This essay extends the argument begun in "Why Quantum Mechanics Makes Sense," exploring the conditions under which a physical world can define and communicate information. I argue that like the structure of quantum physics, the principles of Special and General Relativity can be understood as reflecting the requirements of a universe in which things are observable and measurable. I interpret the peculiar hyperbolic structure of spacetime not as the static, four-dimensional geometry of an unobservable "block universe", but as the background metric of an evolving web of communicated information that we, along with all our measuring instruments and recording devices, actually experience in our local "here and now." Our relativistic universe is conceived as a parallel distributed processing system, in which a common objective reality is constantly being woven out of many kinds of facts determined separately in countless local measurement-contexts.
This essay extends the argument begun in "Why Quantum Mechanics Makes Sense," exploring the conditions under which a physical world can define and communicate information. I argue that like the structure of quantum physics, the principles of Special and General Relativity can be understood as reflecting the requirements of a universe in which things are observable and measurable. I interpret the peculiar hyperbolic structure of spacetime not as the static, four-dimensional geometry of an unobservable "block universe", but as the background metric of an evolving web of communicated information that we, along with all our measuring instruments and recording devices, actually experience in our local "here and now." Our relativistic universe is conceived as a parallel distributed processing system, in which a common objective reality is constantly being woven out of many kinds of facts determined separately in countless local measurement-contexts.
We take it for granted that our physical environment communicates information, making things observable and measurable. However, there are very strong constraints on the fundamental physics of any universe that can do this. Measuring or communicating any kind of information always requires an appropriate interactive context, and these contexts are necessarily complex, involving other kinds of information determined in different contexts. This makes measurement hard to grasp theoretically, since every measurement depends on other kinds of measurements. Even so, we can identify some basic functional requirements for a physics that determines and communicates facts. These are sufficient to explain the peculiar features of quantum mechanics, combining the unitary evolution of superpositions with the mysterious "collapse" that occurs whenever the context allows new facts to be defined. Moreover, the precise determinism of classical physics can be understood on the same basis. It seems likely, in fact, that most of the complexity and fine-tuning we see in our most fundamental theories is needed to make any kind of information measurable.
It has always been the ideal of science to discover laws of nature on which we can all agree. Agreement requires evidence independent of individual judgment, i.e., objective evidence. We apply the term objective to such unbiased scientific evidence because we associate it with an external world of objects that we conceive to be the origin of our information. This external world is instinctively invented by each of us as a means of dealing with invariant patterns in his private world of experience. The invention is validated and elaborated as a consequence of the fact that it turns out to be sharable. In fact the common content of all our invented external worlds is so unambiguous and independent of individual bias that it can form the universally accepted basis for communication and action in an organized society. The consistency of the patterns of experience associated with the external world is such that we are under severe psychological compulsion to assign to this world an existence independent of our experience and a reality superior to that of any small part of our experience. Physical science is devoted to the study of the “laws” of the external physical universe, i.e., to the behaviour of the objects in it. Hence there is a strong tendency to project into the external world the information gathered by scientifically objective methods and even the theoretical concepts in terms of which the information is interpreted. Whatever is so projected is objective in a second sense of the term, i.e., assigned by us to the external world of objects.
An operational approach to quantum mechanics has been developed in the past decades in our group in Brussels. A similar approach is taken in this work, making use of the extra operational depth offered by this approach, to show that the construction of spacetime is specific to each observer. What is usually referred to as the block universe then emerges by noting that parts of the past and future are also contained in the present, but without the limitations that a four-dimensional block universe usually implies, of a reality in which change would be impossible. In our operational approach, reality remains dynamic, with free choice playing a central role in its conceptualization. We also show that, when operationally analyzed, the theory implies that objects move not only in space, but also and especially in time, and more generally in spacetime, with their rest mass being a measure of their kinetic time energy. We therefore claim that Einstein’s relativity revolution has not been fully realized, since most physicists are not ready to accept these consequences of the theory although the formula’s showing them, when operationally analyzed, are in every relativity textbook. In particular, when relativistic motion is revisited as a genuine four-dimensional motion, it becomes possible to reinterpret the parameter c associated with the coordinate speed of light, which becomes the magnitude of the four-velocity of all material entities. We observe that this four-dimensional motion in Minkowski space can also be better understood if placed in the broader perspective of quantum mechanics, provided that non-locality is interpreted as non-spatiality, thus indicating the existence of an underlying non-spatial reality, the nature of which could be conceptual, consistent with the conceptuality interpretation of quantum mechanics. This hypothesis is reinforced by noting that when observers, or experiencers, as they will be referred to in this article, are described by acknowledging their cognitive nature of entities moving in a semantic space, Minkowski metric emerges in a natural way.
