This paper proposes a novel framework to derive all known laws of physics from a single foundational principle: the *Law of Consistency*, introduced in Section 2 and elaborated in Section 7. By applying this law to symmetric states and conditions—regardless of the method of execution—it becomes possible, through pure mathematical reasoning, to reconstruct both classical mechanics (as developed by Isaac Newton) and, more significantly, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is reinterpreted in this paper under a new conceptual framework rooted in consistency, providing coherent explanations for key phenomena such as entanglement, decoherence, wave function collapse, interference, the Pauli exclusion principle, and others. The principle of consistency is also extended to the domain of special relativity and shown to underlie its transition into general relativity. Some well-known equations (e.g., *E = mc²*) are re-derived, not for novelty, but to emphasize their foundational basis in the proposed axioms of consistency (Axioms 1 and 2) and logical deduction. Constants of nature (e.g., Planck's constant, *G*, *k*, etc.) are not addressed in this work. It is argued that they may represent arbitrarily assigned values within the universe, preserved through space and time by definition and by the consistency law
This paper proposes a novel framework to derive all known laws of physics from a single foundational principle: the Law of Consistency, introduced in Section 2 and elaborated in Section 7. By applying this law to symmetric states and conditions—regardless of the method of execution—it becomes possible, through pure mathematical reasoning, to reconstruct both classical mechanics (as developed by Isaac Newton) and, more significantly, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is reinterpreted in this paper under a new conceptual framework rooted in consistency, providing coherent explanations for key phenomena such as entanglement, decoherence, wave function collapse, interference, the Pauli exclusion principle, and others. The principle of consistency is also extended to the domain of special relativity and shown to underlie its transition into general relativity. Some well-known equations (e.g., E = mc²) are re-derived, not for novelty, but to emphasize their foundational basis in the proposed axioms of consistency (Axioms 1 and 2) and logical deduction. Constants of nature (e.g., Planck's constant, G, k, etc.) are not addressed in this work. It is argued that they may represent arbitrarily assigned values within the universe, preserved through space and time by definition and by the consistency law
This paper proposes a novel framework to derive all known laws of physics from a single foundational principle: the *Law of Consistency*, introduced in Section 2. By applying this law to symmetric states and conditions—regardless of the method of execution—it becomes possible, through pure mathematical reasoning, to reconstruct both classical mechanics (as developed by Isaac Newton) and, more significantly, quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is reinterpreted in this paper under a new conceptual framework rooted in consistency, providing coherent explanations for key phenomena such as entanglement, decoherence, wave function collapse, interference, the Pauli exclusion principle, and others. The principle of consistency is also extended to the domain of special relativity and shown to underlie its transition into general relativity. Some well-known equations (e.g., *E = mc²*) are re-derived, not for novelty, but to emphasize their foundational basis in the proposed axioms of consistency (Axioms 1 and 2) and logical deduction. Constants of nature (e.g., Planck's constant, *G*, *k*, etc.) are not addressed in this work.they may represent arbitrarily assigned values within the universe,but must be preserved through space and time by definition of the consistency laws.
This work presents an axiomatic and structural reconstruction of core elements of quantum mechanics. Starting from minimal principles — symmetry under vanishing preference, normalization, consistency of probability assignments, and coherence-preserving dynamics — we derive several central features of the quantum formalism rather than postulating them. Key results include: A geometric derivation of the constants 1/21/\sqrt{2}1/2 and 1/21/21/2 from symmetry and normalization. A theorem-level derivation of the Born rule (including the qubit case) from noncontextuality and additivity. A reconstruction of Schrödinger dynamics from reversible norm-preserving structure. A derivation of the tensor-product structure for composite systems from composition axioms and local tomography, with entanglement emerging as a necessary consequence. Formal treatment of Bell–CHSH nonlocality, Tsirelson’s bound, and no-signalling. A conditional reconstruction of complex Hilbert space structure from intrinsic phase dynamics and compositional consistency. The manuscript is self-contained and framed in standard mathematical-physics language. It does not propose modifications to quantum mechanics, but instead clarifies why many of its defining structures arise inevitably from deeper structural constraints. Prior computational and model-based work by the authors (including diagnostic toy models exploring phase locking, coherence stabilization, and recursive-time dynamics) is acknowledged but intentionally not reproduced here, in order to keep the present work focused on axiomatic structure rather than model-specific architecture. This upload is intended as a foundations and reconstruction contribution, suitable for readers interested in the mathematical and conceptual structure of quantum theory.
We formulate a general principle that supplants a Boolean σ-algebra of intrinsic properties of a classical system by a σ-complex (a union of σ-algebras) of extrinsic properties of a quantum system that are elicited by interactions with other systems. We apply the canonical definitions of the concepts of classical physics of observables, states, combined systems, symmetries, and dynamics to derive the standard quantum characterizations, including the Schrödinger equation and the von Neumann-Lüder's Projection Rule. This manifestly consistent reconstruction of quantum mechanics is then used to discuss and resolve the dilemmas of the orthodox interpretation.
