Spacetime as Emergent Coherence: Relational Ontology Meets Relativity

Up to now, our exploration of relational ontology has focused on quantum phenomena—particularly tunnelling—as a domain where substance-based metaphysics fails and relational process takes centre stage. But a deeper challenge remains: how does this ontological shift speak to relativity, where space and time are no longer fixed backgrounds but dynamic, observer-dependent constructs?

This post begins to explore that question by proposing a radical, but coherent, view: spacetime itself is not fundamental, but emerges from patterns of coherence and constraint within relational fields. Space and time are not containers in which entities reside, but derivatives of transformation and affordance within a system of relations.

---

1. Relativity and the Crisis of the Background

Einstein’s two theories of relativity—special and general—dismantled the Newtonian conception of absolute space and time. In their place, they offered:

• The relativity of simultaneity: different observers may disagree on what happens “at the same time.”

• The metric structure of spacetime: distance and duration are contingent on the geometry of the field.

• The dynamical nature of spacetime: in general relativity, spacetime geometry is not fixed but co-determined with matter-energy distributions.

These advances already suggest that space and time are not primitive. But standard interpretations still treat the manifold of spacetime as the ultimate stage—continuous, differentiable, and ontologically prior to events. Even quantum gravity proposals often attempt to “quantise spacetime” without questioning its metaphysical status.

A relational ontology opens a different possibility: that spacetime is an emergent, high-level expression of relational coherence, not a pre-given scaffold.

---

2. From Manifold to Modulation

If systems are fundamentally relational fields undergoing constrained transformation, then spatiality and temporality emerge as regularities in the structure of those transformations. That is:

• Space arises from patterns of simultaneous compatibility — configurations that can stably co-exist or resonate together.

• Time arises from patterns of sequential constraint — the directed unfolding of one coherence enabling or suppressing another.

In this framework, the spacetime metric is not a map of reality, but a systemic profile—a measure of how transformation propagates within the field. The curvature of spacetime in general relativity becomes interpretable as a modulation of affordance—a deformation in how coherence propagates under energetic constraint.

---

3. Locality and Nonlocality Reconsidered

One of the central puzzles of modern physics is reconciling the nonlocality of quantum mechanics with the local structure of spacetime. Entangled particles influence one another instantaneously across space-like separations, apparently violating relativistic causality.

But in a relational ontology, this tension dissolves:

• Locality is not a primitive structure but a derivative constraint on how transformation typically propagates.

• Nonlocality is not a violation of space but an expression of coherence across the field—a residue of common potential under shared constraint.

• The “distance” between entangled particles is not metaphysically relevant; what matters is their relational configuration.

From this view, the structure of spacetime is not the frame of the system, but an emergent profile of its modal coherence. Quantum nonlocality doesn’t challenge relativity—it challenges the assumption that space and time are ontologically basic.

---

4. Gravity as Constraint, Not Force

In general relativity, gravity is not a force but a manifestation of curvature in the spacetime manifold. Bodies follow geodesics—not because they are “pulled” by a force, but because those paths are intrinsically the least constrained.

In relational terms, this translates naturally:

• Gravitation is the system’s resolution of energetic tension through least-resistance transformation.

• Massive bodies shape the affordance landscape—altering how coherence propagates in their vicinity.

• The geodesic is not a trajectory in space, but a preferred path of systemic reconfiguration—a minimal gradient of actualisation under constraint.

Thus, gravitational behaviour can be understood not as a geometric effect within a container, but as a redistribution of potential within a relationally modulated field.

---

5. Replacing the Spacetime Metaphor

Relational ontology invites a radical shift in imagery. Rather than picturing the universe as:

a set of objects moving in a four-dimensional stage,

we picture it as:

a dynamic field of potential undergoing self-modulation,

where what appears as space is patterned simultaneity,

and what appears as time is patterned transformation.

The curvature of spacetime becomes the differential availability of coherence under systemic tension. Causal structure becomes the hierarchy of constraint resolution. Observers are not located in spacetime, but are modal centres—configurations within the system from which transitions can be evaluated.

