The distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally analyzed based on concepts such as determinism, the continuous or discrete nature of variables, the non-commutativity of observables, and the superposition of states. This article proposes a more fundamental reinterpretation based on two complementary conceptual ingredients. The first is a minimal relational epistemology, developed from the author's previous work, in which space and time are not a priori frames but emerge from comparisons of movements between systems. The second is an analysis of the role played by the possibility—or impossibility—of defining independent events, a possibility that depends precisely on the prior construction of a spatio-temporal and causal structure. We show that the essential difference between classical physics and quantum physics lies in the rule of probability composition, and not in the features usually invoked. Quantum physics appears to be a coherent description of a physical regime prior to the establishment of the causal independence of events. The two conceptual ingredients are summarized in the form of axioms, broad enough to offer a new perspective on the usual notions of quantum physics, which we review here. Accompanying this text, another article presents more technical developments.
The distinction between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally analyzed based on concepts such as determinism, the continuous or discrete nature of variables, the non-commutativity of observables, and the superposition of states. This article proposes a more fundamental reinterpretation based on two complementary conceptual ingredients. The first is a minimal relational epistemology, developed from the author's previous work, in which space and time are not a priori frames but emerge from comparisons of movements between systems. The second is an analysis of the role played by the possibility—or impossibility—of defining independent events, a possibility that depends precisely on the prior construction of a spatio-temporal and causal structure. We show that the essential difference between classical physics and quantum physics lies in the rule of probability composition, and not in the features usually invoked. Quantum physics appears to be a coherent description of a physical regime prior to the establishment of the causal independence of events. The two conceptual ingredients are summarized in the form of axioms, broad enough to offer a new perspective on the usual notions of quantum physics, which we review here. Accompanying this text, another article presents more technical developments.
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.
Quantum mechanics successfully predicts experimental outcomes, yet its geometric and causal interpretation remains an open area of foundational inquiry. Concepts such as superposition, interference, and decoherence are frequently described as intrinsically probabilistic or nonclassical, often leaving unresolved whether these behaviors reflect fundamental randomness or limitations of our representational framework. This paper proposes a geometric reinterpretation in which quantum phenomena arise from the projection of a deeper causal structure into observer-dependent frames. Through thought experiments only, this work explores the possible literal interpretation of an orthogonal space-causal frame of reference, associated with null propagation, within a physical tradition otherwise strongly rooted in time-causal description. In our familiar time-causal frame, time is treated as the ordered causal axis and space as a volumetric domain of alternatives. Introduced here is a complementary space-causal frame, in which space becomes the ordered causal axis while time forms a volumetric domain of alternatives. Within this framework, superposition, interference, and decoherence emerge as consequences of geometric constraint rather than physical collapse. This approach preserves relativistic causality, introduces no additional dimensions, and leaves experimental predictions unchanged while offering a unified conceptual account of quantum behavior.
This article presents a novel foundational framework for physics, grounded in a minimalist vectorial ontology. I propose that the unified fabric of reality is described by a fundamental abstract state space F, whose elements are normed vectors Ψ. From this single premise, a complete axiomatization of space-time and quantum phenomena is derived. The core innovation is the definition of space and time not as independent continua, but as complementary projections of the state vector: Ψ = (S, T). A set of nine axioms is introduced, imposing constraints on these components: their magnitudes are equal (|S| = c|T|), their directions are antiparallel (S = -T), and their evolution is a norm-preserving unitary redistribution. From these purely algebraic and geometric relations, I demonstrate the emergence of Minkowskian space-time with its Lorentzian metric, the invariant speed of light c, and a causal structure defined by the connectivity of F. The framework naturally incorporates quantum mechanics by identifying unitary evolution on F as the fundamental dynamical principle, with measurement and classicality arising via environmental decoherence and the dynamical selection of pointer states (Axiom IX). This work offers a path toward resolving the quantum gravity problem by suggesting that both geometry and quantum states are manifestations of a deeper vectorial substrate, thereby unifying relativity and quantum theory within a single, observer-independent mathematical structure.
This paper introduces Axiom 0, a minimal foundational principle for physical reality: the impossibility of any globally closed description of the total correlational structure. Rather than postulating space, time, dynamics, locality, or physical laws as primitive, the framework assumes only: (i) the existence of a correlational structure, (ii) the structural impossibility of complete self-closure, and (iii) consistency under partial comparison. From these ingredients, the paper shows how: physical laws emerge as stabilizing regularities of incomplete descriptions, time, dynamics, and geometry arise as effective, regime-dependent structures, irreversibility follows from projection and information loss, and why no description can be both exact and globally complete. Non-closure is treated as an ontological constraint, not as epistemic ignorance or observer dependence. Physical reality exists precisely because complete closure is impossible, independently of observation or modeling. The paper does not attempt to replace existing physical theories or derive numerical constants. Instead, it provides a structural foundation within which effective physical theories (quantum, classical, relativistic, and open-system regimes) can be consistently understood as emergent and domain-limited. This work is intended as a conceptual and structural foundation for correlational and relational approaches to fundamental physics, clarifying the origin of laws, dynamics, and physical regularity without invoking additional ontological postulates.
We argue that (1) our perception of time through change and (2) the gap between reality and our observation of it are at the heart of both quantum mechanics and the dynamical mechanism of physical systems. We suggest that the origin of quantum uncertainty lies with the absence of infinities or infinitesimals in observational data and that our concept of time derives from observing changing data (events). We argue that the fundamentally important content of the Superposition Principle is not the "probability amplitude" of posterior state observation but future state availability conditional only on prior information. Since event detection also implies posterior conditions (e.g. a specific type of detectable event occurred) as well as prior conditions, the probabilities of detected outcomes are also conditional on properties of the posterior properties of the observation. Such posterior conditions cannot affect the prior state availabilities and this implies violation of counter-factual definiteness. A component of a quantum system may be chosen to represent a clock and changes in other components can then be expected to be correlated with clocks with which they are entangled. Instead of traditional time-dependent equations of motion we provide a specific mechanism whereby evolution of data is instead quasi-causally related to the relative \availability\ of states and equations of motion are expressed in terms of quantized clock variables. We also suggest that time-reversal symmetry-breaking in weak interactions is an artifice of a conventional choice of co-ordinate time-function. Analysis of a "free" particle suggests that conventional co-ordinate space-time emerges from how we measure the separation of objects and events.