This project is a theoretical study that aims to explain the seemingly counterintuitive results of quantum mechanics within a more understandable, causal, and conceptually unified framework. KZSK seeks to transform the approach sometimes summarized as “do not question, just calculate” into an approach of “question, uncover the mechanism, and make sense of it.” Rather than leaving quantum phenomena as disconnected mysteries, it attempts to bring them together under a common formative logic and a coherent physical process of emergence. In this way, KZSK aims to reduce as much as possible the idea that “quantum mechanics works, but we do not fully understand why it works this way.” From this perspective, KZSK is intended not merely as an interpretation of quantum mechanics, but as a formation architecture that seeks to explain why quantum behavior emerges. This architecture is based on three fundamental stages: 1. Timeless Root Reality: The formative foundation and relational order that precede physical spacetime. 2. Quantum Intermediate Form: The transition level between the timeless structure and temporal physical processes, where phase, sequentiality, and micro-temporal change begin to emerge. 3. Physical Spacetime: The classical level in which local interactions, measurement, and physical records become manifest. Within this structure, waves, particles, measurement, and entanglement are not treated as independent quantum mysteries, but as different stages and manifestations of the same underlying process of formation. KZSK also investigates the hypothesis that a more fundamental deterministic process may underlie the apparent probabilistic behavior of quantum mechanics. The aim is to develop this framework beyond a purely philosophical interpretation into a physical model candidate that can be mathematically formulated, further developed, and experimentally tested. KZSK is not yet a verified physical theory. Its physical validity must be evaluated through further mathematical development, quantitative comparison with existing experiments, independent research, and experimental testing.
This project is a theoretical study that aims to explain the seemingly counterintuitive results of quantum mechanics within a more understandable, causal, and conceptually unified framework. KZSK seeks to transform the approach sometimes summarized as “do not question, just calculate” into an approach of “question, uncover the mechanism, and make sense of it.” Rather than leaving quantum phenomena as disconnected mysteries, it attempts to bring them together under a common formative logic and a coherent physical process of emergence. In this way, KZSK aims to reduce as much as possible the idea that “quantum mechanics works, but we do not fully understand why it works this way.” From this perspective, KZSK is intended not merely as an interpretation of quantum mechanics, but as a formation architecture that seeks to explain why quantum behavior emerges. This architecture is based on three fundamental stages: 1. Timeless Root Reality: The formative foundation and relational order that precede physical spacetime. 2. Quantum Intermediate Form: The transition level between the timeless structure and temporal physical processes, where phase, sequentiality, and micro-temporal change begin to emerge. 3. Physical Spacetime: The classical level in which local interactions, measurement, and physical records become manifest. Within this structure, waves, particles, measurement, and entanglement are not treated as independent quantum mysteries, but as different stages and manifestations of the same underlying process of formation. KZSK also investigates the hypothesis that a more fundamental deterministic process may underlie the apparent probabilistic behavior of quantum mechanics. The aim is to develop this framework beyond a purely philosophical interpretation into a physical model candidate that can be mathematically formulated, further developed, and experimentally tested. KZSK is not yet a verified physical theory. Its physical validity must be evaluated through further mathematical development, quantitative comparison with existing experiments, independent research, and experimental testing.
This work presents the Theory of Quantum-Classical Crossover (TQCC), a conceptual proposal currently under development that seeks to explore the transition between quantum and classical regimes as a continuous process through which classicality emerges. The text is primarily explanatory, philosophical, and narrative in character. At this stage, it does not aim to present a rigorous physical formalism or a fully developed mathematical theory. Rather, its purpose is to articulate and clarify the central idea of the TQCC, tracing its conceptual development and exploring its possible implications. The proposal begins with the possibility of understanding the quantum and classical domains not as fundamentally separate realities, but as different regimes of a single underlying reality, connected by a progressive process of definition. In this context, the work introduces and explores the concept of a classicality parameter, represented by γ(t), as an initial attempt to describe this transition. The article also develops philosophical and ontological reflections surrounding the proposal and engages with questions related to quantum mechanics, decoherence, the emergence of classical reality, information, and the relationship between possibility and determination. The formulations presented should be regarded as preliminary and open to further development, reformulation, and mathematical formalization. The purpose of this version is primarily to document, present, and organize the hypothesis at its current stage of development, providing a starting point for future investigation and discussion within the scientific community.
The main ambition of this work has been to explore the prospects for dissolving the foundational problems of quantum theory by adopting the epistemic conception of quantum states and reflecting on how it should be spelled out in detail. This differs (at least in emphasis, if not more profoundly) from the main ambition of those — ‘realistically minded’ — philosophers whose declared aim is to determine what reality is like if it is as quantum theory says. If the Rule Perspective is correct, quantum theory does not really say anything about reality at all: features of reality are described not by quantum states, but by NQMCs, and while quantum theory helps us ascribe probabilities to the NQMCs, it does not typically make any statements as to which NQMCs are true and which are false. However, even though quantum theory does not in that sense say anything about reality, we can learn a lot about reality by reflecting on what features it must have for quantum theory’s undisputed empirical success to be possible. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.