---

Concluding Thought

We are not reinterpreting relativity in the language of quantum mechanics, nor vice versa. We are reframing both in a deeper ontology—one that takes relation, not substance; transformation, not motion; coherence, not extension, as foundational.

In this light, the apparent conflict between quantum nonlocality and relativistic locality is not a paradox, but a symptom of trying to superimpose outdated metaphors onto a system that no longer conforms to them.

In the next post, we will turn from theory to methodology: how might this relational ontology inform the practice of modelling, predicting, and interpreting phenomena in fundamental physics? Can we derive new kinds of explanatory economy, or new metrics of coherence and constraint?

Fields of Potential: Toward a Relational Ontology of Quantum Systems

We have seen that conventional interpretations of quantum theory, including Bohmian mechanics, inherit a classical metaphysics grounded in particles, trajectories, and space as container. These frameworks run into paradox precisely because the phenomena they describe are not well captured by the concepts they rely on.

This post takes a constructive step. It begins to articulate an alternative metaphysical picture—one in which potential, relation, and constraint form the ontological primitives. This shift allows us to interpret quantum systems not as configurations of substance but as fields of possibility, structured and actualised in context.

---

1. From Objects to Fields

Rather than asking “What particles exist?” or “Where is the system located?”, a relational ontology asks:

What configurations of potential are afforded under present constraints?

In this view, a quantum system is not an ensemble of point-like particles but a coherent relational field. The wavefunction, rather than encoding a superposition of possible positions, encodes a distribution of potential coherence—a structured topological landscape within which certain transitions are favoured, others suppressed.

Importantly, this field is not embedded in space; space is emergent from the regularities and constraints within the field. What we perceive as position is a stable coherence within a wider pattern of relational transformation.

---

2. Actualisation as Resolution of Tension

In classical mechanics, motion is the change of position of a thing. In a relational field, by contrast, change is understood as the resolution of systemic tension—the shift from one configuration of relation to another, driven by gradients of potential.

This model bears a family resemblance to other constraint-driven systems:

• In thermodynamics, systems evolve toward lower free energy.

• In biological regulation, homeostatic processes maintain coherence under perturbation.

• In dynamical systems theory, attractors define stable states toward which trajectories converge.

In quantum systems, we might similarly treat actualisation as a kind of coherence-seeking behaviour within a constrained field of affordance.

---

3. Rethinking Measurement

Measurement, on this account, is not an external act collapsing a wavefunction. It is a punctuation event—a moment where the ongoing dynamics of a field encounter a boundary condition (an apparatus, a detection threshold, a macro-level observer), and the system resolves into a configuration of coherence compatible with those constraints.

This process is not ontologically exceptional. It is a particular case of systemic resolution—where the open potential of a field undergoes modulated selection in context. What is measured is not the state of a pre-existing object, but the outcome of a constrained transformation.

---

4. Temporal Structure Without Trajectory

Without particles moving through space, how do we make sense of time?

In relational terms, time is not a background parameter. It is an index of transformation—the internal unfolding of the system as it moves across gradients of constraint. Temporal structure emerges from:

• The ordering of transitions within the field,

• The symmetry-breaking dynamics that generate sequences,

• The mutual conditioning of states (e.g. interference, decoherence).

Tunnelling, for instance, is not a particle moving through a region but a sequence of actualisations under tension, whose rate (previously mislabelled “speed”) reflects how rapidly coherence propagates across affordances.

---

5. Philosophical Echoes and Scientific Payoffs

This ontological reframing finds echoes in multiple traditions:

• Whitehead’s process metaphysics: events are the fundamental units, and relations precede things.

• Simondon’s individuation theory: being is always in formation, and identity arises through modulation of potential.

• Quantum field theory: fields, not particles, are the primary ontology; particles are excitations.

