In relativistic mechanics the time-like vector characterize the motion in spacetime with speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum c in which the line element ds2=c2dt2-dx2-dx2-dz2 is less than zero (where is infinitesimal change in time, and are infinitesimal change in space), thus the time in relativistic mechanics can instantaneously flow [1], however in quantum mechanics although the time is treated as unobservable parameter (without any Hermitian observable operator have engine-value equivalent to time) any two physical quantity described by two non-commuting observable operatorsand fulfill , the knowledge of one immediately produce the knowledge of the other [2], thus in quantum mechanics if two particles interacted in finite temporal epoch and then separated in space the gaining of knowledge by the local measurement of physical quantity runs on one them (for example the measurement of spin direction of one particle using Stern-Gerlach experiment) immediately produce the knowledge of the complementary physical quantity of the other particle (for example the opposite spin direction of the other particle), this simply called quantum entanglement the concept that so much advanced after publication of the Jon Bell’s 1964 celebrated paper [3] in which he illustrated that we can add parameters to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, and then he conclude “there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant”. The question now what these signals that can propagate instantaneously? The answer in this paper will be the time signals field which is defined for each constituent matter particle M and at each space point P as the measure of the total length of all occupation and leaving epochs of P by M which is representing a sequence function compactly supported only at the space point occupied by it and indexed by the number of occupation epochs of P by M, thus the flow of this time signal field from the far future to near future through the present to the near past to the far past inferable by the flow of matter particles constituting the system(such as sun, moon earth and clocks hands). Thus the present will represent in this paper a local absolute feature of time signals field defined at each space point as the set of all occupation epochs of it by matter particle, however the past and future will represent relativistic non-local features of the time signal field defined at each space point as a set of all leaving epochs between each two sequential occupation epochs, so the future after one occupation epoch is representing a past of the next one. Thus according to current representation of time, the two Mc-Taggard’s A and B series of time [4] will exist together as temporal set and then the time is real, the A-series in current theory is a set of all occupation and leaving epochs of space point by the matter particle that is consisting of the present, past and future epochs, and the B-series is the set of all leaving epochs of space points between each two sequential occupation epochs which are taking position before or after the discrete occupation epochs between them and then before or after each other.
In relativistic mechanics the time-like vector characterize the motion in spacetime with speed faster than the speed of light in vacuum c in which the line element ds2=c2dt2-dx2-dx2-dz2 is less than zero (where is infinitesimal change in time, and are infinitesimal change in space), thus the time in relativistic mechanics can instantaneously flow [1], however in quantum mechanics although the time is treated as unobservable parameter (without any Hermitian observable operator have engine-value equivalent to time) any two physical quantity described by two non-commuting observable operatorsand fulfill , the knowledge of one immediately produce the knowledge of the other [2], thus in quantum mechanics if two particles interacted in finite temporal epoch and then separated in space the gaining of knowledge by the local measurement of physical quantity runs on one them (for example the measurement of spin direction of one particle using Stern-Gerlach experiment) immediately produce the knowledge of the complementary physical quantity of the other particle (for example the opposite spin direction of the other particle), this simply called quantum entanglement the concept that so much advanced after publication of the Jon Bell’s 1964 celebrated paper [3] in which he illustrated that we can add parameters to quantum mechanics to determine the results of individual measurements, without changing the statistical predictions, and then he conclude “there must be a mechanism whereby the setting of one measuring device can influence the reading of another instrument, however remote. Moreover, the signal involved must propagate instantaneously so that such a theory could not be Lorentz invariant”. The question now what these signals that can propagate instantaneously? The answer in this paper will be the time signals field which is defined for each constituent matter particle M and at each space point P as the measure of the total length of all occupation and leaving epochs of P by M which is representing a sequence function compactly supported only at the space point occupied by it and indexed by the number of occupation epochs of P by M, thus the flow of this time signal field from the far future to near future through the present to the near past to the far past inferable by the flow of matter particles constituting the system(such as sun, moon earth and clocks hands). Thus the present will represent in this paper a local absolute feature of time signals field defined at each space point as the set of all occupation epochs of it by matter particle, however the past and future will represent relativistic non-local features of the time signal field defined at each space point as a set of all leaving epochs between each two sequential occupation epochs, so the future after one occupation epoch is representing a past of the next one. Thus according to current representation of time, the two Mc-Taggard’s A and B series of time [4] will exist together as temporal set and then the time is real, the A-series in current theory is a set of all occupation and leaving epochs of space point by the matter particle that is consisting of the present, past and future epochs, and the B-series is the set of all leaving epochs of space points between each two sequential occupation epochs which are taking position before or after the discrete occupation epochs between them and then before or after each other.
