The Observer as the “Wave Function”, His Observable(s) as the “Collapse” (Relative States): Proposing Here, a Standard Model for Quantum Gravity. (Part 1: the Overview)
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”.
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”.
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.
A case study of quantum mechanics is investigated in the framework of the philosophical opposition “mathematical model – reality”. All classical science obeys the postulate about the fundamental difference of model and reality, and thus distinguishing epistemology from ontology fundamentally. The theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics imply for it to be “complete” (versus Einstein’s opinion). That consistent completeness (unlike arithmetic to set theory in the foundations of mathematics in Gödel’s opinion) can be interpreted furthermore as the coincidence of model and reality. The paper discusses the option and fact of that coincidence it its base: the fundamental postulate formulated by Niels Bohr about what quantum mechanics studies (unlike all classical science). Quantum mechanics involves and develops further both identification and disjunctive distinction of the global space of the apparatus and the local space of the investigated quantum entity as complementary to each other. This results into the analogical complementarity of model and reality in quantum mechanics. The apparatus turns out to be both absolutely “transparent” and identically coinciding simultaneously with the reflected quantum reality. Thus, the coincidence of model and reality is postulated as necessary condition for cognition in quantum mechanics by Bohr’s postulate and further, embodied in its formalism of the separable complex Hilbert space, in turn, implying the theorems of the absence of hidden variables (or the equivalent to them “conservation of energy conservation” in quantum mechanics). What the apparatus and measured entity exchange cannot be energy (for the different exponents of energy), but quantum information (as a certain, unambiguously determined wave function) therefore a generalized law of conservation, from which the conservation of energy conservation is a corollary. Particularly, the local and global space (rigorously justified in the Standard model) share the complementarity isomorphic to that of model and reality in the foundation of quantum mechanics. On that background, one can think of the troubles of “quantum gravity” as fundamental, direct corollaries from the postulates of quantum mechanics. Gravity can be defined only as a relation or by a pair of non-orthogonal separable complex Hilbert space attachable whether to two “parts” or to a whole and its parts. On the contrary, all the three fundamental interactions in the Standard model are “flat” and only “properties”: they need only a single separable complex Hilbert space to be defined.
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.
Defining the Observer:A General Physical Criterion, Its Relation to Existing Models, Impossibility of the final ascent, and the Impossibility of the Ideal Limit. No treatment of quantum gravity that takes observers seriously can avoid the question of what an observer physically is, and existing treatments - including the author's own (Materov 2026a,b,c) - each state a modelling assumption for the observer without deriving it. This paper's contribution is narrow and specific, not a claim to be the first physical account of an observer: a particular combination of requirements (D1–D4) on the trajectory of an embedded tensor factor, a separately-argued self-capacity criterion for individuation (D3′) tied to the no-cloning theorem, and a short, self-contained no-go argument (Proposition 4.1) for complete reconstruction of an observer's complement. We show that the observer-notions already in use in Materov (2026a,b,c) relate to this combination in three structurally different ways - as a more general object, as a concrete realization, and as a structurally parallel system not yet unified with it - and work out one concrete case, the photonic Friend of Local-Friendliness experiments, in detail. Since no observer can be ideal in this omniscient sense, we instead investigate uniqueness for a weaker, separately-defined notion (a self-dominant observer, whose own representational capacity exceeds its observing capacity); no dimension-counting argument we have found forces this either, and the question remains, honestly, open.
