It is well recognized that two of the foundational theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are inconsistent. Efforts to overcome this through intensive pursuit of unifying theoretical frameworks or improvements in experimental precision as pursued by Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl and Standard-Model-Extension test theory protocols, have so far proven unsuccessful. Nonetheless, empirical evidence deriving from investigations inspired by the twentieth-century 'EPR' polemic, can now claim to have identified 'locality' and 'separability' as notions integral to special relativity theory inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence supporting it. Following intimations of J.S. Bell, L. Smolin, Maudlin and others, the history and philosophy of science are engaged as research tools to uncover the origins of the assumptions underlying such incompatibility. In particular, known but prevalent fallacies and the deprecation of processes as described by Whitehead, together with recent insights into the functional distinctions between representative models and explanatory theories, are engaged. Analysis of the evolution of optical and electromagnetic theorizing is then suggested to demonstrate that the choice of a mechanically compatible model of electromagnetic radiation, as has conventionally underwritten development of the light-speed postulate of special relativity, is inappropriate. Pursuing options made available within a multiple models idealization of optical and electromagnetic phenomena, replacement of the sponsoring model by a nonlocal and non-separable wavefront process of radiation of the form advanced by Fresnel and Kirchhoff on the basis of Huygens' principle, suggests the possibility of reformulation of relativity theory without incurring such conflicts. However, choice of a wavefront electrodynamic model including the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen, equally suggests possible theory reformulation without necessitating a four-dimensional construct of space and time or postulating an absolute constancy of light-speed in vacuum. Such a constancy can in turn be considered as demonstrating an innate limitation on empirical observation resulting from the loss of relative velocity information during electromagnetic transmission due to the memorylessness of the Markov propagation process of refraction together with information flow discontinuity resulting from dielectric boundary extinction events. Such characteristics are shown to be applicable to electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies. Further, from a wavefront reformulated hypothesis of inertial relative motion, it appears possible to demonstrate that the Galilean principle of relativity can be preserved. However, Lorentz invariance would then require reinterpretation wherein the Lorentz transform group would be deemed to quantify the degree of information distortion inherently experienced by any empirical enquiry into electrodynamics involving relative motion.
It is well recognized that two of the foundational theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are inconsistent. Efforts to overcome this through intensive pursuit of unifying theoretical frameworks or improvements in experimental precision as pursued by Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl and Standard-Model-Extension test theory protocols, have so far proven unsuccessful. Nonetheless, empirical evidence deriving from investigations inspired by the twentieth-century 'EPR' polemic, can now claim to have identified 'locality' and 'separability' as notions integral to special relativity theory inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence supporting it. Following intimations of J.S. Bell, L. Smolin, Maudlin and others, the history and philosophy of science are engaged as research tools to uncover the origins of the assumptions underlying such incompatibility. In particular, known but prevalent fallacies and the deprecation of processes as described by Whitehead, together with recent insights into the functional distinctions between representative models and explanatory theories, are engaged. Analysis of the evolution of optical and electromagnetic theorizing is then suggested to demonstrate that the choice of a mechanically compatible model of electromagnetic radiation, as has conventionally underwritten development of the light-speed postulate of special relativity, is inappropriate. Pursuing options made available within a multiple models idealization of optical and electromagnetic phenomena, replacement of the sponsoring model by a nonlocal and non-separable wavefront process of radiation of the form advanced by Fresnel and Kirchhoff on the basis of Huygens' principle, suggests the possibility of reformulation of relativity theory without incurring such conflicts. However, choice of a wavefront electrodynamic model including the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen, equally suggests possible theory reformulation without necessitating a four-dimensional construct of space and time or postulating an absolute constancy of light-speed in vacuum. Such a constancy can in turn be considered as demonstrating an innate limitation on empirical observation resulting from the loss of relative velocity information during electromagnetic transmission due to the memorylessness of the Markov propagation process of refraction together with information flow discontinuity resulting from dielectric boundary extinction events. Such characteristics are shown to be applicable to electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies. Further, from a wavefront reformulated hypothesis of inertial relative motion, it appears possible to demonstrate that the Galilean principle of relativity can be preserved. However, Lorentz invariance would then require reinterpretation wherein the Lorentz transform group would be deemed to quantify the degree of information distortion inherently experienced by any empirical enquiry into electrodynamics involving relative motion.
Abstract Maxwell unified the disparate concepts of electric and magnetic fields with one theory (electromagnetism) and Einstein then unified the disparate theories of electromagnetism and mechanics with one kinematics (Minkowski space of special relativity). In this talk, we will briefly explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) and special relativity can be unified with one principle (relativity principle). This result follows from the axiomatic reconstruction of quantum mechanics via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast quantum mechanics as a principle theory a la Einstein, i.e., the formalism of the theory follows from an empirically discovered fact, just like special relativity. According to the quantum reconstruction program, the empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity. Of course, the empirically discovered fact whence the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Obviously, the light postulate can be justified by the relativity principle—the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames—because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s electromagnetism. [We label this “NPRF + c” for short, where NPRF stands for “no preferred reference frame.”] As we will show, Information Invariance & Continuity can also be justified by the relativity principle by first spatializing the quantum reconstruction program’s operational notion of measurement. In that case, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincar’e transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, and h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) just like it justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c). Thus, the kinematics of quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in that both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle in the adynamical global constraints NPRF + h and NPRF + c. This approach provides a principle solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement that does not violate locality, statistical independence, intersubjective agreement, or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes and it does not alter quantum mechanics as a principle theory. An ontology consistent with this unification is introduced and we deflate both the ‘big’ and ‘small’measurement problems.