When two particles are created together in a single quantum event, they can become entangled: their properties remain correlated no matter how far apart they travel. Measure one, and the outcome of measuring the other is no longer independent. This correlation is the central puzzle of quantum mechanics. Classical physics sets a hard limit on how strong such correlations can be. The CHSH inequality (Clauser, Horne, Shimony, and Holt, 1969) formalises that limit: for any theory in which each particle carries its own independent set of predetermined answers, the correlation measure S cannot exceed 2. Bell-type experiments consistently violate this bound, with the maximum ideal value predicted by quantum mechanics being S = 2√2. Something does not fit. Several explanations have been proposed. Some invoke extra dimensions. Others appeal to wormhole geometries connecting the particles. The mainstream position is that the outcomes "collapse and become correlated," which states the observation without explaining the mechanism. All of these either add dramatic ontological furniture or repackage the mystery as an answer. This paper proposes a simpler reading. The value 2√2 is not a mystery to be explained by exotic physics. It is the geometric signature of a jointly structured bipartite state whose correlation was fixed at the source, at the moment of entanglement, not at measurement time. The two particles are not two independent objects that later communicate. They are two readout surfaces of a single joint preparation. The cosine correlation law, the Tsirelson bound, and the full Bell violation follow directly from the geometry of the two-qubit state space and the relative orientation of the measurement settings. No signal, no extra dimension, no new physics is required. Three companion papers in this series explored the opposite hypothesis: The Speed of Light and Its Limits [1] examined whether entanglement could circumvent relativistic constraints; Quantum Entanglement as a Communication Channel [2] proposed a synchronized-clock experiment to detect timing signatures; and Parametrizing Correlation Timing [3] developed a Lorentz-structured ansatz for concurrence-dependent delays. If those experimental proposals return null, the present reading is reinforced: not by proof, but by elimination of the alternatives that require more. A final section develops geometric and regime-based frameworks consistent with the source-structural reading, including the measurement torus as the natural geometry of Bell experiments, a jointness index based on Concurrence, and connections to emergent spacetime programmes. These are offered as directions for future development.
Erwin Schrodinger first used the phrase “quantum entanglement” in 1935 to describe a mechanical phenomenon at the quantum level where two (or more) particles’ quantum states must be defined in relation to one another even if they may be geographically apart. This paradoxical event has confounded us for a very long time. Entangled particle behavior appears to be mysterious, illogical, and akin to sorcery at work. The successful and dependable principle of locality has led us to the achievements of twentieth-century physics. However, some theorists may doubt the locality itself due to the “spooky” and nonlocal effects of the local laws of quantum theory. Could there truly be an instant connection between two subatomic particles located on the extreme edges of the universe? Is there a theory that predicts such a relationship that is fundamentally faulty or lacking? Are the outcomes of the experiments that show this connection being read incorrectly? These questions challenge our most fundamental understanding of space and time. The universe is currently being disassembled by modern physics, and it will never be the same. Utilizing cutting-edge technology, quantum entanglement will have a positive impact on society. The history of quantum entanglement is outlined in this work, along with several hypotheses regarding the puzzling behavior of entangled particles. Quantum entanglement may also be an instance of nonlocality in action, in which what occurs in one location affects what occurs in another. Entanglement can also be compared to a situation in which a light switch is used to control two (or more) light bulbs, causing them to turn on at the same time when the switch is switched on. The key question is whether one of the aforementioned theories actually accounts for the odd behavior of entangled particles, in which case experimental evidence would unquestionably support the theory.