By embracing this perspective, we gain more than metaphysical clarity. We gain:

• A way to interpret quantum formalism without contradiction,

• A framework for integrating quantum theory with emergent spacetime models,

• A conceptual basis for cross-disciplinary unification (e.g. with biology, thermodynamics, information theory),

• And a path toward de-mystifying quantum paradox without returning to classical metaphysics.

---

Closing Thought

We are not proposing a new theory of quantum mechanics. We are articulating a new ontological background against which existing theory can be interpreted. This background does not presuppose particles, space, or substance. It begins with relational fields, potential, and constraint—and treats coherence, not position, as the signature of being.

In the next post, we will consider how this framework can be extended to relativistic contexts, and how space and time themselves may emerge from patterns of relation and constraint—not as neutral backgrounds, but as expressions of systemic coherence at larger scales.

Beyond Bohm: Why Substance-Based Interpretations Fall Short

Bohmian mechanics holds a special status among interpretations of quantum theory. Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation, which dissolves ontological questions into epistemic ones, and unlike Many-Worlds, which multiplies unobservable realities, Bohmian mechanics offers a clear, realist picture: particles have definite trajectories, guided by a “pilot wave” encoded in the wavefunction. No collapse, no superposition, no ambiguity—just hidden variables restoring classical determinism beneath quantum formalism.

But while this interpretation resolves some puzzles, it introduces others—and, as recent experiments on quantum tunnelling show, it may be ontologically inadequate to the phenomena it claims to describe. This post explains why Bohmian mechanics, despite its appeal, inherits the very metaphysical assumptions that quantum theory has outgrown. It cannot accommodate phenomena like tunnelling without contradiction, and it misconstrues what kind of system quantum reality actually is.

---

1. Bohmian Basics: Particles and Pilot Waves

In Bohmian mechanics:

• Particles have definite positions at all times, even when unmeasured.

• Their velocities are determined by the quantum potential, which is calculated from the wavefunction.

• The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrödinger equation and acts as a pilot wave guiding the motion of particles.

This framework allows one to reconstruct quantum predictions in a deterministic setting. But its ontological commitments are strictly substance-based: there are particles (with position and trajectory) and a wavefunction (which guides them). Even nonlocality is tolerated, so long as particles behave consistently with the pilot wave.

---

2. The Problem of the Barrier

Consider now the case of quantum tunnelling into an infinite barrier—as in the Sharoglazova et al. experiment.

According to Bohmian mechanics, if a barrier is infinitely extended and the wavefunction is exponentially decaying, the velocity of the particle drops to zero. The particle is “stuck” inside the barrier—its dwell time becomes infinite.

But the experiment shows something else: photons exhibit finite dwell times, and their tunnelling speed increases with the depth of potential (more negative kinetic energy). In other words, the system behaves dynamically, not statically, inside a region Bohmian mechanics would treat as a zone of rest.

This isn't just a failed prediction. It reveals a fundamental limitation: the Bohmian model assumes that the particle exists inside the barrier and that its motion stops due to boundary conditions. But from a relational standpoint, this framing is already misguided.

---

3. Ontological Misalignment

The real problem is not the velocity. It is the ontology of particle-in-space.

Bohmian mechanics assumes that:

• There is a particle,

• It is located at a position in space,

• It follows a trajectory governed by a wave,

• Its motion can be halted by conditions in a region.

This is precisely the metaphysical apparatus that quantum mechanics undermines. Entanglement, superposition, nonlocality, and measurement all suggest that quantum systems do not consist of localisable particles with hidden trajectories. They are not substances in space; they are structured fields of potential undergoing transformation under constraint.

Thus, Bohmian mechanics may be formally coherent, but it is ontologically incompatible with the structure of quantum phenomena. It tells a story that cannot accommodate the behaviour we observe—because its story is about things moving through space, rather than relations reorganising within a system.

---

4. The Collapse of Explanation

When substance ontology fails, its models collapse into contradiction or ad hoc patchwork. In the case of Bohmian mechanics:

• To explain nonlocal correlations, one must postulate instantaneous effects across space, undermining relativity.

