To the Reader (Physicists, Philosophers, Cross-Disciplinary Scholars) This paper proposes no new physical equations. Rather, it examines the structural presuppositions behind the physical realities that existing equations describe. We argue that the long-standing impasses of quantum gravity and the measurement problem stem from a confusion of "layer categories." To this end, we introduce a meta-language for describing the relationships between system layers. The core concepts of this language—such as "Self-Interest" (a system's intrinsic tendency to maintain its own existence and reduce internal friction)—can be viewed as a meta-theoretical restatement, not a replacement, of principles like the principle of least action or spontaneous symmetry breaking in physics. Reading Guide · Physicists: It is recommended to focus on Chapter 3 (Inter-Layer Information Gap and Quantum Gravity) and Chapter 4 (Inter-Layer Interaction and the Measurement Problem). This paper does not challenge existing experimental conclusions; it explains the boundaries of their validity.· Philosophers: Pay particular attention to Chapter 2 (The Core Framework) and Chapter 5 (Layer Dynamics and the Boundaries of Theory), especially the definitions of "Self-Reference" and "Self-Blindness."· Cross-Disciplinary Scholars: You may start with the discussion of "Order and Chaos" in Chapter 5 and the description of extended pathways, to assess the applicability of this framework within your own fields. --- Abstract Modern physics faces two fundamental impasses: the problem of quantum gravity and the quantum measurement problem. The former manifests as the mathematical incompatibility between the smooth, continuous spacetime geometry of general relativity and the discrete particle-exchange framework of quantum mechanics. The latter manifests as the enduring mystery of "wave function collapse," a concept that, within the Copenhagen interpretation, has sparked a century-long debate concerning the role of the observer. This paper does not attempt to put forth any new mathematical or experimental predictions within physics. It provides no new equations. Instead, it applies the layered perspective of System Agency Theory to offer a meta-theoretical explanation for both problems. We argue that gravity is not a "force" awaiting quantization, but the geometric expression of an "Inter-Layer Information Gap" generated between the spacetime geometry layer (L0) and the matter field layer (L1) as each strives to maintain its own existential steady state. Furthermore, quantum "wave function collapse" is not a mysterious physical process, but the inevitable result of an irreversible "Inter-Layer Interaction" between the observer system's agency (L5, a macroscopic, high-level system) and the observed system (L1/L2). This paper further posits that the pursuit of a "theory of everything" confined to a single descriptive layer may constitute a category error. A more inclusive framework should be established as a "Layer Dynamics" that describes how the agencies of systems at different layers interact, mask, and transform one another. This work is, in essence, a meta-theoretical reconstruction that grounds both the efficacy and the boundary of validity of physics. Keywords: System Agency Theory; Layer Dynamics; Quantum Gravity; Measurement Problem; Inter-Layer Information Gap; Wave Function Collapse; Meta-Theory --- 1. Introduction: Cracks in the Foundation of Physics Modern physics rests on two pillars: general relativity, which describes gravitational phenomena on macroscopic scales, and quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of particles on microscopic scales. Both have withstood rigorous experimental tests within their respective domains—from the detection of gravitational waves to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Yet, at their foundations, these two pillars are mutually incompatible. General relativity views gravity as the smooth, continuous curvature of spacetime geometry. Matter tells spacetime how to curve; spacetime tells matter how to move. This is a deterministic, continuous field description. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, describes fundamental forces as the exchange of discrete particles within specific gauge fields. Electromagnetism is the exchange of photons, the strong force the exchange of gluons, and the weak force the exchange of W and Z bosons. This is a non-deterministic, probabilistic framework. This incompatibility becomes particularly acute in two major problems: 1. The Problem of Quantum Gravity: All attempts to quantize the gravitational field encounter non-renormalizable infinities. At the Planck scale, the gravitational field stubbornly resists being described as an exchange of gravitons. This suggests we may be trying to force the language of discrete particles (an explanatory framework native to L1) upon a continuous, and perhaps more fundamental, emergent spacetime structure (the system dynamics