This work proposes that inertia, as posited in Newton's First Law, is not an intrinsic property of bodies but the macroscopic manifestation of a relational process grounded in the information-theoretic structure of the quantum vacuum. Drawing on standard physical results — Lorentz dilation, the Mandelstam–Tamm bound, and Maxwell's vacuum expression — the central thesis is the following: the energy–momentum projection of the kinematic decrease in the rate at which the internal phase of a moving quantum system evolves, read by an external observer as electromagnetic interaction with the vacuum, is itself read by that observer as inertia. The argument is framed within the geometry of Quantum Fisher Information and positioned as a natural extension, within quantum information theory, of Mach's relational mechanics programme and the relationalist tradition in contemporary philosophy of physics (notably the Relational Quantum Mechanics of Carlo Rovelli and the Machian programme of Julian Barbour). The work is explicitly framed as a conceptual reinterpretation rather than as a new predictive model: it modifies no equation but offers an ontological rereading of inertia as a relational phenomenon already encoded in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Note: The original text was composed in Turkish and translated into English. The author is an independent researcher with no institutional affiliation.
This work proposes that inertia, as posited in Newton's First Law, is not an intrinsic property of bodies but the macroscopic manifestation of a relational process grounded in the information-theoretic structure of the quantum vacuum. Drawing on standard physical results — Lorentz dilation, the Mandelstam–Tamm bound, and Maxwell's vacuum expression — the central thesis is the following: the energy–momentum projection of the kinematic decrease in the rate at which the internal phase of a moving quantum system evolves, read by an external observer as electromagnetic interaction with the vacuum, is itself read by that observer as inertia. The argument is framed within the geometry of Quantum Fisher Information and positioned as a natural extension, within quantum information theory, of Mach's relational mechanics programme and the relationalist tradition in contemporary philosophy of physics (notably the Relational Quantum Mechanics of Carlo Rovelli and the Machian programme of Julian Barbour). The work is explicitly framed as a conceptual reinterpretation rather than as a new predictive model: it modifies no equation but offers an ontological rereading of inertia as a relational phenomenon already encoded in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Note: The original text was composed in Turkish and translated into English. The author is an independent researcher with no institutional affiliation.
This work proposes a conceptual and ontological reformulation of classical dynamics, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics based on a single postulate: dissipation is a fundamental property of all physical processes. Traditional dynamics relies on the idealization of isolated, reversible systems, yet no real physical system satisfies such conditions. By introducing an intrinsic dissipative energy term into the equations of motion, we suggest that dissipation entails an irreversible loss of physical information, from which a classical uncertainty principle naturally follows. Stationary states are reinterpreted as zero‑dissipation configurations, lacking internal temporal evolution, thereby offering an ontological basis for quantization, non‑locality, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Quantum mechanics can thus be viewed as the mathematical description of these stationary states and of the dissipative transitions connecting them. The framework is conceptually consistent with fluctuation‑dissipation theory, open‑system quantum dynamics, decoherence theory, and relaxation phenomena in NMR spectroscopy. Several experimental proposals are outlined to discriminate this ontological model from both classical mechanics and standard quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics is among the most successful mathematical frameworks in modern science, providing precise predictions, experimental validation, and wide-ranging technological applications. This success, however, has been accompanied by a long-standing suspension of a fundamental question: the ontological status of quantum itself. While dominant approaches emphasize how quantum phenomena behave, the question of what these behaviors are the behavior of has largely been deferred. This work does not propose a new physical theory, nor does it challenge the empirical or mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Instead, it offers an ontological positioning that reintroduces the question of ground. Quantum is approached neither as a discrete object nor as a purely mathematical formalism, but as the joint mode of operation of energy, nature, and consciousness. Within this framework, consciousness is not treated as an external causal agent acting upon physical systems, but as an immanent, organizing, and meaning-generating aspect of energetic continuity. Differentiation is thus located not in nature itself, but at the level of meaning. Observation and measurement are reinterpreted accordingly, not as mechanisms of physical collapse, but as processes through which ontological distinctions become articulated. By reframing quantum as a ground rather than a thing, this study aims to clarify persistent conceptual tensions—such as the observer problem and the status of measurement—without invoking speculative physics or metaphysical dualism. The paper presents not a solution, but a repositioning: an invitation to reconsider the ontological assumptions that guide contemporary readings of quantum mechanics.
Abstract The following paper explores the metaphysical significance of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). For this, I will first outline Rovelli’s philosophical framework, and then offer a reconstruction of Rovelli’s seminal argument in favour of RQM. I will then explore some healthy lines of philosophical work that may be undertaken to strengthen RQM. First, I will frame RQM in the debate between realist and antirealist readings of QM and defend the general claim that RQM is compatible with realism. Then, I discuss the main ontological interpretations of RQM, which I classify as “dispositional”, “transcendental” and “structural”, and argue that all of them remain committed to substantialist assumptions that limit the radicality of Rovelli’s proposal. Finally, I analyse recent developments on RQM’s ontology and suggest that preserving its ontological originality requires an assessment on the concept of “pattern”.