Abstract: The exact nature of non-locality and entanglement is still a matter of an ongoing controversy. Especially, the concept of non-locality as postulated by the orthodox Copenhagen quantum mechanics is claiming to reflect any non-locality in the quantum realm. Attention should be called to the obvious but very disconcerting fact that the concept of non-locality cannot contradict the theory of special relativity, as long as the same is not refuted theoretically or by experiments. Another way of expressing the peculiar situation is, under conditions of the special theory of relativity it remains rather discomforting to alter the properties of a distant system instantaneously (i. e. no light signal can travel) by acting on a local system. The purpose of this publication is to solve the problem of non-locality and entanglement from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity.
Holographic Informational Ontology Framework: Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (HIOF-PnQFT) Incompatibility as a Problem of Positioning* This is a short, non-technical companion to the 5-paper HIOF-PnQFT series (Prelude and Papers I to IV). It is written for readers in physics, philosophy of physics, or the foundations of quantum theory, not for readers already familiar with the author's wider framework. The core idea, stated plainly Relativity and quantum field theory are usually treated as two correct theories that still need a bridge. The series asks a prior question: what exactly are they being asked to make compatible? In the reading of this framework, a spacetime stage and randomness of outcomes are manifest features, not fundamental ones. The compatibility problem is therefore read as a problem of positioning. This is a repositioning, not a claim that any technical obstacle has been removed. Two layers The information layer has no coordinates, no spatiotemporal character, and no relative relations; it only exists. The manifest layer is what appears after information is read, expanded, and set in flow: past, present, space, fields, energy, carriers, relations, and determinate results. The order of manifestation is information, then energy, then matter. This order is an inference, not a verified conclusion. Past, present, future The past is information. The present is the reading of consciousness, where consciousness is the direction and path along which an "I" manifests. The future is not stored in advance. Spacetime is not a pre-existing stage. Five readings of the incompatibility Relative relations belong to the manifest layer. Spacetime is manifestation, not a stage. The quantum has no randomness, only uncertainty from a limited arc window. The spooky distance of entanglement is a category error: the spacetime in which distance is defined is imposed on information that has none. The speed of light is read as the upper limit of reading, with causal structure as its consequence. This is an inversion at the ontological level only: within the arc window, every observable result agrees with special relativity. The measurement chain The quantum itself is not read at any layer. A source of interference forces the quantum to hand out a posture (coercion, not transaction). The posture and the instrument transact; the instrument and the observer transact. The constitution of an instrument determines its arc window, including what it does not know that it does not know. A response is established when an instrument reads a posture and yields a stable record that can be read again. The single result and the Born rule are taken as axioms. Fermi theory as a case study A low-energy theory is read as the successful marking of wide-domain information through a narrow arc window. In Fermi theory the coupling constant carries the fingerprint of the W boson mass, and its dimension forecasts where the window gives way. The mathematics is that of effective field theory; the difference lies in ontological commitment only. What the series does not do It supplies no alternative dynamics, no new field equation, and no distinguishable observational prediction. It does not derive the Born rule, does not claim to meet microcausality, Lorentz invariance, or unitarity, and does not claim that consciousness influences the ontological information. Algebraic quantum field theory, the thermal time hypothesis, emergent spacetime, and relational quantum mechanics are compared with the series and never treated as support for it. Any test template involving symmetry groups, topology, or lattices would be an independent model at the manifest layer, not an inference of the framework. What the series covers Prelude: why this series, and why the two theories do not fitPaper I: spacetime, past, present, futurePaper II: the sources of incompatibilityPaper III: the interface and relationsPaper IV: arc windows and effective theories A note on method Each paper separates standard published results from the framework's own readings and states what it does not claim. Readers are encouraged to treat the readings as hypotheses to be compared with existing theory and experiment, not as settled fact. Keywords: relativity, quantum field theory, information ontology, arc window, measurement problem, effective field theory, entanglement, emergent spacetime, philosophy of physics AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com
The quantum entanglement, that violates the local realism and other classical physics theories, leads to various counterintuitive phenomena, is a primary feature of quantum mechanics and probably results from the quantum state’s conservation and the quantum state’s transition with the matter wave’s phase velocity at the fast-than-light speed. The quantum state transition of entangled particles proceeds with the phase velocity, while the observer measures the process with the electromagnetic or the light speed. This speed difference makes the causality law no longer fully valid everywhere except in certain areas.