• To explain tunnelling into barriers, one must assert infinite dwell times, contradicting observation.

• To preserve realism, one must add unobservable variables, violating parsimony.

• To maintain determinism, one must reinterpret probability as ignorance, undermining the core statistical structure of the theory.

These are not elegant trade-offs. They are symptoms of a misapplied metaphysics—an attempt to shoehorn quantum formalism into a classical mould.

---

5. Relational Recovery

A relational ontology does not attempt to recover classical substance. It accepts that localised particles with intrinsic properties are not fundamental. What exists are relations, structured fields of potential, undergoing actualisation according to systemic constraints.

In this framework:

• There is no particle “in” the barrier. There is a reconfiguration of coherence under topological tension.

• Motion is not trajectory, but change in relational patterning.

• Speed is not velocity through space, but rate of transformation across constrained affordances.

• The “failure” of Bohmian mechanics is not empirical but conceptual: it fails to see what quantum theory is telling us about the structure of reality.

---

Conclusion: Letting Go of Substance

Bohmian mechanics deserves credit for confronting the ontological question head-on. But its commitment to particles and trajectories locks it into a classical metaphysics that quantum systems do not support. Its failure to account for recent tunnelling experiments is not a matter of detail—it is a sign that substance-based thinking has reached its limit.

If quantum theory is to be interpreted without paradox, we must look beyond the ontology of things, and attend instead to the relational dynamics of transformation. The real task is not to save classical intuitions, but to develop a new metaphysical vocabulary—one in which coherence, potential, and constraint take precedence over entity, motion, and location.

In the next post, we will begin exploring what such a vocabulary might look like—not merely as an interpretation of quantum theory, but as a foundation for understanding reality as such.

Rethinking Quantum Tunnelling: A Relational Interpretation

Recent experiments have given us an unprecedented view into quantum tunnelling — a phenomenon long treated as mysterious, even paradoxical, within conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics. Most strikingly, a study published in Nature (Sharoglazova et al., 2025) has shown that photons with more negative kinetic energy tunnel faster into an energy barrier — a result that challenges the predictions of Bohmian mechanics and resists classical explanation.

But what if the problem is not with the phenomenon, but with the ontological framing used to interpret it?

This post brings the relational ontology developed in previous entries to bear on the tunnelling experiment, showing how the phenomenon can be re-described without recourse to paradox, collapse, or hidden trajectories. In doing so, it reframes tunnelling not as a traversal through space, but as a reconfiguration of potential under constraint — a relational transformation governed by systemic dynamics.

---

1. The Classical Framing: Tunnelling as Motion Through a Barrier

In traditional accounts, tunnelling is understood as a situation in which a quantum particle — typically conceived as a substance with insufficient energy to cross a classical barrier — somehow appears on the other side. This "leakage" is attributed to the non-zero amplitude of the wavefunction within the barrier region. The basic picture is of a particle that:

• encounters a potential barrier higher than its kinetic energy,

• enters the barrier with exponential decay of amplitude, and

• emerges beyond it with a reduced probability of detection.

The ontological image behind this is one of objects moving through space, albeit probabilistically. The particle is “in” the barrier, despite not having the energy to be there, and spends some indeterminate “tunnelling time” traversing it.

This picture is intuitively appealing but conceptually incoherent. It assumes that the particle has a well-defined position at all times, yet is also delocalised. It implies that a “barrier” is a kind of spatial wall, yet allows the particle to violate its classical constraints.

---

2. The Experimental Challenge: Finite Dwell Time, Accelerated Penetration

The Sharoglazova et al. experiment introduces a new twist. By creating a waveguide system in which photons can tunnel both forward into a classically forbidden region and sideways into a second waveguide, the researchers obtained a measurable proxy for the “speed” of tunnelling: the oscillatory build-up of photon density in the second guide.