of L0).2. The Quantum Measurement Problem: In quantum mechanics, an unmeasured micro-particle exists in a superposition of multiple possible states. Upon "observation," it non-deterministically and instantaneously "collapses" into a definite eigenstate. The Copenhagen interpretation attributes this process to the intervention of a macroscopic "classical instrument," but does not explain how or why this intervention causes collapse. Von Neumann's "infinite regress" argument drives the problem to its extreme: if all physical systems obey quantum mechanics, then the "observation" must ultimately be triggered by something non-physical—consciousness (or the abstract "self"). Physicists have thus been divided: some (like Wigner) accept that consciousness participates in physical processes, while others (like proponents of the Many-Worlds interpretation) deny the existence of collapse altogether. This question has remained unresolved for a century. This paper argues that the root of both problems lies in a confusion of "system dynamics" at different layers. We are attempting to borrow the cognitive tools generated by the fifth layer (L5, human consciousness and logic) to unify and explain the interaction between the zeroth layer (L0, spacetime geometric structure) and the first layer (L1, matter particles). This constitutes a category error. A new meta-framework is needed to re-examine the structure of the problem. --- 2. The Core Framework of System Agency Theory System Agency Theory provides a cross-layer, cross-domain explanatory language. Its core structure can be summarized as follows. 2.1 Foundational Axioms · Self-Interest: The fundamental driving force behind the existence and operation of all systems. Here, "Self-Interest" is not ethical selfishness, but the necessary tendency of a system to maintain its own existence, reduce internal contradictions, and pursue energy/information efficiency. An atom tending towards its most stable electron configuration (physical Self-Interest), a cell maintaining its metabolism and membrane integrity (biological Self-Interest), a corporation pursuing profit and market share (social Self-Interest), and a civilization pursuing survival and expansion (historical Self-Interest) are all concrete manifestations of this agency at different layers.· Self-Reference: The capacity of a system to take itself as an object of observation or operation. At lower layers, the rudiments of Self-Reference appear as feedback loops (e.g., chemical autocatalytic reactions). When system complexity reaches a critical threshold, Self-Reference emerges as conscious self-perception—consciousness (L5) is the high-order realization of Self-Reference within a nervous system. Self-Reference is the engine of systemic upgrading, but also the root of systemic collapse (self-deconstruction, self-referential paradoxes).· Self-Blindness: The structural deficiency of a system's inability to fully cognize its own foundational agency. Self-Blindness is the inevitable product of incomplete Self-Reference. It provides a system with three survival advantages: reducing cognitive load, preventing infinite recursion, and maintaining behavioral consistency. However, Self-Blindness also constitutes the boundary that prevents a system from completely understanding itself. No system—including the theory presented in this paper—can be fully immune to its own Self-Blindness. 2.2 Structural Model · Layers: The universe presents an emergent sequence of layers from simple to complex. This paper designates them as: · L0 (Spacetime Geometry Layer): Black holes, stars, gravitational fields. The most fundamental geometric expression of physical rules. · L1 (Physical Structure Layer): Atoms, molecules, fundamental particles. The layer where matter exists in stable structures. · L2 (Chemical Dissipation Layer): Flames, chemical oscillation reactions. Matter maintaining dissipative structures far from equilibrium within energy gradients. · L3 (Life Layer): Dissipative systems possessing the capacity for Self-Reference. Achieves precise replication and adaptation through information carriers (DNA). · L4 (Social Layer): Collective systems formed by individuals organized through protocols (language, currency, law). · L5 (Consciousness Layer): The subjective perception of one's own agency model and the capacity for logical operation, emerging when the Self-Reference of a nervous system reaches a critical complexity. · L5-M: System Agency Theory itself. The theory is aware that it is a product of L5's Self-Reference. Core Law: Higher layers are constituted by lower layers, but their rules cannot be completely reduced to those of the lower layers. This irreducibility is the essence of "emergence."· Protocols: The sets of rules that define interactions within a layer and between layers, and the interactive forms that allow layers to co-exist. Physical laws, chemical reaction pathways, biological instincts, social norms, linguistic grammar,