The origin and elaboration of our fundamental theories like quantum theory, the theory of relativity and the quantum field theories can be traced to the study of light and its properties. While developing these theories, several notions on the behaviour of light have been hypothesized as well as asserted, sometimes without any direct or compelling empirical evidence. In the context of quantum physics, there is a widespread belief that experiments on quantum correlations establish nonlocality as an essential aspect of nature. Another unshakable belief without direct empirical support is the absolute constancy of the speed of light relative to moving observers. In this paper, I argue that no experiment on quantum correlations of spatially separated photons necessitates the concept of nonlocality, and that there is no direct empirical proof of nonlocality. I also comment on the need to modify established notions on quantum light, in the context of a clear conflict between cosmology and the zero point energy of quantum electrodynamics. Then I describe the first experiments on the measurement of the true one-way speed light relative to a reference platform that is in inertial motion. The results are at variance with the belief that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer.
We use the relativity principle to complete axiomatic reconstructions of quantum mechanics (QM) via information-theoretic principles that are based on Darrigol's "discreteness" requirement or its equivalent, e.g., Brukner & Zeilinger's Information Invariance & Continuity or Khrennikov's quantum action invariance principle. In this approach to the quantum reconstruction program (QRP), the Hilbert space kinematics of QM is derived most fundamentally from the experimentally motivated postulate of "discreteness," rendering QM a principle theory as defined by Einstein. Special relativity is also a principle theory, since its Lorentz transformation kinematics is derived from the experimentally motivated light postulate. While special relativity has a compelling fundamental principle (relativity principle) to account for its experimentally motivated light postulate, QRP has not produced a compelling fundamental principle to account for its experimentally motivated "discreteness" requirement. We complete QRP by showing how the "discreteness" requirement is necessitated by the relativity principle and Planck's radiation law, just like the light postulate is necessitated by the relativity principle and Maxwell's equations. Accordingly, the fundamental explanans for time dilation, length contraction, quantum superposition, and entanglement is the relativity principle. Phenomenologically speaking, the relativity principle is "the equality of all perspectives." Thus, quantum entanglement isn't evidence for the violation of intersubjective agreement or the need to abandon factive or objective models of reality, as in relational interpretations of QM. It is evidence that reality is not a fragmented collage of different subjective experiences from different perspectives, it's a comprehensive and coherent integration of those different subjective experiences per the equality of all perspectives.
We argue that special relativity, instead of quantum theory, should be radically reformulated to resolve inconsistencies between those two theories. A new relativistic transformation recently-proposed renders physical laws form-invariant via transformation of physical quantities, instead of space-time coordinates. This new perspective on relativistic transformation provides an insight into the very meaning of the principle of relativity. The principle of relativity means that the same physical laws hold in all inertial frames, rather than their mathematical formulas are Lorentz-covariant under the Lorentz transformation of space-time coordinates. The space-time concept underlying this new relativistic transformation is Newtonian absolute space and absolute time. With this new perspective, quantum theory becomes compatible with the principle of relativity. A new theory of relativistic quantum mechanics is formulated. The new relativistic quantum mechanics thus obtained maintains the essentials of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, for instance, the statistical single-particle interpretation. Studies on standard problems in quantum mechanics, square step and barrier potential, show that the new relativistic quantum mechanics is free from such anomalies as the negative probability density, Zitterbewegung and the Klein paradox bedeviling the current relativistic quantum mechanics. Furthermore, a remarkable result is found as applying the new relativistic quantum mechanics to study the problems of square potential well --- a particle can not be confined within an infinite square well of width less than half of the Compton wavelength of the particle. As implications of this finding in nuclear physics, there is a lower bound on the size of atomic nucleus. Neither an electron, nor a positron, can be confined inside the nucleus.
The Theory of Temporal Relativity proposes a unified theoretical framework that extends Special and General Relativity into the complex domain, integrating aspects of Quantum Mechanics within a single geometrical structure. The theory introduces a generalized Hilbert-space geometry and interprets quantum states as observer-dependent, arising from complex temporal relations between reference frames. Theory of Temporal Relativity is a theoretical framework proposing a unified extension of Special and General Relativity into the complex domain, with the goal of incorporating aspects of Quantum Mechanics within a consistent geometrical model. The theory generalizes Hilbert-space geometry and relativistic invariance to complex coordinates, introducing observer-dependent descriptions of physical quantities and a reinterpretation of quantum states as complex-phase relations between reference frames. Within this model, fundamental constants such as c, G, and h are not strictly universal but can exhibit apparent local variations arising from the observer’s position in the complex spacetime manifold. These variations preserve global covariance and CPT symmetry while reconciling quantum non-locality with relativistic kinematics. The framework predicts experimentally testable effects, including measurable phase shifts in interferometric experiments, possible frequency modulations in non-inertial systems, and small local deviations of physical constants detectable in condensed-matter and gravitational contexts. The supplementary work, “Quantum Uncertainty, Planck’s Constant, and Ontological Insights from Complex Spacetime Geometry and Local Metric Deformations”, develops the principle of Temporal Relativity as a foundational element of the theory. It formalizes the connection between quantum uncertainty, metric deformations, and complex temporal structures, within an alternative logical framework (AU). This extension provides both an ontological interpretation of the wavefunction and a basis for the emergence of quantum indeterminacy from geometric causes. Together, these works present a coherent attempt to unify the relativistic and quantum domains under a single complex-geometric view of spacetime, maintaining mathematical rigor while providing clear experimental pathways for empirical validation.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.