Repulsive phenomena occupy a central place in the structure of the physical world, yet the foundations of repulsion remain poorly understood. The Pauli exclusion principle prohibits fermions from occupying identical quantum states but offers no ontological reason for why such overlap is impossible. Similarly, Coulomb’s law asserts that like charges repel, but the sign and direction of the interaction are inserted into electromagnetic theory rather than derived from deeper principles. In this paper, a unified structural account of repulsion is developed using the Structural Unified Field (SUF) framework, which treats physical entities as layered existence structures required to maintain minimal separability across attribute domains. The non-overlap axiom states that distinct entities cannot project into overlapping configurations without collapsing their structural identity. We show that Pauli exclusion arises from non-overlap in quantum-state space, while Coulomb repulsion emerges from non-overlap in the electrostatic domain. Spatial impenetrability, interatomic repulsion, and degeneracy pressure are likewise interpreted as manifestations of the same structural constraint. This structural ontology reframes repulsion as neither a force nor an axiomatic rule but as a universal consequence of identity preservation. The approach clarifies long-standing foundational issues concerning indistinguishability, the spin–statistics connection, the nature of quantum forces, and the role of structure in physical law. By grounding repulsion in a single ontological principle, the SUF framework provides a conceptually unified basis for diverse repulsive phenomena and suggests new directions for foundational research in quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and the philosophy of physics.
By expanding the research paradigm and reconciling the two binary oppositions of "relative and absolute" and "quantum and classical" in physics, a new theoretical framework that is compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics is proposed. Firstly, excavate and establish three universal axioms: Axiom 1 (consensus guarantees equal rights), Axiom 2 (objective existence independent of measurement), and Axiom 3 (universality of causality and dialectical logic), based on which to criticize the logical contradictions of existing theories. In the field of relativity, this article points out that there is a logical paradox in the explanation of "clock slowing down depends on relative motion" in special relativity (A clock is both faster and slower than B clock), and proposes a relative absolute spacetime view that "absolute motion leads to clock slowing down". By extending the Lorentz transformation, absolute motion and relative motion are unified, solving problems such as the twin paradox. At the same time, based on the prediction of the Dirac equation for negative mass matter, the "negative mass spacetime curvature paradox" is proposed, challenging Einstein's physical explanation of spacetime curvature and arguing that it is only a mathematical tool (the mathematical expression of gravity) rather than a physical reality. In the field of quantum mechanics, this article criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation for violating Axiom 2 (denying the independent eigenstates of microscopic particles). By modifying the Schrödinger equation twice (For the first time, electromagnetic potential energy was replaced with gravitational potential energy, and the Schrödinger-Tu equation was established to describe macroscopic objects such as the Earth's revolution; The second step is to convert potential energy into electromagnetic/gravitational force and derive the wave mechanics equation of classical mechanics laws, such as Newton's second law with force operator), proves that quantum and classical theories are compatible within the same mathematical framework. In the experiment, it was demonstrated through the "anti-interference electron diffraction experiment" that a strong magnetic field only changes the shape of diffraction fringes without causing them to disappear, denying the inevitability of quantum decoherence. The establishment of "generalized wave dynamics" and "relative absolute spacetime view" breaks the binary opposition of traditional theories and provides a new paradigm for the unity of relativity and quantum mechanics. The core value of these jobs lies in: In terms of theoretical innovation, reconstruct the space-time and quantum interpretation system, while retaining the original mathematical form system; In terms of experimental verification, design feasible schemes such as hollow glass disk Jones experiment and geometric optical velocimetry experiment; In terms of philosophical significance, replacing "mathematical symmetry" with "content unity" and returning to the objectivity of physical mechanisms. The research conclusion indicates that by expanding paradigms and axiomatic constraints, the contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics can be transformed into a complementary relationship, laying the foundation for the great unity of physics theory
Introduction Quantum mechanics is based on the intuition that the essential difference between atomic physics and classical physics is the occurrence of discontinuities (see in particular [1,4,58–63]). Quantum mechanics should thus be considered a direct continuation of the quantum theory founded by Planck, Einstein and Bohr. Bohr in particular stressed repeatedly, already before the birth of quantum mechanics, that the discontinuities must lead to the introduction of new kinematical and mechanical concepts, so that indeed classical mechanics and its corresponding conceptual scheme should be abandoned [1,4]. Quantum mechanics tries to introduce the new concepts through a precise analysis of what is ‘observable in principle’. In fact, this does not mean setting up the principle that a sharp division between ‘observable’ and ‘unobservable’ quantities is possible and necessary. As soon as a conceptual scheme is given, one can infer from the observations to other facts that are actually not observable directly, and the boundary between ‘observable’ and ‘unobservable’ quantities becomes altogether indeterminate. But if the conceptual scheme itself is still unknown, it will be expedient to enquire only about the observations themselves, without drawing conclusions from them, because otherwise wrong concepts and prejudices taken over from before will block the way to recognising the physical relationships [Zusammenhänge].