To the Reader (Physicists, Philosophers, Cross-Disciplinary Scholars) This paper proposes no new physical equations. Rather, it examines the structural presuppositions behind the physical realities that existing equations describe. We argue that the long-standing impasses of quantum gravity and the measurement problem stem from a confusion of "layer categories." To this end, we introduce a meta-language for describing the relationships between system layers. The core concepts of this language—such as "Self-Interest" (a system's intrinsic tendency to maintain its own existence and reduce internal friction)—can be viewed as a meta-theoretical restatement, not a replacement, of principles like the principle of least action or spontaneous symmetry breaking in physics. Reading Guide · Physicists: It is recommended to focus on Chapter 3 (Inter-Layer Information Gap and Quantum Gravity) and Chapter 4 (Inter-Layer Interaction and the Measurement Problem). This paper does not challenge existing experimental conclusions; it explains the boundaries of their validity.· Philosophers: Pay particular attention to Chapter 2 (The Core Framework) and Chapter 5 (Layer Dynamics and the Boundaries of Theory), especially the definitions of "Self-Reference" and "Self-Blindness."· Cross-Disciplinary Scholars: You may start with the discussion of "Order and Chaos" in Chapter 5 and the description of extended pathways, to assess the applicability of this framework within your own fields. --- Abstract Modern physics faces two fundamental impasses: the problem of quantum gravity and the quantum measurement problem. The former manifests as the mathematical incompatibility between the smooth, continuous spacetime geometry of general relativity and the discrete particle-exchange framework of quantum mechanics. The latter manifests as the enduring mystery of "wave function collapse," a concept that, within the Copenhagen interpretation, has sparked a century-long debate concerning the role of the observer. This paper does not attempt to put forth any new mathematical or experimental predictions within physics. It provides no new equations. Instead, it applies the layered perspective of System Agency Theory to offer a meta-theoretical explanation for both problems. We argue that gravity is not a "force" awaiting quantization, but the geometric expression of an "Inter-Layer Information Gap" generated between the spacetime geometry layer (L0) and the matter field layer (L1) as each strives to maintain its own existential steady state. Furthermore, quantum "wave function collapse" is not a mysterious physical process, but the inevitable result of an irreversible "Inter-Layer Interaction" between the observer system's agency (L5, a macroscopic, high-level system) and the observed system (L1/L2). This paper further posits that the pursuit of a "theory of everything" confined to a single descriptive layer may constitute a category error. A more inclusive framework should be established as a "Layer Dynamics" that describes how the agencies of systems at different layers interact, mask, and transform one another. This work is, in essence, a meta-theoretical reconstruction that grounds both the efficacy and the boundary of validity of physics. Keywords: System Agency Theory; Layer Dynamics; Quantum Gravity; Measurement Problem; Inter-Layer Information Gap; Wave Function Collapse; Meta-Theory --- 1. Introduction: Cracks in the Foundation of Physics Modern physics rests on two pillars: general relativity, which describes gravitational phenomena on macroscopic scales, and quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of particles on microscopic scales. Both have withstood rigorous experimental tests within their respective domains—from the detection of gravitational waves to the discovery of the Higgs boson. Yet, at their foundations, these two pillars are mutually incompatible. General relativity views gravity as the smooth, continuous curvature of spacetime geometry. Matter tells spacetime how to curve; spacetime tells matter how to move. This is a deterministic, continuous field description. Quantum mechanics, by contrast, describes fundamental forces as the exchange of discrete particles within specific gauge fields. Electromagnetism is the exchange of photons, the strong force the exchange of gluons, and the weak force the exchange of W and Z bosons. This is a non-deterministic, probabilistic framework. This incompatibility becomes particularly acute in two major problems: 1. The Problem of Quantum Gravity: All attempts to quantize the gravitational field encounter non-renormalizable infinities. At the Planck scale, the gravitational field stubbornly resists being described as an exchange of gravitons. This suggests we may be trying to force the language of discrete particles (an explanatory framework native to L1) upon a continuous, and perhaps more fundamental, emergent spacetime structure (the system dynamics of L0).2. The Quantum Measurement Problem: In quantum mechanics, an unmeasured micro-particle exists in a superposition of multiple possible states. Upon "observation," it non-deterministically and instantaneously "collapses" into a definite eigenstate. The Copenhagen interpretation attributes this process to the intervention of a macroscopic "classical instrument," but does not explain how or why this intervention causes collapse. Von Neumann's "infinite regress" argument drives the problem to its extreme: if all physical systems obey quantum mechanics, then the "observation" must ultimately be triggered by something non-physical—consciousness (or the abstract "self"). Physicists have thus been divided: some (like Wigner) accept that consciousness participates in physical processes, while others (like proponents of the Many-Worlds interpretation) deny the existence of collapse altogether. This question has remained unresolved for a century. This paper argues that the root of both problems lies in a confusion of "system dynamics" at different layers. We are attempting to borrow the cognitive tools generated by the fifth layer (L5, human consciousness and logic) to unify and explain the interaction between the zeroth layer (L0, spacetime geometric structure) and the first layer (L1, matter particles). This constitutes a category error. A new meta-framework is needed to re-examine the structure of the problem. --- 2. The Core Framework of System Agency Theory System Agency Theory provides a cross-layer, cross-domain explanatory language. Its core structure can be summarized as follows. 2.1 Foundational Axioms · Self-Interest: The fundamental driving force behind the existence and operation of all systems. Here, "Self-Interest" is not ethical selfishness, but the necessary tendency of a system to maintain its own existence, reduce internal contradictions, and pursue energy/information efficiency. An atom tending towards its most stable electron configuration (physical Self-Interest), a cell maintaining its metabolism and membrane integrity (biological Self-Interest), a corporation pursuing profit and market share (social Self-Interest), and a civilization pursuing survival and expansion (historical Self-Interest) are all concrete manifestations of this agency at different layers.· Self-Reference: The capacity of a system to take itself as an object of observation or operation. At lower layers, the rudiments of Self-Reference appear as feedback loops (e.g., chemical autocatalytic reactions). When system complexity reaches a critical threshold, Self-Reference emerges as conscious self-perception—consciousness (L5) is the high-order realization of Self-Reference within a nervous system. Self-Reference is the engine of systemic upgrading, but also the root of systemic collapse (self-deconstruction, self-referential paradoxes).· Self-Blindness: The structural deficiency of a system's inability to fully cognize its own foundational agency. Self-Blindness is the inevitable product of incomplete Self-Reference. It provides a system with three survival advantages: reducing cognitive load, preventing infinite recursion, and maintaining behavioral consistency. However, Self-Blindness also constitutes the boundary that prevents a system from completely understanding itself. No system—including the theory presented in this paper—can be fully immune to its own Self-Blindness. 2.2 Structural Model · Layers: The universe presents an emergent sequence of layers from simple to complex. This paper designates them as: · L0 (Spacetime Geometry Layer): Black holes, stars, gravitational fields. The most fundamental geometric expression of physical rules. · L1 (Physical Structure Layer): Atoms, molecules, fundamental particles. The layer where matter exists in stable structures. · L2 (Chemical Dissipation Layer): Flames, chemical oscillation reactions. Matter maintaining dissipative structures far from equilibrium within energy gradients. · L3 (Life Layer): Dissipative systems possessing the capacity for Self-Reference. Achieves precise replication and adaptation through information carriers (DNA). · L4 (Social Layer): Collective systems formed by individuals organized through protocols (language, currency, law). · L5 (Consciousness Layer): The subjective perception of one's own agency model and the capacity for logical operation, emerging when the Self-Reference of a nervous system reaches a critical complexity. · L5-M: System Agency Theory itself. The theory is aware that it is a product of L5's Self-Reference. Core Law: Higher layers are constituted by lower layers, but their rules cannot be completely reduced to those of the lower layers. This irreducibility is the essence of "emergence."· Protocols: The sets of rules that define interactions within a layer and between layers, and the interactive forms that allow layers to co-exist. Physical laws, chemical reaction pathways, biological instincts, social norms, linguistic grammar,
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.