Holographic Informational Ontology Framework: Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (HIOF-PnQFT) Incompatibility as a Problem of Positioning* This is a short, non-technical companion to the 5-paper HIOF-PnQFT series (Prelude and Papers I to IV). It is written for readers in physics, philosophy of physics, or the foundations of quantum theory, not for readers already familiar with the author's wider framework. The core idea, stated plainly Relativity and quantum field theory are usually treated as two correct theories that still need a bridge. The series asks a prior question: what exactly are they being asked to make compatible? In the reading of this framework, a spacetime stage and randomness of outcomes are manifest features, not fundamental ones. The compatibility problem is therefore read as a problem of positioning. This is a repositioning, not a claim that any technical obstacle has been removed. Two layers The information layer has no coordinates, no spatiotemporal character, and no relative relations; it only exists. The manifest layer is what appears after information is read, expanded, and set in flow: past, present, space, fields, energy, carriers, relations, and determinate results. The order of manifestation is information, then energy, then matter. This order is an inference, not a verified conclusion. Past, present, future The past is information. The present is the reading of consciousness, where consciousness is the direction and path along which an "I" manifests. The future is not stored in advance. Spacetime is not a pre-existing stage. Five readings of the incompatibility Relative relations belong to the manifest layer. Spacetime is manifestation, not a stage. The quantum has no randomness, only uncertainty from a limited arc window. The spooky distance of entanglement is a category error: the spacetime in which distance is defined is imposed on information that has none. The speed of light is read as the upper limit of reading, with causal structure as its consequence. This is an inversion at the ontological level only: within the arc window, every observable result agrees with special relativity. The measurement chain The quantum itself is not read at any layer. A source of interference forces the quantum to hand out a posture (coercion, not transaction). The posture and the instrument transact; the instrument and the observer transact. The constitution of an instrument determines its arc window, including what it does not know that it does not know. A response is established when an instrument reads a posture and yields a stable record that can be read again. The single result and the Born rule are taken as axioms. Fermi theory as a case study A low-energy theory is read as the successful marking of wide-domain information through a narrow arc window. In Fermi theory the coupling constant carries the fingerprint of the W boson mass, and its dimension forecasts where the window gives way. The mathematics is that of effective field theory; the difference lies in ontological commitment only. What the series does not do It supplies no alternative dynamics, no new field equation, and no distinguishable observational prediction. It does not derive the Born rule, does not claim to meet microcausality, Lorentz invariance, or unitarity, and does not claim that consciousness influences the ontological information. Algebraic quantum field theory, the thermal time hypothesis, emergent spacetime, and relational quantum mechanics are compared with the series and never treated as support for it. Any test template involving symmetry groups, topology, or lattices would be an independent model at the manifest layer, not an inference of the framework. What the series covers Prelude: why this series, and why the two theories do not fitPaper I: spacetime, past, present, futurePaper II: the sources of incompatibilityPaper III: the interface and relationsPaper IV: arc windows and effective theories A note on method Each paper separates standard published results from the framework's own readings and states what it does not claim. Readers are encouraged to treat the readings as hypotheses to be compared with existing theory and experiment, not as settled fact. Keywords: relativity, quantum field theory, information ontology, arc window, measurement problem, effective field theory, entanglement, emergent spacetime, philosophy of physics AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com