In contemporary physics, information is commonly treated as something that is transported by physical carriers such as particles, waves, or fields. This assumption underlies signal-based interpretations of measurement, communication, and observation, and is often left implicit even in foundational discussions. In this paper, we show that such an assumption is not required. Building on a structure-first ordering—where geometry and constraint precede force and dynamics—we define information as state-difference under constraint, independent of transport mechanisms. Under this definition, information is not conveyed by carriers but becomes defined when a system resolves structural constraint. Light, particles, and fields function as probes or readout mechanisms rather than couriers of informational content. This reinterpretation dissolves several persistent conceptual tensions, including apparent nonlocality, measurement “collapse,” and the privileging of light as an informational substance. Information does not travel through spacetime; it is selected by coherence, boundary conditions, and resolution limits. This framing provides a foundation for later discussions of observability, coherence, and expansion, without invoking hidden variables, superluminal transfer, or observer-dependent ontology.
In contemporary physics, information is commonly treated as something that is transported by physical carriers such as particles, waves, or fields. This assumption underlies signal-based interpretations of measurement, communication, and observation, and is often left implicit even in foundational discussions. In this paper, we show that such an assumption is not required. Building on a structure-first ordering—where geometry and constraint precede force and dynamics—we define information as state-difference under constraint, independent of transport mechanisms. Under this definition, information is not conveyed by carriers but becomes defined when a system resolves structural constraint. Light, particles, and fields function as probes or readout mechanisms rather than couriers of informational content. This reinterpretation dissolves several persistent conceptual tensions, including apparent nonlocality, measurement “collapse,” and the privileging of light as an informational substance. Information does not travel through spacetime; it is selected by coherence, boundary conditions, and resolution limits. This framing provides a foundation for later discussions of observability, coherence, and expansion, without invoking hidden variables, superluminal transfer, or observer-dependent ontology.
This series reformulates light and photons without treating them as physical entities or carriers of energy. Light is described as a manifestation of null structure — the limiting geometry of causal relations — rather than as a propagating object or field excitation. Photons are identified as measurement-induced events, not pre-existing particles. Energy transfer is reinterpreted as constraint reconfiguration between emission and absorption, eliminating the need for energy transport through space. Null geometry is shown to possess causal structure without spatial extension or motion, functioning as the backbone upon which spacetime descriptions emerge. Measurement is placed prior to photon event formation, resolving longstanding paradoxes concerning localization, time experience, and the rest frame of light. The work removes object-based assumptions from electromagnetism and quantum optics, establishing a constraint-first, event-based framework that remains internally consistent without invoking hidden variables or additional postulates. The series concludes by identifying null structure as the boundary beyond which physical description ceases to be meaningful.
This preprint clarifies a persistent category error in the interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity by explicitly distinguishing propagation from correlation. Relativistic constraints, including the finite speed of light, apply to the transmission of energy, matter, and information through spacetime. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, permits nonlocal correlations between entangled systems that do not involve transmission, motion, or signal propagation. The apparent instantaneity of quantum effects therefore reflects the revelation of pre-existing correlation structure rather than superluminal dynamics. By maintaining this separation, the preprint shows that the finite speed of light and quantum nonlocality are not in conflict. Light is limited in speed because it propagates; quantum correlations have no speed because nothing propagates. This framing resolves common misconceptions surrounding entanglement, nonlocality, and causality without introducing hidden structures, preferred frames, or violations of relativistic invariance. The work is intended as a conceptual clarification and falsifiable interpretive framework, not a modification of quantum theory or relativity. Keywords quantum correlation nonlocality entanglement speed of light relativity causality non-signaling propagation vs correlation foundations of quantum mechanics conceptual clarification
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.
Zero Subjectivity Physics presents a foundations-level framework that removes subjectivity from the base ontology of physical theory while preserving the full operational role of observation. Modern physics successfully predicts what systems do, yet foundational discussions often reintroduce subjectivity—explicitly or implicitly—through observer primacy, awareness, or experiential assumptions. This paper argues that such moves are unnecessary and stem from an inherited anthropomorphic interpretation of observation rather than from physical necessity. In this framework, observation is treated as an operational regime: a physically instantiated pattern of constrained dynamics and information flow that can arise wherever certain stability, memory, self-reference, and latency conditions are satisfied. Observation is not owned by a subject, localized at a privileged vantage point, or endowed with intrinsic awareness. Like light, it is defined entirely by what it does, not by what it is. Duality and non-duality are reframed as observer-dependent descriptive modes applied to the same underlying physical processes, rather than as competing ontologies. Subjectivity, if it arises at all, is treated as a higher-level organizational feature of certain systems, not as a primitive ingredient of physical law. The framework is compatible with classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, decoherence-based measurement theory, and operational or relational approaches, while taking a stronger stance against any foundational role for subjectivity. By enforcing zero subjectivity at the base level, the paper clarifies the physics–philosophy boundary, dissolves persistent observer paradoxes, and constrains consciousness-first interpretations without denying the reality of observers as physical systems.
This preprint presents a foundations-level analysis of physical description based on structural dependency rather than dynamical construction. Quantum mechanics, classical mechanics, and relativistic spacetime are treated as effective regimes arising under different structural conditions, rather than as competing ontologies. The analysis identifies persistence under interaction, irreversible constraint accumulation, stable relational structure, and interaction as minimal requirements for physical behaviour. Collapse is characterised as irreversible loss of compatibility between alternative continuations, without appeal to observers, stochastic dynamics, or additional postulates. Time is treated as structural ordering induced by exclusion, rather than as a primitive background parameter. No new dynamics are proposed and no empirically successful theories are modified. The aim is to clarify explanatory dependencies that underlie familiar physical regimes and to dissolve persistent foundational problems that arise when regime-level descriptions are misidentified as foundations.
This paper presents a structural corollary clarifying the relationship between physical collapse, time, and consciousness within a structure-first framework. Collapse is interpreted as coagulation: the resolution of under-constrained physical states into persistent configurations under structural and thermodynamic constraint. Time is understood not as a background parameter or a construct imposed by consciousness, but as the accumulated ordering of resolved physical structure. Within this framework, consciousness is included in a strictly non-causal, non-dynamical role. It does not cause collapse, influence probabilities, or act upon matter. Instead, consciousness provides a framing condition under which resolved structure is registered as an ordered, continuous history. Awareness operates locally and phenomenologically, giving rise to experienced agency through compatibility matching rather than physical selection. By separating causation from framing, the paper closes the collapse–time–experience loop without introducing new forces, mechanisms, or metaphysical assumptions. The work does not attempt to exhaustively define consciousness or delimit its possible roles beyond what is minimally required for structural coherence. It is intended as a conservative interpretive contribution, compatible with established physical theory and prior analyses of consciousness as a non-force condition within constrained systems.