Formal Structure and Consequences of the Invariant Core Theory (P2v8, clean reference version)

Abstract

This component develops the formal consequences of Invariant Core Theory and analyzes time, dynamics, Hilbert-space, and spacetime representations as regime-dependent realizations of the invariant core. Version "v7 Clean"removes publisher branding; content unchanged. Orientation for Readers – P2: Formal Structure and Consequences of the Invariant Core Theory This paper develops the structural consequences of the Invariant Core Theory (ICT) established in P1. It does not extend the formal core and does not introduce new axioms. Instead, it analyzes how familiar physical description frameworks arise—or fail to arise—as admissible representations of that core. What this paper does It examines time, dynamics, Hilbert-space formalisms, and spacetime geometry as representations, not as fundamental structures. It formulates explicit admissibility criteria (e.g. kernel-faithfulness and regime transparency). It explains why certain features of modern physics - entanglement, absence of global time, probabilistic structure, spacetime curvature - are structurally necessary, not dynamical assumptions. It derives structural no-go results that constrain admissible theory construction. This paper answers the question: Given the invariant core, which forms of physical description are possible - and under which conditions do they break down? What this paper deliberately does not do It does not propose new physical laws or interactions. It does not unify quantum theory and general relativity dynamically. It does not derive numerical predictions or fit experimental data. It does not claim ontological priority for any representational framework. Any reading of this paper as a competing physical theory, interpretation, or model would therefore be a category error. How to read this paper All results are structural and representational, not dynamical. “Predictions” are constraints on admissibility, not empirical forecasts. No-go statements exclude classes of explanations, not observed phenomena. Apparent conflicts between quantum and geometric descriptions are treated as representational conflicts, not physical contradictions. The paper should be read as a map of representational regimes and limits, not as a proposal for new dynamics. Intended audience This work is addressed to readers with background in: theoretical or mathematical physics, foundations of quantum theory or relativity, philosophy of physics with interest in structure and representation. Familiarity with standard formalisms is assumed, but the paper does not presuppose agreement with any particular interpretation or unification program. Relation to P1 and scope of validity P2 presupposes the formal core developed in P1. No concept introduced here has independent meaning outside that core. Conversely, P1 is structurally complete without P2, while P2 is conceptually dependent on P1. Together, the two papers form a closed framework: P1 establishes what must be structurally true. P2 analyzes how physical descriptions can be admissible given those truths.