All known physical systems are described by quantum fields, whose observable properties arise from measurable correlations among their states. In this interpretation, what we call information is not an abstract entity but the physical pattern formed by these correlations. Energy, momentum, and spacetime curvature are already known to be expressible through expectation values of quantum operators, and recent results in quantum information theory show that variations in entanglement correspond directly to variations in energy. From this perspective, macroscopic structures—including matter and spacetime geometry—can be understood as stable, evolving patterns within quantum fields. Apparent non-local correlations, such as quantum entanglement, do not transmit signals faster than light but reflect pre-existing informational structure consistent with relativistic causality. Gravitational effects traditionally attributed to unseen components may, in principle, also be described as consequences of information distribution within known fields, without invoking new particles or interactions. This interpretation does not modify established physical laws or introduce new constants. It remains fully compatible with quantum field theory and general relativity, and is intended as a conceptual framework for organizing existing results rather than a new predictive theory. Its empirical relevance lies in re-expressing known phenomena in terms of information patterns that are, in principle, measurable through correlations and entanglement.
Title: Relativistic Branching Dynamics: A Geometric Resolution to the Measurement Problem and the Thermodynamic Arrow of Time Abstract: The reconciliation of the apparent flow of time and human agency with the rigid structure of the Einsteinian Block Universe remains one of the most intractable problems in the foundations of physics. The standard interpretation of Special Relativity, formalized by the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, implies a static four-dimensional manifold where future events are as ontologically fixed as the past. This paper introduces the Relativistic Many-Worlds (RMW) hypothesis, arguing that the Lorentz transformation implies an ontological divergence of realities rather than a mere coordinate transformation. By defining a metric for the "Degree of Separation" (Δs) between inertial frames, we propose that the "collapse" of the wave function is a relativistic frame-selection event driven by acceleration. We analytically derive the behavior of this separation metric in Newtonian, Relativistic, and Rindler (accelerated) limits, demonstrating how agency acts as a vector selection mechanism within a branching 4D manifold. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the thermodynamic Arrow of Time is an emergent property of this geometric divergence, resolving the paradox of irreversibility without invoking ad-hoc initial conditions. We conclude by offering falsifiable experimental predictions involving accelerated decoherence in matter-wave interferometry. Key Contributions: Geometric Resolution to the Block Universe: Proposes that the "Paradox of Reciprocal Reality" in Special Relativity necessitates a branching multiverse structure rather than a static single block. The Divergence Metric (Δs): Derives a mathematical framework quantifying the spacetime separation between counterfactual worldlines based on proper time and velocity difference. Agency as Kinematics: Redefines "Free Will" physically as the capacity to initiate acceleration (Frame Selection), thereby rotating the plane of simultaneity and selecting a specific geodesic through the Hilbert space. The Rindler Horizon of Choice: Demonstrates how acceleration creates a causal event horizon that geometrically censors unchosen histories from the observer. Falsifiable Predictions: Proposes specific experimental tests using matter-wave interferometry to detect "Accelerated Decoherence," distinguishing this theory from standard environmental decoherence models. Keywords: Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Measurement Problem, Many-Worlds Interpretation, Block Universe, Arrow of Time, Lorentz Transformation, Rindler Horizon, Decoherence, Foundations of Physics. Subjects: Theoretical Physics, Quantum Foundations, Philosophy of Physics. Author: Paul Hallelujah, BSCH, MTS University of Toronto & Queen's University Alumnus
What does not satisfy me in that theory [quantum mechanics], from the standpoint of principle, is its attitude towards that which appears to me to be the programmatic aim of all physics: the complete description of any (individual) real situation (as it supposedly exists irrespective of any act of observation or substantiation). Albert Einstein, Reply to Criticisms [This] implies the impossibility of any sharp separation between the behaviour of atomic objects and the interaction with the measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which the phenomena appear . In fact, the individuality of the typical quantum effects finds its proper expression in the circumstance that any attempt of subdividing the phenomena will demand a change in the experimental arrangement introducing new possibilities of interaction between objects and measuring instruments which in principle cannot be controlled. Consequently, evidence obtained under different experimental conditions cannot be comprehended within a single picture, but must be regarded as complementary in the sense that only the totality of the phenomena exhausts the possible information about the objects. Indeed the finite interaction between object and measuring agencies conditioned by the very existence of the quantum of action entails – because of the impossibility of controlling the reaction of the object on the measuring instruments, if these are to serve their purpose – the necessity of a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality and a radical revision of our attitude towards the problem of physical reality. […]