It is shown that among the manifold scientific legacy of Einstein, his statistical‐thermodynamic and geometric ideas take on a special significance today. A special attention is paid to his role as a founder of holistic understanding of Nature . His geometric thinking allowed creating not only special and general relativity but complete classical physics as a holistic classical version of the physical picture of the world. His statistical‐thermodynamic thinking allowed creating not only outstanding statistical and quantum theories but opened a way to unification of these theories and to becoming a nonclassical version of physical picture of the world. At last, it is demonstrated that Einstein’s discoveries proved the funadamental status of Boltzmann’s constant and allowed distinguishing micro‐ and macrolevels of Nature describing.The influence of Einstein’s geometrical approach on the modem theoretical physics methods is discussed. It is analyzed some different forms of uncertainties relations, including Shroedinger’s uncertainties relations, as some geometrical restrictions on mutual relations between quantities or their fluctuations in the nonclassical theories. By this means an opportunity of mutual transitions of thermal and quantum fluctuations at high and low temperatures is considered.Admitting the existence of two versions of the physical picture of the world and two levels of Nature describing, a physics structure in the form of planar table is proposed. Each group of theories in the table cell responds to the corresponding version of PPW and level of Nature describing. As a result each of the group uniquely corresponds to one of four fundamental constants c, GN, ℏ, kB. As another image of this structure is offered a tetrahedron jointing four groups of theories.
It is shown that among the manifold scientific legacy of Einstein, his statistical‐thermodynamic and geometric ideas take on a special significance today. A special attention is paid to his role as a founder of holistic understanding of Nature . His geometric thinking allowed creating not only special and general relativity but complete classical physics as a holistic classical version of the physical picture of the world. His statistical‐thermodynamic thinking allowed creating not only outstanding statistical and quantum theories but opened a way to unification of these theories and to becoming a nonclassical version of physical picture of the world. At last, it is demonstrated that Einstein’s discoveries proved the funadamental status of Boltzmann’s constant and allowed distinguishing micro‐ and macrolevels of Nature describing.The influence of Einstein’s geometrical approach on the modem theoretical physics methods is discussed. It is analyzed some different forms of uncertainties relations, including Shroedinger’s uncertainties relations, as some geometrical restrictions on mutual relations between quantities or their fluctuations in the nonclassical theories. By this means an opportunity of mutual transitions of thermal and quantum fluctuations at high and low temperatures is considered.Admitting the existence of two versions of the physical picture of the world and two levels of Nature describing, a physics structure in the form of planar table is proposed. Each group of theories in the table cell responds to the corresponding version of PPW and level of Nature describing. As a result each of the group uniquely corresponds to one of four fundamental constants c, GN, ℏ, kB. As another image of this structure is offered a tetrahedron jointing four groups of theories.
The quantum–classical transition is one of the most frequently invoked concepts in modern physics. Yet the notion of classicality itself is far from unique. Depending on the physical context, classical behavior may be associated with decoherence, the semiclassical limit, thermodynamic averaging, suppression of correlations, emergence of collective order, or geometric simplification of statistical state space. These viewpoints are often presented as if they described a single phenomenon, although they emphasize different physical mechanisms and different operational criteria. In this article we examine the principal notions of classicality that appear across quantum theory, statistical physics, condensed matter physics, and information geometry. We compare the corresponding mechanisms of classical emergence and analyze the physical quantities commonly used to characterize them, including coherence, entanglement, fluctuations, correlation length, Fisher information, statistical complexity, and information-geometric curvature. We argue that many apparently distinct routes toward classical behavior share a common structural feature: a reduction of effective fluctuation freedom. From this perspective, classicality may be interpreted as an emergent regime in which the accessible fluctuation manifold becomes progressively constrained, stabilized, or geometrically simplified. This viewpoint naturally unifies decoherence, semiclassical localization, thermodynamic averaging, decorrelation, and collective organization within a common conceptual framework. Rather than representing a unique physical process, the quantum–classical transition appears as a family of related mechanisms through which complex quantum fluctuation structure gives rise to effective macroscopic classical behavior.
By offering mathematical frameworks and experimental techniques for characterising matter, energy, space, time, and their interactions, physics plays a crucial role in comprehending the nature of reality. The evolution of contemporary physics, from classical mechanics and electromagnetism to quantum mechanics and relativity, has profoundly altered our comprehension of the cosmos and put traditional ideas of determinism, locality, causation, and observation to the test. The contribution of modern physics theories to our comprehension of reality at the microscopic and cosmological sizes is examined in this paper. The measurement problem, entanglement, quantum information, quantum physics, and the connection between physical information and the emergence of observable reality are all given special emphasis. The study also looks at how understanding space, time, matter, and the structure of the cosmos is affected by general relativity, quantum field theory, and new theories of quantum gravity. Additionally, the potential connection between information, awareness, and physical processes is rigorously examined, separating accepted scientific findings from theoretical and philosophical interpretations. The study shows that relationships, information, and physical rules may be a more fundamental way to define reality than traditional ideas of independently existent objects by combining findings from theoretical physics, quantum information science, and philosophy of physics. The study concludes that while unanswered problems about quantum measurement, the origin of spacetime, and consciousness point to significant avenues for future multidisciplinary research, physics is still a potent framework for examining fundamental reality.
