This paper develops the regime‑based structure of the coherence parameter c(t) as the organising principle of Level‑1 representational physics. Building on the stabilisation criteria and state‑mapping formalism introduced in Paper 12, it identifies three coherence regimes—high‑c, intermediate‑c, and low‑c—and shows how major quantum and relativistic phenomena arise as direct consequences of transitions between these regimes. Decoherence is reformulated as a fundamental representational drift driven by the monotonic decrease of c(t), rather than as an environment‑induced process. Tunneling is reinterpreted as bandwidth exit: a Level‑1 mode becomes evanescent in low‑coherence regions and reappears when stabilisation becomes possible again. Entanglement and Bell violations are described as manifestations of shared Level‑1 modes, whose breakdown under decreasing coherence naturally yields classical correlations. Horizon‑like behaviour emerges as a coherence boundary rather than a geometric surface. The resulting framework unifies decoherence, tunneling, entanglement, Bell inequalities, and horizon phenomena under a single representational principle. Paper 13 thus provides the dynamical bridge between the operational constructions of Paper 12 and the empirical analyses developed in Paper 14.
This paper develops the regime‑based structure of the coherence parameter c(t) as the organising principle of Level‑1 representational physics. Building on the stabilisation criteria and state‑mapping formalism introduced in Paper 12, it identifies three coherence regimes—high‑c, intermediate‑c, and low‑c—and shows how major quantum and relativistic phenomena arise as direct consequences of transitions between these regimes. Decoherence is reformulated as a fundamental representational drift driven by the monotonic decrease of c(t), rather than as an environment‑induced process. Tunneling is reinterpreted as bandwidth exit: a Level‑1 mode becomes evanescent in low‑coherence regions and reappears when stabilisation becomes possible again. Entanglement and Bell violations are described as manifestations of shared Level‑1 modes, whose breakdown under decreasing coherence naturally yields classical correlations. Horizon‑like behaviour emerges as a coherence boundary rather than a geometric surface. The resulting framework unifies decoherence, tunneling, entanglement, Bell inequalities, and horizon phenomena under a single representational principle. Paper 13 thus provides the dynamical bridge between the operational constructions of Paper 12 and the empirical analyses developed in Paper 14.
Paper 14 develops the quantitative coherence dynamics that follow from the representational framework introduced in Papers 11–13 of The Articulation of Postulate P1. Building on the dissipative generator formulated in Paper 12 and the coherence‑regime structure of Paper 13, this work derives explicit dynamical equations for the bandwidth function c(t). These equations yield closed‑form expressions for coherence drift, decoherence timescales, tunneling corrections, and finite‑time coherence boundaries. The results provide the first operational bridge between Level‑1 representational dynamics and experimentally accessible Level‑2 behaviour. The framework predicts measurable deviations from standard quantum mechanics in regimes where c(t) varies appreciably, including drift‑induced decoherence, coherence‑dependent tunneling suppression, and horizon‑like loss of representability. Paper 14 therefore completes the transition from conceptual reinterpretation to quantitative prediction, preparing the ground for the experimental proposal developed in Paper 15.
This work is Part 2 of a three‑paper series developing the physical consequences of Postulate P1. Building on the formal framework established in Part 1, this paper develops the dynamical interpretation of quantum behaviour as a direct consequence of representational coherence and structural openness. The analysis introduces the remainder term x and the minimal coherence threshold Cmin, which together determine the transition between classical stability and quantum manifestation.Quantum phenomena—interference, tunneling, superposition, entanglement, and cloud‑chamber tracks—are reinterpreted as expressions of representational multiplicity within an open domain rather than as properties of ontological particles or waves. The paper introduces a modified path‑integral framework in which integration domains are intrinsically incomplete and amplitudes become coherence‑weighted. The classical extremal condition δS=0 is replaced by the structurally mandated condition δS=x, unifying classical and quantum regimes as coherence‑dependent manifestations of the same representational structure.The work further develops the emergence of interaction, symmetry, and conservation laws as coherence‑stability regimes rather than fundamental ontological constraints. Several observational implications are identified, including potential departures from standard quantum mechanics in near‑dissolution, ultra‑low‑coherence, and boundary‑instability regimes. This paper provides the dynamical core of the P1 framework and prepares the way for Part 3, where established physical laws will be derived as limiting cases of maximal coherence.
