Classical, quantum, and relativistic formalisms successfully describe physical behavior across a wide range of regimes, yet they are typically treated as conceptually distinct frameworks. Despite this separation, each exhibits well-known limiting features, including finite response to applied influence, discrete outcome structure, and geometry-dependent admissibility of motion. Inthis work, we argue that these features are not independent, but instead reflect the presence of a shared admissibility constraint governing when physical evolution is permitted.We show that the coexistence of finite propagation, finite resolution, and finite response implies the existence of a bounded configuration region within which continuous evolution may occur, and beyond which evolution is forbidden. A generic constraint formulation is introduced to characterize this admissible region without modification of existing dynamical equations. Within this framework, classical inertial behavior corresponds to sustained evolution near the constraint boundary, quantum discreteness arises from boundary intersection during interior evolution, and relativistic effects follow from geometry-induced deformation of the admissible region.The purpose of the present analysis is not to replace established theories, but to identify a structural condition implicitly shared by them. By making this condition explicit, the relationship between classical, quantum, and relativistic limits may be understood as complementary projections of a common constraint, rather than as fundamentally separate descriptions.
Classical, quantum, and relativistic formalisms successfully describe physical behavior across a wide range of regimes, yet they are typically treated as conceptually distinct frameworks. Despite this separation, each exhibits well-known limiting features, including finite response to applied influence, discrete outcome structure, and geometry-dependent admissibility of motion. Inthis work, we argue that these features are not independent, but instead reflect the presence of a shared admissibility constraint governing when physical evolution is permitted.We show that the coexistence of finite propagation, finite resolution, and finite response implies the existence of a bounded configuration region within which continuous evolution may occur, and beyond which evolution is forbidden. A generic constraint formulation is introduced to characterize this admissible region without modification of existing dynamical equations. Within this framework, classical inertial behavior corresponds to sustained evolution near the constraint boundary, quantum discreteness arises from boundary intersection during interior evolution, and relativistic effects follow from geometry-induced deformation of the admissible region.The purpose of the present analysis is not to replace established theories, but to identify a structural condition implicitly shared by them. By making this condition explicit, the relationship between classical, quantum, and relativistic limits may be understood as complementary projections of a common constraint, rather than as fundamentally separate descriptions.
This work presents a continuous, constraint-based interpretive framework for physical systems that unifies quantum behavior, classical structure, and cosmological evolution without introducing new forces or modifying established equations. Rather than treating quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, and general relativity as fundamentally separate domains, the paper proposes that these regimes can be understood as consistent descriptions of a shared underlying structure. The framework is built on three foundational elements: a non-geometric substrate (P_0) defining admissible configurations, interaction as the propagation of constraint, and geometry as the macroscopic record of accumulated interaction. Within this perspective, physical structure emerges through a continuous progression: distinctions enable gradients, gradients enable interaction, interaction accumulates as constraint, and constraint stabilizes into persistent configurations. The quantum–classical transition is interpreted as a continuous increase in interaction-induced constraint, while spacetime curvature reflects the large-scale organization of these interactions. The framework does not replace existing theories, but instead provides a unified conceptual interpretation that remains fully consistent with established physics across known regimes. Its value lies in clarifying relationships between domains, offering a continuous ontology of physical systems, and suggesting potential directions for further formalization.
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.
(This version has been superceeded, see v.3) Contemporary approaches to physical unification typically emphasize dynamical laws, interpretive frameworks, or information-theoretic reconstructions. Less attention is given to the structural constraints that determine which physical descriptions can remain coherent and stable under interaction, scale transition, and aggregation. This paper develops a constraint-first analysis of coherence, arguing that persistence and unification require restrictions on admissible physical continuations that are not reducible to dynamics alone. Within the framework referred to here as Quantum Coherence Theory (QCT), coherence is treated not as a fragile quantum resource but as a structural property governed by interaction geometry and constraint density. On this view, classical behavior emerges when accumulated constraints sufficiently narrow admissible evolution, while quantum behavior re-emerges when constraints are relaxed. The account does not introduce new dynamics, collapse mechanisms, or modifications of quantum formalism, but instead clarifies the conditions under which existing formalisms yield stable, unified descriptions. The resulting constraints distinguish QCT from observer-centric, intrinsic-collapse, and purely descriptive decoherence accounts, while remaining compatible with globally unitary dynamics. Formal analysis in later sections develops operational redundancy conditions, admissibility constraints on joint states, and rigidity-style arguments linking redundant record structure to the stability of classical descriptions. These results do not constitute a complete theory of unification, but they narrow the space of physically admissible descriptions and clarify the structural role of coherence in bridging quantum and classical regimes.
