Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Interface Fixation of Geometry and the Quantum Layer in Theory of Manifold Interfaces

Aleksey Salkutsan

Published May 2, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This version considers only the physical layer of the theory that is necessaryfor connecting spacetime geometry and the quantum structure of possibil-ities. The central thesis of this version is: geometry determines the domain of the possible, quantum physics determines the distribution of the possible Conceptually, this means the following. General relativity does not merelyprovide a force field; it provides a geometry of causal admissibility. Quan-tum physics does not provide an arbitrary multiplicity of states; it pro-vides an amplitude distribution over alternatives that are already admis-sible within the given causal geometry.1

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.19984404

Related papers

Theory of Manifold Interfaces TMI-QG-2.0: A Minimal Predictive Model of Interface-Induced Geometric Decoherence

Aleksey Salkutsan

This text fixes a cautious transition from the physical layer of the Theory of Manifold Interfaces to its quantum-gravitational layer. The text does not claim that quantum gravity has already been solved. Its task is more modest: to introduce an interface framework in which the metric ceases to be a fixed background, geometry is treated as a quan- tum possibility, and the physical interface describes the transition from geometric uncertainty to an effective classical structure of spacetime.

•May 2, 2026•0 citations

The Emergence of Space and Time

Christian Wüthrich

Causal set theory starts out from a central result in general relativity according to which the causal structure determines, up to a so-called ‘conformal factor’, the geometry of a relativistic spacetime. Space and time, it seems, must be part and parcel of the ontology of any physical theory, of any theory with a credible claim to being a physical theory, that is. After all, physics is the science of the fundamental constitution of the material bodies, their motion in space and time, and indeed of space and time themselves. There are two areas in physics in which space or spacetime may emerge from something qualitatively rather different: wave function monism in quantum mechanics and quantum theories of gravity. The former case concerns a particular interpretative issue in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The severity and the characteristics of the disappearance of spacetime differ from one approach to quantum gravity to another.

Routledge eBooks•Mar 13, 2019•32 citations

Quantum Concepts in Space and Time

Roger Penrose, Christopher John Isham

Recent developments in quantum theory have focused attention on fundamental questions, in particular on whether it might be necessary to modify quantum mechanics to reconcile quantum gravity and general relativity. This book is based on a conference held in Oxford in the spring of 1984 to discuss quantum gravity. It brings together contributors who examine different aspects of the problem, including the experimental support for quantum mechanics, its strange and apparently paradoxical features, its underlying philosophy, and possible modifications to the theory.