This paper develops the first experimental test of the representational framework introduced in Papers 1–14. Building on the coherence dynamics derived in Paper 14 and the regime structure established in Paper 13, it identifies a measurable deviation from standard quantum mechanics arising from the coherence‑dependent dissipation rate γ(c)=γ0e−βc. The paper shows that this exponential form is not an arbitrary ansatz but the minimal monotone function compatible with the structural and phenomenological constraints of the framework. Using a superconducting flux‑qubit architecture, the work derives the predicted tunneling suppression, specifies the observable signatures, and identifies the parameter regimes in which the deviation becomes experimentally accessible. The analysis demonstrates robustness under alternative dissipation laws and under controlled environmental noise. With this paper, the representational programme completes its transition from conceptual reinterpretation to empirical testability, providing a concrete experimental pathway for probing the coherence dynamics at the core of Postulate P1.
We present an emergent account of quantum theory based on a minimal correlational framework in which no fundamental states, dynamics, or probabilistic axioms are assumed. Quantum behavior arises from admissible decoherent projections that induce equivalence classes of correlational configurations and suppress relational phase information. Effective quantum states are identified with these equivalence classes, while probability emerges as a normalized structural measure over them. The Born rule is recovered as a consistency condition associated with linear representations of equivalence classes, and measurement is reinterpreted as a structural interaction defined by projection rather than as a physical collapse. Decoherence, probability, and classicality are unified as manifestations of restricted access to correlational information stabilized by persistence. Quantum theory is thereby situated as an emergent, regime-dependent description alongside propagation and gravitation, resolving its conceptual puzzles by demoting its formal elements from fundamental postulates to effective constructs.
This paper develops a dual-domain framework for quantum foundations grounded in a structural distinction between a nonlocal, atemporal coherence domain (denoted −0) and a local, temporal decoherence domain (denoted +1). Quantum states are interpreted as existing within −0, while classical outcomes emerge when these states transition irreversibly into +1 through decoherence and measurement. The framework is not a modification of quantum mechanics but a reinterpretation of its ontological domain. The framework provides a unified ontological account of: quantum entanglement and nonlocal correlations; the absence of superluminal signalling; the emergence of classicality through decoherence; the mass dependence of decoherence rates; and the persistent incompatibility between quantum field theory and general relativity. Within this model, entanglement corresponds to the persistence of a single −0 state across multiple +1 localisations. Measurement is interpreted not as a collapse occurring within spacetime, but as a boundary transition from coherence to localisation. The paper further argues that gravity should not be interpreted as a quantum field propagating within spacetime, but rather as the geometric structure of the coherence–decoherence boundary itself. This perspective offers a principled explanation for the persistent incompatibility between quantum field theory and general relativity — a tension that may arise not from technical deficiency but from a category error: attempting to describe boundary geometry as though it were content within one of the domains it separates.
This work presents an interpretive framework in which quantum entanglement is understood as a manifestation of correlations in a continuous underlying field structure, rather than as a non-local linkage between discrete particles. Within standard quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, the framework introduces a co-scaling field τ(x,t), representing local temporal and structural scaling, and a disturbance field ϵ(x,t), capturing path-dependent and environmental perturbations. In this view, entanglement corresponds to the non-factorizability of the global field state across spatial regions, while decoherence arises from ϵ-induced degradation of phase coherence and correlation accessibility. The τ–ϵ decomposition provides a unified interpretation of interference, entanglement, and decoherence as different aspects of the same underlying field dynamics. The framework is consistent with established results, including Bell inequality violations and open-system dynamics, and connects naturally to experimentally relevant notions such as phase noise and channel-induced decoherence. Rather than modifying the formalism of quantum theory, this work offers a physically grounded interpretation linking quantum correlations to medium structure and propagation effects, with potential relevance to both foundational theory and applied domains.