Twentieth-century physics was shaped by two profound revolutions. The first, Einstein's relativity, banished absolute space and time from the foundations of physics. Motion, Einstein showed, possesses no absolute meaning—only relative motion between observers merits physical description. The second, quantum mechanics, dismantled the classical notion of determinacy. A physical quantity, before measurement, is not merely unknown but genuinely indefinite, suspended in a superposition of possibilities. These two revolutions, for all their splendor, have never spoken a common language. General relativity describes a world of continuous, deterministic geometry; quantum mechanics, a world of discrete, probabilistic events. Their unification—a theory of quantum gravity—remains the central unsolved problem of theoretical physics. We diagnose this impasse not as a technical failure, but as a conceptual incompleteness. The two revolutions, in their original domains, stopped short of questioning a premise both inherited from classical thought: that physical reality, determinacy, and facts themselves are absolute—that they exist independently of the framework through which they are described. Einstein relativized motion but left the existence of spacetime geometry absolute. Quantum mechanics relativized the values of observables but left the fact of an outcome unexplained, consigning it to the mysterious "measurement process." Neither theory asked: in what sense is a fact—that a quantity has a definite value, that an event has occurred, that a physical reality is thus and not otherwise—itself relative to a descriptive framework? This is the question the present work undertakes to answer. In doing so, it completes the program of relativity—not by appending new terms to old equations, but by extending the principle of relativity to its ultimate domain: being itself.
Twentieth-century physics was shaped by two profound revolutions. The first, Einstein's relativity, banished absolute space and time from the foundations of physics. Motion, Einstein showed, possesses no absolute meaning—only relative motion between observers merits physical description. The second, quantum mechanics, dismantled the classical notion of determinacy. A physical quantity, before measurement, is not merely unknown but genuinely indefinite, suspended in a superposition of possibilities. These two revolutions, for all their splendor, have never spoken a common language. General relativity describes a world of continuous, deterministic geometry; quantum mechanics, a world of discrete, probabilistic events. Their unification—a theory of quantum gravity—remains the central unsolved problem of theoretical physics. We diagnose this impasse not as a technical failure, but as a conceptual incompleteness. The two revolutions, in their original domains, stopped short of questioning a premise both inherited from classical thought: that physical reality, determinacy, and facts themselves are absolute—that they exist independently of the framework through which they are described. Einstein relativized motion but left the existence of spacetime geometry absolute. Quantum mechanics relativized the values of observables but left the fact of an outcome unexplained, consigning it to the mysterious "measurement process." Neither theory asked: in what sense is a fact—that a quantity has a definite value, that an event has occurred, that a physical reality is thus and not otherwise—itself relative to a descriptive framework? This is the question the present work undertakes to answer. In doing so, it completes the program of relativity—not by appending new terms to old equations, but by extending the principle of relativity to its ultimate domain: being itself.
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
This article presents a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics. It extends the meaning of “measurement” to include all property-indicating facts. Intrinsically, space is undifferentiated: There are no points on which a world of locally instantiated physical properties could be built. Instead, reality is built on facts, in the sense that the properties of things are extrinsic, or supervenient on property-indicating facts. The actual extent to which the world is spatially and temporally differentiated (that is, the extent to which spatiotemporal relations and distinctions are warranted by the facts) is necessarily limited. Notwithstanding that the state vector does nothing but assign probabilities, quantum mechanics affords a complete understanding of the actual world. If there is anything that is incomplete, it is the actual world, but its incompleteness exists only in relation to a conceptual framework that is more detailed than the actual world. Two deep-seated misconceptions are responsible for the interpretational difficulties associated with quantum mechanics: the notion that the spatial and temporal aspects of the world are adequately represented by sets with the cardinality of the real numbers, and the notion of an instantaneous state that evolves in time. The latter is an unwarranted (in fact, incoherent) projection of our apparent “motion in time” into the world of physics. Equally unwarranted, at bottom, is the use of causal concepts. There nevertheless exists a “classical” domain in which language suggestive of nomological necessity may be used. Quantum mechanics not only is strictly consistent with the existence of this domain but also presupposes it in several ways.