Their key finding: photons with more negative kinetic energy penetrated the barrier faster. This is consistent with standard quantum predictions, but inconsistent with Bohmian mechanics, which predicts that particles in an infinite barrier should come to rest — implying infinite dwell times.

Thus, the classical metaphor — of particles inside barriers behaving as if slowed or trapped — fails. Something else is happening. But what?

---

3. The Relational Reframing: Actualisation Under Constraint

A relational ontology dispenses with the notion of particles as entities moving through space. Instead, it treats the system as a field of potential, structured by constraints (e.g. the geometry of the waveguides) and actualised through relational dynamics.

From this standpoint:

• The “photon” is not a substance entering a region, but a coherence pattern within a field of relation.

• The “barrier” is not a wall, but a zone of altered affordance — a region where the potential for coherence is suppressed, but not null.

• The “speed” of tunnelling is not the velocity of a thing, but the rate at which the system reorganises in response to tension and affordance.

In other words, tunnelling reflects the systemic preference for resolving relational tension by exploiting available pathways — even those that seem “forbidden” from a classical perspective. The experiment does not show particles in motion, but the dynamical propagation of coherence across a topologically structured field.

The finding that tunnelling proceeds faster when kinetic energy is more negative makes sense under this interpretation: deeper relational tension creates a steeper gradient of potential resolution, accelerating the redistribution of coherence.

---

4. The Collapse of Substance-Based Metaphors

The experiment challenges not only Bohmian mechanics, but the entire conceptual apparatus of “particles moving through barriers.” That apparatus depends on metaphors of space, object, and trajectory — all of which break down under close scrutiny.

Relationally, we are not tracking the motion of a particle, but observing the evolution of coherence under constraint. The apparent “location” of the photon is a projection of this evolution — a punctualisation of a more distributed, processual transformation.

The notion of “dwell time” becomes ambiguous: what is dwelling, and where? But the notion of temporal patterning of resolution remains coherent. What the experiment measures is not “how long a particle stays” in a region, but how rapidly the field reconfigures in that region, under experimental conditions that allow us to track it.

---

5. Rewriting the Question

Rather than asking:

How does a particle get through a barrier?

We ask:

How does the system reorganise under topological constraint to allow coherence to propagate?

Rather than:

What is the particle doing in the barrier?

We ask:

What affordances does the configuration permit, and how do they shape the flow of actualisation?

In this reframing, “tunnelling” ceases to be an inexplicable anomaly. It becomes a paradigm case of systemic adaptation—an expression of how potential resolves when the field is modulated by structured tension.

---

In the next post, we will consider what this kind of relational framing implies for the broader debate about quantum interpretations — including why substance-based models (like Bohmian mechanics) cannot accommodate these dynamics without contradiction, and how relational alternatives can do so without recourse to hidden variables or multiple universes.

From Substance to Relation: Rethinking the Ontological Foundations of Physics

In the previous post, we outlined a set of unresolved ontological problems in quantum theory—ranging from the measurement problem to the paradoxes of nonlocality and identity. Each of these reflects a deeper tension: modern physics continues to rely on a conceptual architecture inherited from classical metaphysics, even as its phenomena undermine that very architecture.

This post begins the process of rethinking that architecture. We contrast the classical substance-based ontology with a relational/processual ontology, and examine how the latter might better accommodate the empirical and formal structure of quantum physics. In doing so, we lay the groundwork for a conceptual shift—one that interprets quantum systems not as collections of things, but as fields of relation undergoing transformation under constraint.

---

1. Substance Ontology: The Classical Assumptions

Classical physics rests on a set of metaphysical assumptions that are often taken for granted:

• Objects are primary: The world is composed of discrete entities (particles, bodies, fields) that possess intrinsic properties.

• Space and time are containers: Objects move and interact within space and time, which exist independently of them.

• Causality is local: Interactions occur via forces transmitted continuously through space, and no influence travels faster than light.

• Properties are possessed: An object has its mass, location, and charge independently of observation or relation.