Classical thermodynamics is a theory based on coarse-graining, meaning that the thermodynamic variables arise from discarding information related to the microscopic features of the system at hand. In quantum mechanics, however, where one has a high degree of control over microscopic systems, information theory plays an important role in describing the thermal properties of quantum systems. Recently, a new approach has been proposed in the form of a quantum thermodynamic gauge theory, where the notion of redundant information arises from a group of physically motivated gauge transformations called the thermodynamic group. In this work, we explore the geometrical structure of quantum thermodynamics. Particularly, we do so by explicitly constructing the relevant principal fibre bundle. We then show that there are two distinct (albeit related) geometric structures associated with the gauge theory of quantum thermodynamics. In this way, we express thermodynamics in the same mathematical (geometric) language as the fundamental theories of physics. Finally, we discuss how the geometric and topological properties of these structures may help explain fundamental properties of thermodynamics.
Newtonian mechanics is the foundation of Classical Physics. Newton’s mechanics, Thermodynamics, Wave theory of Optics and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory belong to regime of Classical Physics and can be used to explain a wide range of phenomena in the Universe at macroscopic scale. These theories fail spectacularly when applied to phenomenain the atomic and nuclear regime, for example, proton-atom scattering or the flow of electrons in a semiconductor. Quantum mechanics is the most successful scientific theory that has ever been created and it has completely changed our view of the world. The failure of Classical Physics was highlighted by black body radiation and photoelectric effect. Max Planck and Albert Einstein provided explanations of both phenomena based on quantum hypothesis and are thus considered founders of Quantum Physics. The origin of quantum mechanics goes back to the mid-1920s.It was formulated first as matrix mechanics by Werner Heisenberg, Max Born and Pascual Jordan; then as wave mechanics by Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrödinger; and later on asquantum statistics of subatomic particles by Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein. Combining relativistic mechanics with quantum mechanics, Dirac formulated his relativistic quantum mechanics during 1930s. Uncertainty Principle is thecornerstone of Quantum Physics. The role of randomness in microscopic physical processes shatters the myth that the universe is deterministic. Quantum world is unpredictable in the classical sense and demolishes the idea of an objective universe. The Copenhagen interpretation remains the quantum mechanical formalism that is currently most widely accepted amongst physicists.Quantum theories support cosmic spirit pervading the cosmos and inter – relationship of individuals in the world society. Quantum philosophy is holistic and is going to revolutionize our world-view.
The article discusses approaches to understanding the nature of probability in mathematics and physics with the consequences of these approaches, as well as the difficulties that arise. The ontological status of probability is discussed. It is shown that probability theory, contrary to R. Mises, should be classified as a mathematical science, using the definition formulated by A.N. Kolmogorov. The application of this definition in practice is provided within the framework of the classical approach, provided that the connection with physical reality is defined through the concept of equal opportunity. To do this, the concepts of simple and complex events are introduced, and the method of decomposing complex events into simple ones is explained. The point of view is substantiated, according to which a mathematical probability determined and related to physical reality in this way can be considered an objective probability, that is, existing independently of any tests. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics and approaches to understanding probability are also revealed. It is shown that in physics today the existing approaches to understanding the nature of probability contradict each other. In the Bohm interpretation, probability is an analogue of the classical approach – statistical objective probability, which has a mathematical formalization, and in quantum Bayesianism, probability quantifies the degree of reliability and depends on the subject conducting the experiment. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics tries to eliminate the difficulties associated with combining the wave and corpuscular properties of light and electron beams into a single picture by giving the ontological status of probability, which leads to the problem of understanding physical reality. The article argues for the need for a new connection between the mathematical description of probability and physical reality. The empirical (frequency) approach of R. Mises is analyzed, which causes a lot of criticism, as it does not have a clear consistent formalization. The article argues that this approach is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. The probability given by M. Born in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is also considered, which formulates a new definition of probability, which does not exclude the difficulties associated with the physical interpretation of probability. Born’s approach is based on the classical approach and is reduced to a formal axiomatic definition, which assumes the interpretation of probability as a mathematical construct. The connection of probability with physical reality and the consistency of the statistical method of finding probability values remain unresolved problems, which creates a dualism of understanding probability: in mathematics – one thing, in physics – another. If in the mathematical approach, the solution of these problems is carried out through the connection of probability with physical properties, then in quantum mechanics, in the Copenhagen interpretation, problems persist, which is caused by giving the wave function an ontological status.
Extended version / Monograph-length manuscript This work proposes a unified conceptual reconstruction of physical phenomena by examining the recurring structural patterns that connect classical and quantum systems across scales. Oscillatory behavior, potential landscapes, and binding principles form a common mathematical template that appears in mechanical oscillators, molecular vibrations, atomic orbitals, and quantized field modes. By reframing quantum phenomena as refinements of classical oscillatory structures rather than conceptual discontinuities, this work highlights the deep continuity that underlies modern physics. The framework also clarifies energy minimization, mass defect, statistical behavior, and vacuum fluctuations as manifestations of shared principles. Implications for pedagogy, theory building, and cross‑disciplinary coherence are discussed. The innovative hypotheses, which depart from classical norms, will be explicitly marked with the heading HYPOTHESIS. As such, they are excluded by default from use as references in current academic or educational frameworks. They may instead be considered “revolutionary attempts to be monitored”, that is, the very “targets” mentioned by Weinberg. Albert Einstein introduced, on the one hand, a special relativity that he wished to be perfectly reversible, and on the other hand, general relativity which, when applied to cosmology, imposed on our Universe a spherical and static state—thus of constant radius—resisting gravitational collapse through the repulsion of the cosmological constant. Here, the associated relativities will instead give priority to irreversible systems evolving in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, within their local space-time domain of one-way time flow. quantum physics, classical physics, grand unification, field theory, atomic stability, Albert Briffoz, physique quantique, unification, théorie des champs