This research aims to thoroughly resolve the century-long core conflict in fundamental assumptions and ontology between General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) in modern physics. We strictly challenge and overturn the mainstream phenomenological viewpoint of the Copenhagen Interpretation regarding the "Ontological Indeterminacy" of the microscopic world. Grounded in the grand framework of the Grand Unified Theory of Cosmic Mind (GUTCM), we propose an absolute geometric determinism model based on "Massless Dynamics" and "Inverted Singularity Topology (i.e., the Four-Dimensional Spatial Cosmic Membrane)." Through extreme dynamical argumentation, this paper points out that the superposition and randomness exhibited in quantum phenomena are by no means mysterious attributes built into microscopic entities. Their physical essence is the inevitable "Spacetime Aliasing" effect produced by macroscopic observers—limited by the low gravitational field spacetime metric and sluggish observational resolution—when perceiving extremely high-frequency physical interaction processes. To precisely describe this underlying operation, we integrate the 0/∞ Nothingness Model Reconstruction to establish two core mechanisms: The Infinite-Speed Processor Essence of the Four-Dimensional Inverted Singularity: The traditional Big Bang singularity is dead, but the inverted singularity of this universe is essentially a "four-dimensional spatial cosmic membrane" relentlessly crushed into existence by the absolute vacuum acting upon saturated particles. This physical membrane is constantly undergoing inside-out inversion at infinite speed, enveloping us (three-dimensional spacetime) within it. Therefore, the inverted singularity does not linger in the past, but is the "eternal present," possessing infinite topological tension and computational speed. Proper Time Collapse and Instantaneous Geometric Ergodicity: According to General Relativity, when a wave-state entity with rest mass m=0 moves along a null geodesic, its subjective proper time dτ≡0. When the zero-mass wave state contacts the ubiquitous four-dimensional cosmic membrane (inverted singularity), it essentially enters a server with "infinite computational speed." This endows the wave state with the absolute physical ability to achieve "instantaneous ergodicity" over the three-dimensional global spacetime coordinates without violating macroscopic causality. Based on this rigorous geometric framework, this research redefines and deconstructs two major quantum paradoxes of contemporary physics: Quantum Superposition: This is actually the trajectory afterimage left by the particle undergoing extreme high-frequency oscillation between the "infinite-speed processing layer of the four-dimensional inverted singularity (cosmic server-side)" and the "three-dimensional macroscopic spatial coordinates (observation client-side)." The wavefunction ∣Ψ∣² in the Schrödinger equation does not describe an ethereal probability of existence, but rather the "time-averaged distribution density" of the particle on this high-frequency cyclic path. Quantum Entanglement: All microscopic wormholes (ER bridges) are not randomly connected in three-dimensional space, but are directly connected to the "four-dimensional cosmic membrane (inverted singularity)" enveloping three-dimensional spacetime. Entangled particles, within the topological structure of the 4D membrane, strictly share a single "fully connected vertex." The so-called non-local spooky action is in fact the multiple geometric projections of a single high-dimensional information entity onto a three-dimensional manifold, possessing an indisputable "topological identity" at its core. This theory successfully blows away the non-deterministic fog of quantum mechanics entirely, perfectly converging it within the rigid geometric framework of General Relativity. We prove that the action at a distance and superposition in quantum mechanics are purely the mechanized, instantaneous mechanical reactions inevitably exhibited by the zero-mass wave state upon contacting the ubiquitous four-dimensional inverted singularity that possesses infinite-speed inversion capability.
Defining the Observer: A General Physical Criterion, Its Relation to Existing Models, Impossibility of the final ascent, and the Impossibility of the Ideal Limit. No treatment of quantum gravity that takes observers seriously can avoid the question of what an observer physically is, and existing treatments - including the author's own (Materov 2026a,b,c) - each state a modelling assumption for the observer without deriving it. This paper's contribution is narrow and specific, not a claim to be the first physical account of an observer: a particular combination of requirements (D1–D4) on the trajectory of an embedded tensor factor, a separately-argued self-capacity criterion for individuation (D3′) tied to the no-cloning theorem, and a short, self-contained no-go argument (Proposition 4.1) for complete reconstruction of an observer's complement. We show that the observer-notions already in use in Materov (2026a,b,c) relate to this combination in three structurally different ways - as a more general object, as a concrete realization, and as a structurally parallel system not yet unified with it - and work out one concrete case, the photonic Friend of Local-Friendliness experiments, in detail. Since no observer can be ideal in this omniscient sense, we instead investigate uniqueness for a weaker, separately-defined notion (a self-dominant observer, whose own representational capacity exceeds its observing capacity); no dimension-counting argument we have found forces this either, and the question remains, honestly, open.