Quantum phenomena are traditionally described as states evolving in spacetime, yet the zero–proper–time behavior of massless systems points to a different architecture—one in which propagation is not fundamental. Motivated by this observation, we develop a relational framework in which physical processes are represented not as trajectories but as relations between contexts and outcomes. The central object is a relational amplitude function R:B×O→C, organized as a fiber bundle whose slices R_b are selected by experimental contexts. Expressed entirely in standard mathematical terms—probability theory, quantum amplitudes, and fiber‑bundle structure—this relational architecture is precise and unambiguous. Interference, entanglement, and measurement emerge as geometric properties of slice selection rather than as dynamical evolution of a spacetime system. Interference arises when a slice contains multiple coherent contributions; entanglement arises from the non‑factorization of the relational object; and measurement corresponds to a context update rather than a physical collapse. The geometry of zero proper time motivates a shift from a spacetime ontology to a relational one, yielding a unified, non‑spatiotemporal account of quantum phenomena. The result is a structurally simple and conceptually coherent reformulation of quantum mechanics that dissolves long‑standing paradoxes and clarifies the relational foundations from which spacetime events arise. This is version 1.0 of the manuscript. Authors' note (October 2026). This is the original March 2026 manuscript, preserved unchanged as the starting point of an ongoing research program. It is a conceptual proposal, not a set of established results: the framework reformulates the standard quantum formalism in relational language and does not derive it. The proofs of Theorems 5.3 (entanglement) and 5.5 (no-signaling) require additional assumptions that the paper does not state, and claims that the framework “dissolves” the measurement problem or is “complete” should be read as aspirations. The original motivation subsequently led to investigations of geometric, analytic, and measurement-theoretic questions under more explicit assumptions. One such development is The Lorentz-Analytic Exterior: A Conditional Mathematical Framework (Version 2, October 2026), which examines related geometric and analytic structures without relying on the original paper’s zero-proper-time argument as a derivation of quantum mechanics. This later work does not validate the original manuscript’s unsupported claims. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23400176
This work proposes an operational answer to the question of what time is: time is the process by which a physical system produces mutually distinguishable states, a quantity made precise in quantum mechanics through Quantum Fisher Information and the Mandelstam–Tamm bound. Building on this definition, the paper develops a framework in which inertia and gravitation are read as different derivatives of a single underlying quantity — the quantum phase. The framework points to a natural acceleration scale a⋆ = mc³/ℏ, constructible solely from m, c, and ℏ, and shows that for the electron this coincides algebraically with the acceleration in the Schwinger field. It further explores a phase-coherence factor C(a), its kinematic relation to a finite "phase-proper-time" window (via the Gudermann function), a possible Unruh-related spectral signature, and a scalar/vector decomposition of the four-force under an effective-momentum ansatz. The study positions itself explicitly not as a new theory of physics, but as a consistent rereading of standard physics and a research program that formulates the relevant open problems sharply. Throughout the text, results that are algebraically exact are transparently separated from those that hold open-problem / speculative status. Among the algebraically exact results are the four-force rereading, the recovery of Newtonian gravity from flowing space, the Schwinger-scale coincidence, and the kinematic identity for C(a); among the open problems are the physical mechanism behind the Schwinger coincidence, the status of C(a) as a genuine QFI modulation, and the derivation of the internal tick duration at the level of the QFI or the Wightman function. The framework is compatible with the relational-time and quantum-reference-frame programs (Page–Wootters, Rovelli) and shares conceptual ground with the flowing-space / river-model tradition (Painlevé–Gullstrand, Hamilton–Lisle), while preserving Lorentz invariance and treating the natural acceleration scale as a characteristic scale rather than a maximum-acceleration law.
In classical information theory (represented by Shannon's framework), the study of information transmission typically presupposes a fixed "channel" endowed with absolute attributes. This assumption implicitly holds that the properties of the channel are determinate and observer-independent, remaining unchanged regardless of perspective or the state of the channel itself. However, contemporary physics---particularly the development of quantum mechanics---fundamentally challenges the very notion of "absoluteness." As Carlo Rovelli has emphasized in one of his core arguments, quantum mechanics compels us to abandon the conception of states and properties as "absolute" and "observer-independent." The insistence on such absoluteness is precisely what underlies many of the paradoxes and interpretative difficulties that plague quantum theory. Rovelli extends this general philosophical critique of "absoluteness" consistently into the domain of information theory, thereby provoking a profound re-examination and critique of the classical presupposition of the "absolute channel." From this relational perspective, information should not be conceived as an abstract entity existing independently of physical relations, but rather as an observable measure of relative relations between systems. Accordingly, the reconstruction of classical information theory on the basis of relational ontology---namely, the reconstruction of information theory itself---is not only a demand of theoretical coherence but also a necessary step in responding to the challenge of quantum reality and in building a more universal theory of information.