Clarendon Press eBooks•Jan 1, 1986•695 citations

Material Extension and Relational Separation Without Fundamental Spacetime

Peter Erik Ronald van Heijst

Modern theoretical physics rests on two highly successful but conceptually distinct frameworks: quantum mechanics and general relativity. While both theories are experimentally confirmed to high precision within their respective domains, they rely on fundamentally different starting points. General relativity takes spacetime as a primitive geometric structure, whereas quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of abstract state spaces without intrinsic spacetime meaning. Most approaches to quantum gravity attempt to reconcile this tension by modifying, quantizing, or discretizing spacetime itself. Even in approaches where spacetime is said to be “emergent,” it typically remains the primary conceptual backdrop on which physical processes are defined. Despite extensive efforts, there is no consensus on whether spacetime should be regarded as fundamental or derivative. In this work, a more radical starting point is explored. Rather than modifying spacetime or its geometry, we ask whether spacetime can be excluded entirely from the fundamental layer of the theory and recovered only at a later, operational stage. The central question is not how spacetime behaves, but whether the notion of “what lies between physical objects” must be spatial or temporal at the most fundamental level. We propose a framework—referred to here as Super Relativity (SR)—based on a single pre-geometric postulate: the existence of a monotonically expanding set of possible quantum configurations, referred to as the flux. Formally, this flux is represented as a monotone, σ-finite family of capacity measures on a common configuration space (introduced in Section 2). This postulate deliberately refrains from assuming spacetime, time ordering, metric structure, causality, or dynamics. Within this pre-geometric core, two derived, dimensionless notions are introduced: utilization, describing the realization of configurations, and saturation, defined as the ratio between utilized and available configurations. A central structural element of SR is the strict separation between a core layer and an interface layer. In the core layer, all quantities are pre-geometric and dimensionless, and no reference is made to space, time, motion, energy, or interaction. Only at the interface layer are operational notions introduced, including clocks, rulers, and signal propagation. Spacetime, in this construction, is not a dynamical entity but an effective bookkeeping structure that encodes relative rates of change once a calibration to physical units is performed. Within this framework, gravitational phenomena do not originate from spacetime curvature taken as fundamental. Instead, they arise from variations in saturation that, at the interface level, manifest as uniform rescalings of physical processes. When expressed in geometric language, these rescalings reproduce the standard predictions of general relativity, including gravitational time dilation and the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration. The invariant local speed of light is not postulated but follows as a derived consequence, since both clock rates and signal propagation are affected identically by the same underlying saturation mechanism. The aim of this paper is not to introduce new empirical predictions beyond those of general relativity, nor to present a complete theory of quantum gravity. Rather, the objective is foundational: to demonstrate that the mathematical structure of general relativity can be reconstructed from a single pre-geometric postulate without assuming spacetime as part of the fundamental ontology. In this sense, SR should be understood as a reconstruction and reinterpretation of known physics, rather than as a competing dynamical theory. An extended and fully explicit formulation of the framework, including all intermediate steps, is available in a companion preprint (version V12) deposited on Zenodo. The present paper restricts itself to the minimal conceptual and mathematical structure required to establish logical consistency and to demonstrate the emergence of general-relativistic behavior at the interface level.

•Jan 29, 2026•0 citations

Unified Information Theory: Accounting Invariance as a Constraint on Admissible Physical Theories

Misaki Mimura

We present a minimal structural framework in which relativistic causality and quantum probability emerge as effective descriptions, without postulating spacetime geometry, dynamical equations, or quantum states as primitives. The framework is based on resolution-dependent representations and an accounting invariant that tracks irreducible loss under coarse-graining. Crucially, we do not propose an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics, but identify minimal structural constraints under which any admissible physical theory must reduce to probabilistic descriptions. We show that locality and closure of admissible updates force causal cone structures and probabilistic state updates. Classical spacetime dynamics, such as General Relativity, can be understood within this framework as selected realizations that satisfy the same admissibility constraints under appropriate resolution regimes. Rather than competing with existing physical models, this theory constrains which models are physically admissible.

•Dec 28, 2025•0 citations

ON THE GEOMETRY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

Elisa Ercolessi, Giuseppe Morandi

We will present a short review of some work we have done in the last ten years with Giuseppe Marmo, on the attempt to formulate some interesting physical problems — such as the Quantum Inverse Problem, Alternative Structures and Berry Phase — in a geometrical setting.