Title: Envelopment over Unification: Recovering Einstein’s Dream via a Generativity-First Framework Subtitle: The Sampling Paradox of State-Based Quantum Gravity and the Return to It from Wave Abstract: This paper identifies the fundamental cause of the century-long impasse in unifying quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR) as a "Sampling Paradox." Modern physics is epistemically constrained to perceive reality as a collection of static "states"—discrete snapshots sampled from a continuous generative flow. At the Planck scale, the instability of the carrier (spacetime geometry) makes the reconstruction of the generative source from these samples logically impossible. The Envelopment Framework: Departing from traditional state-based programs, we propose a "Generativity-First" ontology called Envelopment. This framework adopts a three-layer hierarchy: Primary Layer (Wave): The continuous, non-linear phase flow of the universe ("It from Wave"). Secondary Layer (Geometry): Spacetime as a stabilized, self-organizing attractor. Tertiary Layer (State): Matter and information as discrete, resolution-dependent projections. Mathematical and Information-Theoretic Foundations: We characterize the primary generative law using a non-linear evolution equation analogous to the Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation (CGLE). In this model, spacetime geometry emerges as a steady-state attractor, while quantum states manifest as localized interference patterns. We re-derive the Energy-Time Uncertainty Relation as a rigorous consequence of finite temporal sampling windows (delta-t). Here, "uncertainty" is not an inherent fuzziness of nature but an informational limit imposed by the "shutter speed" of observation. Key Contributions: Planckian Aliasing: Redefines quantum vacuum noise as "folded" generative rhythms. The theory predicts non-random, phase-locked structures detectable through homodyne detection in quantum optics or advanced spectral analysis of LIGO data. Envelopment of Existing Theories: Repositions prominent programs—such as AdS/CFT (as shadow-to-object projections), Loop Quantum Gravity (as descriptions of discrete sampling units), and String Theory (as organizations of state-excitations)—as high-precision descriptions of specific projected regimes. The Observer as Co-creator: Positions the observer at the interface of sampling resolution, where the choice of the observational window determines which aspect of the generative wave is rendered as a physical "state." Significance: By shifting the ontological priority from "States" (nouns) to "Generativity" (verbs), this research offers a consistent bridge between continuous flow and discrete observation. It provides a roadmap for future numerical simulations based on non-linear dynamical systems and offers testable predictions for the deterministic structure of quantum noise. Keywords: Quantum Gravity, General Relativity, It from Wave, Sampling Paradox, Envelopment Framework, Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation, Non-linear Dynamics, Vacuum Noise Aliasing, Observer as Co-creator, Information Physics. Note on Related Research: This manuscript represents a significant generalization of the author’s preceding work on "Shutter Speed Theory" and "Informational Crystallization" (Ohumi, 2025). It expands the sampling-theoretic reinterpretation of quantum uncertainty into a comprehensive framework for quantum gravity. For details, please refer to the attached PDF. This work introduces the “Envelopment over Unification” logic (Wave → Geometry → State). It is complemented by applied works translating this framework into (i) ethics of technological civilization (Envelopment Ethics, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18256968) and (ii) governance critique of quantified policy targets (Civilization KPI Trap, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18264106). References: Shannon (1948), Einstein (1916), Wheeler (1990), Ohumi (2025).
The mainstream system of physics today is shackled by three major theoretical frameworks that fundamentally deviate from research rooted in matter and objective reality. All three are constructed based on abstract assumptions that contradict intuitive material motion and formal logic. First, the geometric metaphysical system derived from General Relativity, including spacetime curvature, Einstein’s field equations, extra dimensions, gravitational waves, black hole singularities, the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, spacetime distortion, wormholes and other related flawed propositions. This framework arbitrarily reinterprets gravitational effects of celestial bodies as unobservable geometric deformations of spacetime, and fabricates the concept of "gravitational waves" claimed to propagate at the speed of light. Quantitative calculations targeting the 1.3-billion-light-year black hole merger event prove that the field equations artificially set a mere 5% mass loss ratio. The calculated amplitude of gravitational fluctuations is tens of thousands of times larger than values derived from Newtonian mechanics consistent with real material transformation rules. This parameter is only a fitting tool to match detected signals, contradicting the objective law that all solid matter converts into photon plasma and gravitational force vanishes completely after celestial mergers. When calculations from the field equations conflict with galactic observational data, scholars invent unobservable hypothetical concepts such as dark matter, dark energy and extra dimensions to