This paper proposes a structural framework in which physical laws and quantum probability emerge from a common admissibility principle, rather than from the unification of dynamical equations.No new forces, fields, particles, or dynamical laws are introduced.Instead, a universal structural constraint governing which states are admissible as physically realizable is identified. Building on results established in Admissibility Frameworks I and II, the existence of a universal frame constant limiting allowable transitions is taken as a starting point.From this principle, an equation of existence is formulated, which does not describe time evolution but instead delineates the boundary between admissible and non-admissible states.Different physical interactions are shown to correspond to distinct structural interpretations of the same admissibility condition. Within this framework, quantum states are interpreted not as probability amplitudes but as admissibility distributions.Measurement is described as structural filtering at the admissibility boundary, rather than as a dynamical collapse process.Under minimal and physically natural assumptions—phase invariance, orthogonal additivity, and locality—the admissibility measure is shown to be uniquely quadratic, yielding the Born rule as a structural consequence rather than a postulate. The resulting theory reframes unification as the closure of existence conditions shared by all physical theories.Dynamics remain domain-specific, but admissibility is universal.In this sense, unification is achieved not by combining forces, but by identifying the single structural condition under which any physical state may exist. AI Usage Declaration: The core concepts and mathematical intuitions of this paper were conceived by the author (Byeong-Young Oh). The technical formalization of the mathematical framework and the English drafting process were performed in collaboration with Artificial Intelligence (AI) models. The author takes full responsibility for the contents and logical integrity of this work. This work is part of an ongoing independent research program. Official research index :https://jingyu-papa.github.io/publications/
Quantum tunnelling provides an empirically successful description of discrete transitions that are classically forbidden, particularly in radioactive decay and related quantum processes. While the mathematical formalism accurately predicts decay rates and barrier dependence, its physical interpretation remains a subject of ongoing discussion. In this paper, we adopt a structure-first interpretive framework in which tunnelling is understood not as literal traversal of forbidden regions, but as a statistical description of discrete resolution when continuous temporal evolution is inadmissible. We introduce the concept of structural non-admissibility, referring to configurations in which no continuous reconfiguration pathway exists under existing constraints. In such cases, systems persist metastably until discrete reconfiguration becomes unavoidable, accompanied by emission. Probability and exponential decay laws are interpreted as ensemble-level signatures of under-resolved structural dynamics rather than intrinsic randomness. This work does not modify quantum mechanics or its equations, but clarifies the ordering of explanation by distinguishing between structural conditions that necessitate discrete transitions and the probabilistic formalisms that describe them.
Physical theories constrain systems through equations of motion, symmetries, boundary conditions, and variational principles. In many cases these constraints do not uniquely specify a single trajectory or configuration, but instead permit a family of admissible histories consistent with the same governing structure. This multiplicity is often treated implicitly, absorbed into formalism, or deferred to probabilistic interpretation. In this work, I introduce allowity as a diagnostic concept that characterizes the effective extent of admissible histories implied by a set of constraints, prior to any statistical weighting, measurement, or interpretation. Allowity is not randomness, uncertainty, freedom, or ignorance; it is a structural property of constraint-based descriptions. By making admissibility explicit, this framework clarifies how physical descriptions may remain stable despite non-uniqueness, or become brittle despite apparent determinism. The analysis is conservative and framework-neutral: it introduces no new dynamics and modifies no existing formalism.