragunı́ G 2024 Consequences of a Two-Time Relativistic [22] Bars I, Deliduman C and Minic D 1999 Supersymmetric
Bohmian Model Commun. Theor. Phys. 76 075106 two-time physics Phys. Rev. D 59 125004
[11] Ragunı́ G 2021 Bohmian Zitterbewegung [23] Bars I 2006 Standard model of particles and forces in the
arXiv:2106.05827 framework of two time physics Phys. Rev. D 74 085019
[12] Schrodinger E 1930 Sitzungsber Phys. Math. Kl. 24, 418 [24] Bars I and Terning J 2010 Extra dimensions in space and
 13

time (Springer) Time-Dependent Equation of Schrödinger Found. Phys.

[25] Feynman R P 1948 Space-time approach to non- 31 693
relativistic Quantum Mechanics Rev. Mod. Phys. 20 367 [35] Dodonov V V and Dodonov A V 2015 Energy–time and
[26] Feynman R P 1988 Q.E.D. - The Strange Theory of Light frequency–time uncertainty relations: exact inequalities
and Matter (Princeton University Press) 53 Phys. Scr. 90 074049
[27] Greiner W 2000 Relativistic Quantum Mechanics Wave [36] Deffner S and Campbell S 2017 Quantum speed limits:
equations (Springer) 6 from Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to optimal quan-
[28] Bohm D and Hiley B J 1993 The Undivided Universe tum control J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 50 453001
(Routhledge) 29 [37] Aharonov Y and Bohm D 1961 Time in the Quantum
[29] Ord G N, Gualtieri J A and Mann R B 2004 A phys- Theory and the Uncertainty Relation for Time and En-
ical basis for the phase in Feynman path integration ergy Phys. Rev. 122 1649
arXiv:quant-ph/0411005 [38] Mandelstamm M and Tamm I 1945 The uncertainty rela-
[30] Liang Y H and Wang K J 2022 Taylor Series solution for tion between energy and time in nonrelativistic quantum
the non-linear Emden-Fowler Equations Thermal Science mechanics J. Phys. (U.S.S.R.) 9 249
26 2693 [39] Busch P 2002 The time-energy uncertainty relation Time
[31] Tomonaga S I 1997 The Story of Spin (The University of in quantum mechanics (Springer) 69
Chicago Press) 60 [40] Altaie M B, Hdgson D and Beige A 2022 Time and quan-
[32] Pauli W 1958 Die Allgeimenen Prinzipien der Wellen- tum clocks: A review of recent developments
mechanik ed. by S. Fludge (Handbuch d. Physik) Frontiers in Physics 10 897305
(Springer) 60 [41] Page D N and Wootters W K 1983 Evolution without
[33] Unruh W G and Wald R M 1989 Time and the inter- Evolution: Dynamics Described by Stationary Observ-
pretation of canonical quantum gravity Phys. Rev. D 40 ables Phys Rev D 27 2885
2598 [42] Peres A 1980 Measurement of time by quantum clocks
[34] Briggs J S and Rost J M 2001 On the Derivation of the Am. J. of Phys. 48 552