patch theoretical gaps, deliberately ignoring empirically verifiable physical mechanisms including interstellar plasma refraction and instantaneous action-at-a-distance gravitational force between celestial bodies. Second, the probabilistic idealistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, covering quantum superposition, Schrödinger’s cat, wave function collapse, observer effect, probability clouds, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and subjectively biased explanations of quantum entanglement. This system breaks the law of contradiction in formal logic by asserting that objects can simultaneously hold mutually exclusive states, and arbitrarily proposes wave-particle duality to misclassify photons as entities possessing both wave and particle properties. Researchers deliberately avoid measuring fundamental parameters of photons such as vibration amplitude, vibration angle and vibration frequency. Intuitive experimental contrasts show interference and diffraction fringes only emerge when single/double slits are present, yet existing experimental equipment is fully capable of clarifying interactive mechanisms between photons and slit walls. Relevant foundational measurements have long been neglected. Third, the standard model’s artificially fitted spectrum of confined hypothetical particles, including quarks, gluons, the Higgs boson, neutrinos, virtual photons, quark-gluon plasma, etc. Heavy-ion collision experiments conducted at laboratories such as CERN can generate extreme temperatures of 2 trillion to 4 trillion degrees Celsius. Under such conditions, all solid particles fully dissociate into pure gamma photon clusters. However, to preserve the integrity of the standard model, scholars falsely claim stable quarks and gluons persist at ultrahigh temperatures, naming dense photon fireballs "quark-gluon plasma". They also introduce undetectable virtual photons to explain bidirectional conversion between photons and solid particles, fabricating imaginary intermediaries to obscure the straightforward objective law of energy-matter transformation, entirely abandoning the scientific spirit of pursuing objective truth. This paper clearly states its core stand: photons are pure energy particles with no inherent wave characteristics. The so-called "gravitational waves" defined by General Relativity do not exist objectively. The oscillating signals captured by detectors merely reflect variations in gravitational magnitude caused by relative motion of celestial bodies, rather than ripples propagating through spacetime. Gravitational force never travels in wave form. These three theoretical frameworks are tightly intertwined, forming a self-enclosed paradigm culture that prioritizes defending existing theories over exploring objective reality. They consume massive scientific research resources and continuously hinder humanity’s ability to interpret the fundamental laws of the universe through observable, logically consistent realistic concepts (the essence of photons, plasma refraction, instantaneous action-at-a-distance forces). This paper comprehensively lists all concepts inconsistent with empirical science, analyzes their flaws in logic, computation and experimental observation, and advocates reconstructing a unified physical framework grounded in observable material motion.
Holographic Informational Ontology Framework: Relativity and Quantum Field Theory (HIOF-PnQFT) Incompatibility as a Problem of Positioning* This is a short, non-technical companion to the 5-paper HIOF-PnQFT series (Prelude and Papers I to IV). It is written for readers in physics, philosophy of physics, or the foundations of quantum theory, not for readers already familiar with the author's wider framework. The core idea, stated plainly Relativity and quantum field theory are usually treated as two correct theories that still need a bridge. The series asks a prior question: what exactly are they being asked to make compatible? In the reading of this framework, a spacetime stage and randomness of outcomes are manifest features, not fundamental ones. The compatibility problem is therefore read as a problem of positioning. This is a repositioning, not a claim that any technical obstacle has been removed. Two layers The information layer has no coordinates, no spatiotemporal character, and no relative relations; it only exists. The manifest layer is what appears after information is read, expanded, and set in flow: past, present, space, fields, energy, carriers, relations, and determinate results. The order of manifestation is information, then energy, then matter. This order is an inference, not a verified conclusion. Past, present, future The past is information. The present is the reading of consciousness, where consciousness is the direction and path along which an "I" manifests. The future is not stored in advance. Spacetime is not a pre-existing stage. Five readings of the incompatibility Relative relations belong to the manifest layer. Spacetime is manifestation, not a stage. The quantum has no randomness, only uncertainty from a limited arc window. The spooky distance of entanglement is a category error: the spacetime in which distance is defined is imposed on information that has none. The speed of light is read as the upper limit of reading, with causal structure as its consequence. This is an inversion at the ontological level only: within the arc window, every observable result agrees with special relativity. The measurement chain The quantum itself is not read at any layer. A source of interference forces the quantum