Observer remains in quantum mechanics an undefined notion. I argue that to eliminate the measurement problem, for instance, the observer must not be considered also an observable. Instead, it must be deemed by own definition as the self referencing state rather the qualitatively “un-definable”; in the exact same sense that the self referencing state is in Godel’s 2nd incompleteness theorem own “un-decidable” qualitatively. This has the crucial import that the observer is in fact the “uncertainty” proper—same seen otherwise as the entanglement (norm; wave function) of observables. It is modeled here as the zero refractive index n0 = vg/vp. Meaning, observables are non-zero refractive indices. I show here that absolute neutrino mass (sterile neutrino) is in fact the “mass gap” n0 signifying man as the observer vp.
Observer remains in quantum mechanics an undefined notion. I argue that to eliminate the measurement problem, for instance, the observer must not be considered also an observable. Instead, it must be deemed by own definition as the self referencing state rather the qualitatively “un-definable”; in the exact same sense that the self referencing state is in Godel’s 2nd incompleteness theorem own “un-decidable” qualitatively. This has the crucial import that the observer is in fact the “uncertainty” proper—same seen otherwise as the entanglement (norm; wave function) of observables. It is modeled here as the zero refractive index n0 = vg/vp. Meaning, observables are non-zero refractive indices. I show here that absolute neutrino mass (sterile neutrino) is in fact the “mass gap” n0 signifying man as the observer vp.
Quantum theory treats rigorously of observables while the term “observer” is hardly itself a rigorous notion. We argue that the uncertainty principle must be understood in the Godel sense that: any given observer constitutes own practical definition of “the unobservable” (if superposition) or namely length scale, phase space, fundamental frequency etc. Conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer values as, that is, the “wave function collapse” or respectively, inverse-length, phase-point, harmonics. One has thus a picture of the observer that in being participant is also non-local as in Godel’s “consistency-is-undecidable” or Planck’s “the-constant-is-the-uncertainty” or indeed Einstein’s “speed-of-light-is-information-speed-limit”. Definitive of these three cases, we assert, is Peano’s (and Noether’s?) notion of the constant (our “observer”) as being for any gamut of events the meta-state (“conserved current”). Meaning now, it is the observer per se, and not his observables, which should constitute violation of Bell’s inequality—say, as the infinitesimal/imaginary axis or as the dimensionless/infinite-dimensional etc. We posit: any given observer signifies the virtual exchange of standard model or space-time of GR or just the metric (norm)—defined by the singular trait that it is the de facto “superposition” i.e. natural unit and natural limit of physical information. Observables emerge quite directly thus as the perturbations if “decoherence” or “spontaneous symmetry breaking” of the observer. Now this status of/or the observer we call rather the entity as against hitherto the uncertainty; difference is that we have an ontic as the uncertainty per se. For a prediction we show here an exact value demonstrating man as the entity or “natural unit” for quantum gravity. The idea is that in being to ourselves the most authentic sample of the term observer we should also represent to ourselves the purest sample possible of the term wave function.
Quantum theory (QT) treats of “observables” yet the term “observer” remains hardly a rigorous notion. We argue that the uncertainty principle of QT can be understood in the Godel sense that: any given observer constitutes own practical definition of “the unobservable” (if superposition) namely length scale, phase space, non-local action, fundamental frequency etc. Conversely, the observable is definable strictly only in inverse-observer terms as, that is, the “collapse” namely inverse-length, phase-points, locality, harmonics respectively. Granted this picture is not a-priori intuitive we show that it resolves key modern difficulties plus it has formal grounds. One pictures the observer thus in the manner of Godel’s “consistency-is-undecidable” or Planck’s “the-constant-is-uncertainty” or indeed Einstein’s “speed-of-light-is-null-information” etc. definitive of which three cases, we assert, is Peano’s (and Noether’s?) notion of the constant as being for any gamut of variables/symmetry the meta-state (“conserved current”?). Given then that the observer is in any scheme of events the invariance (constant) it should be the case that it is the observer proper and not his observables which should constitute the violation of Bell’s inequality—if as the infinitesimal/imaginary axis or as the dimensionless/infinite-dimensional or the so-called conservation law etc. We posit: the observer is by definition the virtual exchange (field) of standard model or “space-time” of GR or just the “metric”—defined by the singular trait that it is the de facto universal constant i.e. the natural unit and hence natural limit of physical information. As a prediction we show herein an exact value to define man (perhaps our purest sample of observer) as also the natural unit for quantum gravity. Ultimately, that known hitherto as the potential (conservation law) becomes here same exactly as the “mind” or the “life” i.e. strictly put: “the-observer-as-the-unobservable” (superposition).The observer is for us per se the “entity”—in the sense of “phase-space” (normal mode; fundamental; wave speed) giving us an intuitive picture of observables that is same in fact as Huygens’ wave fronts/wavelets (or Everett’s many-worlds, or indeed Darwin’s evolution/speciation of “life”) same in short as any “spontaneous symmetry breaking”.