International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics•Mar 1, 2012•2 citations
This version considers only the physical layer of the theory that is necessaryfor connecting spacetime geometry and the quantum structure of possibil-ities. The central thesis of this version is: geometry determines the domain of the possible, quantum physics determines the distribution of the possible Conceptually, this means the following. General relativity does not merelyprovide a force field; it provides a geometry of causal admissibility. Quan-tum physics does not provide an arbitrary multiplicity of states; it pro-vides an amplitude distribution over alternatives that are already admis-sible within the given causal geometry.1
Causal set theory starts out from a central result in general relativity according to which the causal structure determines, up to a so-called ‘conformal factor’, the geometry of a relativistic spacetime. Space and time, it seems, must be part and parcel of the ontology of any physical theory, of any theory with a credible claim to being a physical theory, that is. After all, physics is the science of the fundamental constitution of the material bodies, their motion in space and time, and indeed of space and time themselves. There are two areas in physics in which space or spacetime may emerge from something qualitatively rather different: wave function monism in quantum mechanics and quantum theories of gravity. The former case concerns a particular interpretative issue in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The severity and the characteristics of the disappearance of spacetime differ from one approach to quantum gravity to another.
Recent developments in quantum theory have focused attention on fundamental questions, in particular on whether it might be necessary to modify quantum mechanics to reconcile quantum gravity and general relativity. This book is based on a conference held in Oxford in the spring of 1984 to discuss quantum gravity. It brings together contributors who examine different aspects of the problem, including the experimental support for quantum mechanics, its strange and apparently paradoxical features, its underlying philosophy, and possible modifications to the theory.
Modern theoretical physics rests on two highly successful but conceptually distinct frameworks: quantum mechanics and general relativity. While both theories are experimentally confirmed to high precision within their respective domains, they rely on fundamentally different starting points. General relativity takes spacetime as a primitive geometric structure, whereas quantum mechanics is formulated in terms of abstract state spaces without intrinsic spacetime meaning. Most approaches to quantum gravity attempt to reconcile this tension by modifying, quantizing, or discretizing spacetime itself. Even in approaches where spacetime is said to be “emergent,” it typically remains the primary conceptual backdrop on which physical processes are defined. Despite extensive efforts, there is no consensus on whether spacetime should be regarded as fundamental or derivative. In this work, a more radical starting point is explored. Rather than modifying spacetime or its geometry, we ask whether spacetime can be excluded entirely from the fundamental layer of the theory and recovered only at a later, operational stage. The central question is not how spacetime behaves, but whether the notion of “what lies between physical objects” must be spatial or temporal at the most fundamental level. We propose a framework—referred to here as Super Relativity (SR)—based on a single pre-geometric postulate: the existence of a monotonically expanding set of possible quantum configurations, referred to as the flux. Formally, this flux is represented as a monotone, σ-finite family of capacity measures on a common configuration space (introduced in Section 2). This postulate deliberately refrains from assuming spacetime, time ordering, metric structure, causality, or dynamics. Within this pre-geometric core, two derived, dimensionless notions are introduced: utilization, describing the realization of configurations, and saturation, defined as the ratio between utilized and available configurations. A central structural element of SR is the strict separation between a core layer and an interface layer. In the core layer, all quantities are pre-geometric and dimensionless, and no reference is made to space, time, motion, energy, or interaction. Only at the interface layer are operational notions introduced, including clocks, rulers, and signal propagation. Spacetime, in this construction, is not a dynamical entity but an effective bookkeeping structure that encodes relative rates of change once a calibration to physical units is performed. Within this framework, gravitational phenomena do not originate from spacetime curvature taken as fundamental. Instead, they arise from variations in saturation that, at the interface level, manifest as uniform rescalings of physical processes. When expressed in geometric language, these rescalings reproduce the standard predictions of general relativity, including gravitational time dilation and the equivalence between gravitation and acceleration. The invariant local speed of light is not postulated but follows as a derived consequence, since both clock rates and signal propagation are affected identically by the same underlying saturation mechanism. The aim of this paper is not to introduce new empirical predictions beyond those of general relativity, nor to present a complete theory of quantum gravity. Rather, the objective is foundational: to demonstrate that the mathematical structure of general relativity can be reconstructed from a single pre-geometric postulate without assuming spacetime as part of the fundamental ontology. In this sense, SR should be understood as a reconstruction and reinterpretation of known physics, rather than as a competing dynamical theory. An extended and fully explicit formulation of the framework, including all intermediate steps, is available in a companion preprint (version V12) deposited on Zenodo. The present paper restricts itself to the minimal conceptual and mathematical structure required to establish logical consistency and to demonstrate the emergence of general-relativistic behavior at the interface level.
We present a minimal structural framework in which relativistic causality and quantum probability emerge as effective descriptions, without postulating spacetime geometry, dynamical equations, or quantum states as primitives. The framework is based on resolution-dependent representations and an accounting invariant that tracks irreducible loss under coarse-graining. Crucially, we do not propose an alternative formulation of quantum mechanics, but identify minimal structural constraints under which any admissible physical theory must reduce to probabilistic descriptions. We show that locality and closure of admissible updates force causal cone structures and probabilistic state updates. Classical spacetime dynamics, such as General Relativity, can be understood within this framework as selected realizations that satisfy the same admissibility constraints under appropriate resolution regimes. Rather than competing with existing physical models, this theory constrains which models are physically admissible.