to hand out a posture (coercion, not transaction). The posture and the instrument transact; the instrument and the observer transact. The constitution of an instrument determines its arc window, including what it does not know that it does not know. A response is established when an instrument reads a posture and yields a stable record that can be read again. The single result and the Born rule are taken as axioms. Fermi theory as a case study A low-energy theory is read as the successful marking of wide-domain information through a narrow arc window. In Fermi theory the coupling constant carries the fingerprint of the W boson mass, and its dimension forecasts where the window gives way. The mathematics is that of effective field theory; the difference lies in ontological commitment only. What the series does not do It supplies no alternative dynamics, no new field equation, and no distinguishable observational prediction. It does not derive the Born rule, does not claim to meet microcausality, Lorentz invariance, or unitarity, and does not claim that consciousness influences the ontological information. Algebraic quantum field theory, the thermal time hypothesis, emergent spacetime, and relational quantum mechanics are compared with the series and never treated as support for it. Any test template involving symmetry groups, topology, or lattices would be an independent model at the manifest layer, not an inference of the framework. What the series covers Prelude: why this series, and why the two theories do not fitPaper I: spacetime, past, present, futurePaper II: the sources of incompatibilityPaper III: the interface and relationsPaper IV: arc windows and effective theories A note on method Each paper separates standard published results from the framework's own readings and states what it does not claim. Readers are encouraged to treat the readings as hypotheses to be compared with existing theory and experiment, not as settled fact. Keywords: relativity, quantum field theory, information ontology, arc window, measurement problem, effective field theory, entanglement, emergent spacetime, philosophy of physics AuthorWai-Hung Tam (Pan), Independent ResearcherORCID: 0009-0002-7789-8464Email: panxtam@protonmail.com
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
As the two pillars of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics have both achieved overwhelming experimental success in their respective domains, yet they have never realized self-consistent unification at the underlying logical level. Most existing studies focus on the mathematical technical difficulties of quantum gravity, while generally neglecting the structural divergence of the core concepts of "observer" and "time" between the two theories. Through conceptual analysis and logical tracing, this paper points out that the observer in relativity is essentially a massless geometric coordinate marker with no intrinsic clock, which only undertakes the functions of event marking and reference frame mutual translation. It belongs to the object level concept within the classical world, and can be summarized as the translator of the ready-made world. The observer required by quantum mechanics is a physical entity that can trigger wave function collapse and carry the time metric benchmark. It is the logical premise for the generation of the observable classical world, belonging to the meta-level concept, and can be summarized as the legislator of the real world. The divergence between the two is not an isolated terminological difference. Its deep root lies in the completely heterogeneous presuppositions of the two theories on "time": time in quantum mechanics is a transcendental, uniform global background parameter "before the birth of clocks", that is, a "logical concept before measurement"; time in relativity is a local, operable relative metric result "after the birth of clocks", that is, a "logical concept of the classical deterministic motion world". As physical theories both belonging to the principle theory paradigm, both actively skip the construction of the physical ontology of time and directly presuppose the functional role of time, which eventually leads to the double logical dislocation of observer and time concepts. Relativity lacks the "first chapter" of deriving observers from the vacuum substrate, and quantum mechanics lacks the physical carrier definition of observers, which are essentially two manifestations of the same ontological gap. Metretics Dynamics (MD; formerly Time Field Theory, TFT) takes the scalar time field as the only physical ontology, defines mass as the local condensed state of the time field, and deduces the ontological proposition that "mass is the observer". It eliminates the absolute division between meta-level and object level from the ontological level, and reduces "global background time" and "local relative time" to the apparent forms of the same physical field under different condensation degrees. The continuous unitary evolution of the wave function corresponds to the uniform rhythmic flow of the time field in its diffuse state, while wave function collapse is essentially a local state mutation of the time field when coupled with a macroscopic mass condensate. Both processes are unified under the intrinsic dynamical laws of the time field. Within a unified framework, it simultaneously accommodates the metric anchor of quantum measurement and the coordinate mutual translation mechanism of relativity, providing a constructive ontological path for the conceptual compatibility of the two major theories.