Abstract Mass has never been defined. It has been measured, related to other quantities, and given a mechanism through the Higgs field. But what mass physically is has not been stated. This paper proposes a definition: mass is the information encoding that matter acquires from the field — the degree to which a state is distinguishable from the vacuum, measured in Shannon bits. From this single definition, without additional assumptions, three consequences follow. First, the Schrödinger equation becomes nonlinear: mass depends on the wavefunction itself, superposition is approximate for massive particles, and wavefunction collapse has a self-reinforcing mechanism without requiring an external observer. Second, the source of spacetime curvature in Einstein’s field equations is not mass but information content — distinguishability of matter from the vacuum. Third, the quantum-classical transition is not a boundary to be explained but a process driven by mass accumulation: as encoding increases, classicality follows automatically. The Higgs vacuum expectation value v = 246 GeV is identified as the conversion factor between bits of distinguishability and kilograms of mass. The photon and neutrino are natural consistency checks: the photon has zero encoding and zero mass; the neutrino has near-zero encoding and near-zero mass
The long-standing conceptual controversies concerning the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics are argued, on one hand, to be due to its incompleteness, as affirmed by Einstein. But on the other hand, it appears to be possible to complete it at least partially, as Bohr might have appreciated it, in the framework of its standard mathematical formalism with observables as appropriately defined self-adjoint operators. This completion of quantum mechanics is based on the requirement on laboratory physics to be effectively confined to a bounded space region and on the application of the von Neumann deficiency theorem to properly define a set of self-adjoint extensions of standard observables, e.g. the momenta and the Hamiltonian, in terms of certain isometries on the region boundary. This is formalized mathematically in the setting of a boundary ontology for the so-called Qbox in which the wave function acquires a supplementary dependence on a set of Additional Boundary Variables (ABV). It is argued that a certain geometric subset of the ABV parametrizing Quasi-Periodic Translational Isometries (QPTI) has a particular physical importance by allowing for the definition of an ontic wave function, which has the property of epitomizing the spatial wave function “collapse.” Concomitantly the standard wave function in an unbounded geometry is interpreted as an epistemic wave function, which together with the ontic QPTI wave function gives rise to the notion of two-wave duality, replacing the standard concept of wave-particle duality. More generally, this approach to quantum physics in a bounded geometry provides a novel analytical basis for a better understanding of several conceptual notions of quantum mechanics, including reality, nonlocality, entanglement and Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation. The scope of this analysis may be seen as a foundational update of the multiple versions 1.x of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is sufficiently incremental so as to be appropriately characterized as Copenhagen 2.0.
Quantum mechanics lacks a physical definition of measurement, observer, probability, and experienced time. These notions are instead treated as primitive or interpretation-dependent, leading to persistent foundational problems including the measurement problem, the origin of the Born rule, observer disagreement in Wigner’s Friend scenarios, the arrow of time, and apparent information loss in black hole evaporation. In this work, we show that these problems share a single missing ingredient: the absence of an operational definition of observers as bounded physical systems. We define observers as physically realizable systems capable of forming irreversible internal records under unitary dynamics. Measurement is identified with record formation, probability with record redundancy, experienced time with record accumulation, and irreversibility with computational inaccessibility rather than non-unitarity. Using decoherence and quantum Darwinism, we show that the number of accessible, decoherence-stable records associated with an outcome scales with the squared amplitude, yielding the Born rule from record counting without invoking collapse, subjective probability, or additional axioms. Observer-relative paradoxes dissolve once outcome definiteness is indexed to record formation rather than to the global quantum state. Reconstruction of global quantum information is shown to require exponential resources, rendering measurement and black hole evaporation operationally irreversible despite global unitarity. The resulting framework closes quantum mechanics conceptually by eliminating undefined primitives, without modifying its mathematical structure or introducing new dynamical postulates.
The principle of relativity is extended to accommodate finite-mass observers with quantum properties by introducing two operational requirements: (i) equivalence of observers at the level of transition amplitudes, and (ii) the impossibility for an observer to access its own quantum state of motion. This results in a fully relative formulation of quantum mechanics with observer-dependent Hilbert spaces, relative quantization rules, and novel uncertainty relations, while also elucidating some interpretational issues present in the current formulation of quantum mechanics and giving experimentally testable signatures.