By expanding the research paradigm and reconciling the two binary oppositions of "relative and absolute" and "quantum and classical" in physics, a new theoretical framework that is compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics is proposed. Firstly, excavate and establish three universal axioms: Axiom 1 (consensus guarantees equal rights), Axiom 2 (objective existence independent of measurement), and Axiom 3 (universality of causality and dialectical logic), based on which to criticize the logical contradictions of existing theories. In the field of relativity, this article points out that there is a logical paradox in the explanation of "clock slowing down depends on relative motion" in special relativity (A clock is both faster and slower than B clock), and proposes a relative absolute spacetime view that "absolute motion leads to clock slowing down". By extending the Lorentz transformation, absolute motion and relative motion are unified, solving problems such as the twin paradox. At the same time, based on the prediction of the Dirac equation for negative mass matter, the "negative mass spacetime curvature paradox" is proposed, challenging Einstein's physical explanation of spacetime curvature and arguing that it is only a mathematical tool (the mathematical expression of gravity) rather than a physical reality. In the field of quantum mechanics, this article criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation for violating Axiom 2 (denying the independent eigenstates of microscopic particles). By modifying the Schrödinger equation twice (For the first time, electromagnetic potential energy was replaced with gravitational potential energy, and the Schrödinger-Tu equation was established to describe macroscopic objects such as the Earth's revolution; The second step is to convert potential energy into electromagnetic/gravitational force and derive the wave mechanics equation of classical mechanics laws, such as Newton's second law with force operator), proves that quantum and classical theories are compatible within the same mathematical framework. In the experiment, it was demonstrated through the "anti-interference electron diffraction experiment" that a strong magnetic field only changes the shape of diffraction fringes without causing them to disappear, denying the inevitability of quantum decoherence. The establishment of "generalized wave dynamics" and "relative absolute spacetime view" breaks the binary opposition of traditional theories and provides a new paradigm for the unity of relativity and quantum mechanics. The core value of these jobs lies in: In terms of theoretical innovation, reconstruct the space-time and quantum interpretation system, while retaining the original mathematical form system; In terms of experimental verification, design feasible schemes such as hollow glass disk Jones experiment and geometric optical velocimetry experiment; In terms of philosophical significance, replacing "mathematical symmetry" with "content unity" and returning to the objectivity of physical mechanisms. The research conclusion indicates that by expanding paradigms and axiomatic constraints, the contradiction between relativity and quantum mechanics can be transformed into a complementary relationship, laying the foundation for the great unity of physics theory
Earlier, we had presented \cite{heuristic} heuristic arguments to show that a {\em natural unification} of the ideas of the quantum theory and those underlying the general principle of relativity is achievable by way of the measure theory and the theory of dynamical systems. Here, in Part I, we provide the complete physical foundations for this, to be called, the {\em Universal Theory of Relativity}. Newton's theory and the special theory of relativity arise, situationally, in this Universal Relativity. Explanations of quantum indeterminacy are also shown to arise in it. Part II provides its mathematical foundations. One experimental test is also discussed before concluding remarks.
In glaring contrast to its indisputable century-old experimental success, the ultimate objects and meaning of quantum physics remain a matter of vigorous debate among physicists and philosophers of science. This article attempts to shed new light on the debate. It relies upon two comments by Albert Einstein on his general approach to physical theories. I draw their consequences for the definition of a physical theory's ontology, and next for the ontology of quantum physics - i.e. what it may ultimately be about. The quantum ontology thus derived appears to be strictly limited to evolving experimental contexts and instantaneous measurement outcomes, which are to be understood, respectively, as mere potential measurement outcomes and actual ones. The notions of material body in particular and physical system in general are absent from this ontology, hence the vanishing of Schroedinger's cat and EPR paradoxes, as well as of the quantum measurement problem. Apart from its ability to clear up well-known conundrums, this ontology reveals what quantum physics may fundamentally be - i.e. its possible ultimate meaning - namely a theory of general relativity of experimental context. On this basis, I conclude with a new conception of objectivity in the sciences of nature.
Book of Physics — On Difference Tractatus Principio, Volume II What if the fundamental entities of physics are not the foundations of reality, but the results of the relations through which reality becomes measurable? Book of Physics, the second volume of Tractatus Principio — On Difference by C.H.F. Warnke, extends the relational foundation developed in Volume I into the domain of physical reality. The work challenges a fundamental assumption underlying many physical descriptions: that mathematical abstractions such as points, particles, fields, and measurable quantities must correspond to independently existing constituents of the world. Its central distinction is between the mathematical representation of a physical phenomenon and the ontological interpretation of that representation. Beginning with a critical examination of classical mechanics, Cartesian geometry, Newtonian point-mass models, relativity, and quantum physics, the book investigates how relational descriptions can become interpreted as properties of self-contained physical objects. The work proposes a reversal of this perspective: physical objects are not the original bearers of relations. Rather, their determinacy emerges through relational structures, interactions, and the conditions under which they are observed and measured. Building upon the mathematical language of difference, represented by |, and its self-referential unfolding through Δ, the volume develops alternative interpretations of space, time, energy, mass, gravitation, and light. It examines dimensional measurement, relational invariance, the proposed significance of 39.19 within its own formal framework, and the organization of physical appearances through recursive structures and degrees of freedom. Gravitation is reconsidered through a relational shell model. Motion and time are investigated through the concept of complete relational states, or Frozen Frames, whose differences become readable as temporal succession. A central part of the work concerns measurement itself. Rather than treating measurement as the passive discovery of an already fully determined property, the book examines the relationship between observer, apparatus, registration, and interpretation. A measuring apparatus is understood as a materially realized question: its construction determines which differences can become detectable and how their results can be interpreted. From this perspective, particles and other physical entities are investigated as stable forms of relational determination rather than necessarily self-standing objects independent of every measurement context. The later chapters explore the uniformity of relational processes across different scales, including a reinterpretation of Bose–Einstein condensation, before returning to the distinction between scientific explanation and the conceptual images through which reality is understood. These proposals constitute an alternative theoretical interpretation within the framework of Tractatus Principio. Their physical validity is not established merely by the mathematical or conceptual arguments presented. The investigation ultimately reaches the observer himself. If every measurement is relational, the question arises of how the observer becomes capable of recognizing his own position within those relations. This question forms the transition to Volume III, the Book of Self-Knowledge. The central question of Volume II is not merely what physics measures, but what makes a physical reality measurable as something determinate in the first place.