In the present paper, we have defined a physical event as an invariant replacement of a structural form, possessing a finite space-time region which emerges as a unification of the uncertainty principle and the quantum state. To reach this concept, we have first unearthed and then criticized two related conjectures relying on the foundation of the current physics which are that: (1) there is an operational-based prior space-time frame in which physical events evolve continuously; and (2) the events are understood based on a pure two-valued logic of rational-reason. We have concluded that the presented conceptual frame supports (i) a time operator having a domain ($0,2\pi$). In addition, it implies that: (ii) the dynamical variables of a physical event are the functional faculties as the content of the structural form of the event; and (iii) every physical event needs a finite time for realization.
In the present paper, we have defined a physical event as an invariant replacement of a structural form, possessing a finite space-time region which emerges as a unification of the uncertainty principle and the quantum state. To reach this concept, we have first unearthed and then criticized two related conjectures relying on the foundation of the current physics which are that: (1) there is an operational-based prior space-time frame in which physical events evolve continuously; and (2) the events are understood based on a pure two-valued logic of rational-reason. We have concluded that the presented conceptual frame supports (i) a time operator having a domain (0,2π). In addition, it implies that: (ii) the dynamical variables of a physical event are the functional faculties as the content of the structural form of the event; and (iii) every physical event needs a finite time for realization.
The distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally analyzed based on concepts such as determinism, the continuous or discrete nature of variables, the non-commutativity of observables, and the superposition of states. This article proposes a more fundamental reinterpretation based on two complementary conceptual ingredients. The first is a minimal relational epistemology, developed from the author's previous work, in which space and time are not a priori frames but emerge from comparisons of movements between systems. The second is an analysis of the role played by the possibility—or impossibility—of defining independent events, a possibility that depends precisely on the prior construction of a spatio-temporal and causal structure. We show that the essential difference between classical physics and quantum physics lies in the rule of probability composition, and not in the features usually invoked. Quantum physics appears to be a coherent description of a physical regime prior to the establishment of the causal independence of events. The two conceptual ingredients are summarized in the form of axioms, broad enough to offer a new perspective on the usual notions of quantum physics, which we review here. Accompanying this text, another article presents more technical developments.
We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.
Although time is one of our most intuitive physical concepts, its understanding at the fundamental level is still an open question in physics. For instance, time in quantum mechanics and general relativity are two distinct and incompatible entities. While relativity deals with events (points in spacetime), with time being observer dependent and dynamical, quantum mechanics describes physical systems by treating time as an independent parameter. To resolve this conflict, in this work, we extend the classical concept of an event to the quantum domain by defining an event as a transfer of information between physical systems. Then, by describing the universe from the perspective of a certain observer, we introduce quantum states of events with space-time-symmetric wave functions that predict the joint probability distribution of a measurement (observation) at $(t,\stackrel{P\vec}{x})$. Under these circumstances, without assuming collapse, we propose that a well-defined instant of time, like any other observable, arises from a single event, thus being an observer-dependent property. In this manner, we obtain a stationary quantum state written as a sum of a sequence of normalized states of events with increasing memories. As a consequence, a counterfactual asymmetry along this sequence of events gives rise to the flow of time as being successive ``snapshots'' from the observer's perspective. In this proposal, which contrasts strikingly to the view in which time is an illusion, it is the many distinguishable states in which the observer stores information that makes the existence of time possible.
The paper has heuristic character. The conceptual frame, based on the assumption of quantum uncertainty only, has been formerly introduced in two papers [S. Tosto, Il Nuovo Cimento B, vol. 111, n.2, 1996 and S. Tosto, Il Nuovo Cimento D, vol. 18, n.12, 1996]. Instead of attempting to increase the accuracy of some existing computational model through a new kind of approximation, these papers acknowledge since the beginning the lack of deterministic information about the local properties of the constituent particles, considered random, unknown and unpredictable and thus ignored in principle. The leading idea is that the physical properties of quantum systems could be inferred merely considering the delocalization ranges of dynamical variables, rather than their local values. In effect, despite the agnostic character of the approach proposed, both papers show that the kind of physical information reachable reproduces exactly in all cases examined that obtained solving the pertinent wave equations. The concept of quantum uncertainty is further extended in the present paper to both space and time coordinates, considering thus a unique spacetime delocalization range and still discarding since the beginning the local values of the conjugate dynamical variables. The paper shows an unexpected wealth of information obtainable simply extending the concept of space uncertainty to that of spacetime uncertainty: the results are inherently consistent with that of the operator formalism of wave mechanics and with the basic postulates of special relativity, both inferred as corollaries. Moreover, even the gravity appears to be essentially a quantum phenomenon. The most relevant outcomes of special and general relativity are achieved as straightforward consequence of the space-time delocalization of particles using the simple quantum formalism first introduced in the early papers.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
In the present paper I aim to discuss the philosophical foundations of the early correspondence principle (1917-1924), by comparing the conceptual structure underlying the first correspondence principle with the procedure of analogy that Immanuel Kant introduced in the Critique of Judgment from 1790. On such a comparison, I will seek to demonstrate the consistency of the conceptual ratio according to which the correspondence principle is to the classical "concepts" of space and time, as these a priori forms of intuition (space and time), in Kant, are related to the separate faculty of pure intuition. As a result, it will turn out that the conceptual structure of the correspondence principle suits to the Kantian doctrine of a separate faculty of pure intuition, which is divided from the faculty of understanding. The aim is to shed new light on the line of reasoning underlying Niels Bohr's analogical thinking in quantum physics.