The task of quantizing general relativity raises serious questions about the meaning of the present formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to so fundamental a structure as the space-time geometry itself. This paper seeks to clarify the foundations of quantum mechanics. It presents a reformulation of quantum theory in a form believed suitable for application to general relativity. The aim is not to deny or contradict the conventional formulation of quantum theory, which has demonstrated its usefulness in an overwhelming variety of problems, but rather to supply a new, more general and complete formulation, from which the conventional interpretation can be deduced. The relationship of this new formulation to the older formulation is therefore that of a metatheory to a theory, that is, it is an underlying theory in which the nature and consistency, as well as the realm of applicability, of the older theory can be investigated and clarified.
The task of quantizing general relativity raises serious questions about the meaning of the present formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to so fundamental a structure as the space-time geometry itself. This paper seeks to clarify the foundations of quantum mechanics. It presents a reformulation of quantum theory in a form believed suitable for application to general relativity. The aim is not to deny or contradict the conventional formulation of quantum theory, which has demonstrated its usefulness in an overwhelming variety of problems, but rather to supply a new, more general and complete formulation, from which the conventional interpretation can be deduced. The relationship of this new formulation to the older formulation is therefore that of a metatheory to a theory, that is, it is an underlying theory in which the nature and consistency, as well as the realm of applicability, of the older theory can be investigated and clarified.
Interpretation is not the only way to explain a theory's success, form and features, and nor is it the only way to solve problems we see with a theory. This can also be done by giving a reductive explanation of the theory, by reference to a newer, more accurate, and/or more fundamental theory. We are seeking a theory of quantum gravity, a more fundamental theory than both quantum mechanics and general relativity, yet, while this theory is supposed to explain general relativity, it's not typically been thought to be necessary, or able, to explain quantum mechanics -- a task instead assigned to interpretation. Here, I question why this is. I also present a new way of assessing the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in terms of their heuristic and unificatory potential in helping us find a more fundamental theory.
This paper presents a continuous structural ontology in which quantum mechanics, field theory, and general relativity are interpreted as regime-specific descriptions of a shared underlying system. Rather than introducing new forces or modifying established equations, the framework identifies three minimal and persistent structural elements across physical regimes: admissible configuration space, propagating constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. The work is intentionally interpretive rather than revisionary. It proposes that physical evolution can be understood as the propagation of constraint over admissible configurations, with increasing restriction giving rise to stable structure, classical behavior, and geometric curvature. Established mathematical formalisms—including Hilbert space, field equations, and general relativity—are preserved and reinterpreted within a common structural language. This framework aims to improve conceptual continuity across quantum, field, and geometric domains while remaining fully consistent with existing empirical results. It does not claim a complete formal unification, but instead offers a minimal ontological foundation that may clarify relationships between currently distinct theoretical descriptions. This paper forms part of the broader Communication Matrix research program.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
Contemporary physics relies extensively on mathematical formalisms to describe natural phenomena, often achieving remarkable predictive success. However, the relationship between mathematical description and physical explanation remains a subject of ongoing debate. In many cases, mathematical models are treated not only as tools for representation but also as implicit substitutes for the underlying physical mechanisms, which can obscure questions of causality and physical origin. This article examines this methodological issue using two fundamental physical phenomena—gravity and the tunneling effect— as representative examples. Both phenomena are commonly described by highly successful mathematical frameworks, namely general relativity and quantum mechanics, yet their physical interpretations remain incomplete or debated. The work argues that predictive accuracy alone does not necessarily constitute a full physical explanation and that mathematical consistency should be complemented by physically grounded mechanisms based on observable properties of matter and interaction. Alternative descriptions of gravity and the tunneling effect are proposed, grounded in experimental observations and established physical properties of matter at macroscopic and microscopic scales. These descriptions aim to clarify the physical processes underlying the phenomena while remaining compatible with empirical data. The proposed framework does not reject existing theories but seeks to supplement them by addressing conceptual gaps related to causality, physical mechanism, and interpretation. Such an approach may contribute to a more physically transparent understanding of fundamental phenomena and provide new directions for theoretical and applied research.
We examine the possible relations between general relativity and quantum mechanics, from the point of view of their representations of space and time, which are different. We refer to our own understanding of space and time, built in opposition to each other from the physical phenomena, and not constituting an a priori external frame. Within a relation-based thinking, we can only compare the phenomena to the other phenomena, and, from this confrontation, space-time frames arise, as drawn by the trajectories of certain phenomena arbitrarily considered in a privileged way. It is within this framework that one must think the possible association of general relativity (which has not the monopoly of space and time) and quantum mechanics (which has not the monopoly of quantization, to be understood from the comparison of two classes of phenomena within a probabilistic approach). The general question to ask is that of possible exchanges between the different points of views, supported by the various possible phenomena, that is to say those on which space and time are defined, and the others. Space and time do not disappear, the points of views are exchanged. These exchanges are made possible by representing space and time, like the other phenomena, by a pair of fields (r, t); r and t are vectors in a three-dimensional space (time is marked by the position of a moving point in the same space as that defining the positions of the ordinary points), as opposed to field pairs (f, g) associated with the other phenomena (such as the pair of the electric and magnetic fields). One may ultimately envisage quantization of space and time; one may also envisage the definition of time and space solely by quantum mechanics. A preliminary and qualitative framework is presented as a basis for future quantitative research.