Physics has often advanced by revealing that concepts once regarded as fundamental are instead emergent manifestations of deeper organizing principles. Forces gave way to fields, gravitation became the geometry of spacetime, and quantum mechanics replaced deterministic particles with probabilistic wavefunctions. The Relational Primitive Hypothesis (RPH) asks whether this progression may continue one step further. Rather than treating particles, fields, spacetime, or geometry as the primitive constituents of physical reality, RPH proposes that evolving relational structures constitute the primitive ontology from which familiar physical quantities emerge. The objective of RPH is not to replace established physics, but to investigate whether a simpler primitive ontology can provide a common foundation from which established physical theories may naturally emerge. Within this framework, matter is interpreted as stable relational organization, mass as persistent relational stability, spacetime as emergent relational geometry, and physical interactions as consequences of evolving relational dynamics. This work does not present a completed physical theory. Instead, it establishes a conceptual framework and a structured research program. It defines a proposed ontology, formulates a minimal set of postulates, identifies the mathematical objectives required to develop a predictive theory, examines the physical consequences expected from the proposed framework, and establishes scientific criteria by which the hypothesis must ultimately be evaluated. The Relational Primitive Hypothesis neither replaces nor contradicts established physical theories. Rather, it investigates whether General Relativity, quantum mechanics, and other successful physical theories may themselves emerge as effective descriptions of a more fundamental relational dynamic. The ultimate success or failure of the hypothesis depends not upon its philosophical appeal, but upon the development of a mathematically consistent framework capable of reproducing established physics while generating new, experimentally testable predictions. Until such a framework is achieved, the Relational Primitive Hypothesis should be regarded as a structured research program whose validity remains an open scientific question.
From the very beginning, Quantum Mechanics has been accompanied by crucial foundational questions: the possibility of visualizing physical processes, the limits of measurement epitomized by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the existence of a deeper underlying reality with additional degrees of freedom, the role of measurements, and the status of locality. Long regarded as philosophical speculations, these issues were progressively reformulated into precise mathematical statements and ultimately subjected to experimental verification. The trajectory proved unpredictable: questions once dismissed as metaphysical gave rise to experimental platforms, which in turn matured into devices and technologies powering quantum computation, communication, and sensing. Yet this development is not unidirectional: advances in technology also feed back into foundations, enabling tests of principles that were previously out of reach, for example, whether quantum superposition persists at larger and larger scales and whether reality, gravity included, is fundamentally quantum. In this way, the dialogue between foundational inquiry and technological progress continues to shape both our theoretical understanding and the practical realization of quantum phenomena.
Who or What Is Participating in Reality Formation? Beyond Mind, Matter, and Measurement Author: Yeshayahu Ben-Yehudah Affiliation: THE BEN-YEHUDAH INSTITUTE Original Publication Date: June 26, 2026 This interdisciplinary scientific and philosophical research paper examines the fundamental relationship between consciousness, observation, quantum measurement, and the formation of physical reality. Building upon the Ben-Yehudah Field Theory, the research investigates whether consciousness may function as an active participant in probabilistic state selection rather than merely emerging as a secondary product of biological processes. Central to this investigation is the Observer Problem in modern physics. Although quantum mechanics provides highly accurate mathematical descriptions of probabilistic physical systems, significant interpretive questions remain concerning measurement, observation, and the transition from quantum possibilities to definite observable outcomes. The research critically examines conventional frameworks of mind, matter, and measurement, questioning whether these approaches adequately explain the nature of the observer. It distinguishes physical measurement from conscious awareness and explores the possibility that the true observer is neither the biological brain, cognitive activity, nor the egoic self, but a deeper observing principle identified as the Subject or Witness. Within the proposed framework, consciousness is examined as a potentially fundamental aspect of existence rather than exclusively as an emergent property of matter. The brain and cognitive systems are considered possible biological interfaces or transducers through which consciousness participates in physical experience. The paper introduces a theoretical participatory sequence describing the proposed relationship between quantum possibility, observation, and manifested reality: Potential Field → Probabilistic States → Observation → State Selection → Manifest Reality This model proposes that reality formation may arise through interactions between consciousness and probabilistic physical systems rather than through purely material or purely subjective processes. The research further examines Cognitive Coherence, attentional stability, and observer alignment as proposed factors influencing the interaction between consciousness and probabilistic states. Within the Ben-Yehudah Field Theory, greater cognitive coherence is hypothesized to correspond with increased efficiency in conscious participation, although these relationships remain theoretical. Drawing upon the contributions of Niels Bohr, John Archibald Wheeler, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, and contemporary consciousness researchers, the paper integrates quantum foundations, philosophy of mind, ontology, and consciousness studies to reconsider the relationship between the observer and observed reality. The investigation also explores the philosophical implications of distinguishing the experiencing self from the observing witness, suggesting that the nature of consciousness may require examination beyond thought, perception, memory, and individual identity. The proposed participatory model represents a theoretical and philosophical inquiry rather than an experimentally established mechanism of quantum state selection. Its central propositions require further empirical investigation and independent scientific evaluation. By examining the possible relationship between the Observer Problem and the fundamental nature of consciousness, this research advances a broader interdisciplinary inquiry into the architecture of reality and the role of conscious awareness within physical existence. Central Research Question: Who or what is participating in reality formation?