This ontology proved adequate for Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian fields, and even special relativity. But quantum theory consistently violates these assumptions:

• Particles do not have definite positions prior to measurement.

• Entangled systems cannot be decomposed into independent parts.

• Observables depend on measurement context.

• Identical particles cannot be distinguished by intrinsic properties.

---

2. Relational Ontology: Core Principles

A relational ontology reconfigures the metaphysical foundation. Instead of beginning with discrete entities in pre-existing space, it posits:

• Relations precede relata: What exists fundamentally is not things, but patterns of dependence, interaction, or constraint.

• Space and time are emergent: Spatiotemporal structure arises from the dynamic organisation of relations—not as a container, but as an effect.

• Identity is perspectival: A system’s individuation depends on its coherence and contrast within a wider relational field.

• Properties are enacted: Observable features emerge through interaction; they are not pre-existing attributes of isolated objects.

This orientation is compatible with a wide range of process philosophies (Whitehead, Simondon, Deleuze), but here we treat it not as a speculative metaphysics, but as a practical framework for interpreting physical theories.

---

3. Quantum Mechanics in Relational Terms

Recasting quantum mechanics in relational terms shifts our understanding of its central features:

Phenomenon	Substance View	Relational View
Wavefunction	A complete description of an object	A structured field of potential across relational space
Measurement	Collapse of a property	Resolution of tension within systemic constraints
Entanglement	Spooky link between particles	Expression of non-separable relational configuration
Particle identity	Individuated by intrinsic properties	Patterned coherence within a shared field
Tunnelling	Particle overcomes a barrier	Reconfiguration of affordance under dynamic constraint

This reorientation removes the need to explain "where the particle goes" or "what the system is doing" when unmeasured. There are no hidden positions, no collapsing objects—only transitions across a field of structured possibility.

---

4. What Does This Buy Us?

By abandoning the metaphysics of substance, we gain several advantages:

• Coherence with quantum formalism: The mathematical structure of quantum theory is naturally relational (e.g. Hilbert spaces, tensor products, transition amplitudes).

• Clarification of paradoxes: Many so-called mysteries—wave–particle duality, collapse, nonlocality—arise only when we try to impose substance metaphors on a non-substance theory.

• Continuity with emergent spacetime theories: In quantum gravity and causal set theory, spacetime itself is treated as emergent from relations—aligning well with this ontological shift.

• Compatibility with dynamical systems: The emphasis on system-wide constraint and evolution aligns quantum ontology with broader frameworks in complexity, thermodynamics, and biology.

---

5. Ontology as Conceptual Infrastructure

Ontology in physics is not optional. Whether explicit or implicit, every theory encodes assumptions about what exists and how. When those assumptions become misaligned with the behaviour of the systems we’re studying, paradoxes emerge.

Relational ontology is not a theory in itself—it is a conceptual infrastructure that enables new kinds of theory. It offers an alternative to the intuitive, object-based metaphors that continue to dominate physics education and popular science communication. And it suggests that rather than asking "what is a particle doing?", we might ask: how does coherence reorganise under constraint?

---

In the next post, we’ll apply this framework to a concrete case: quantum tunnelling. We’ll revisit recent experiments and show how relational ontology reframes the question, not as "how fast does a particle pass through a barrier?" but as "how rapidly does potential resolve under topological tension?"

Quantum Ontology: Problems and Paradoxes

Quantum mechanics is widely regarded as the most empirically successful theory in the history of physics. It has enabled the design of transistors, lasers, and atomic clocks, and it provides accurate predictions across domains as varied as spectroscopy and quantum computing. And yet, nearly a century after its formal development, we still do not know what it describes.

At the heart of the problem is ontology: the question of what exists and how. Quantum theory operates with a formalism that yields probabilistic predictions about measurement outcomes, but remains curiously agnostic about what the system is doing when it is not being measured. The ontological commitments of the theory are underdetermined by its predictive success—and the result is a landscape of competing interpretations, each with different implications for the nature of reality.

This post outlines the key ontological problems that quantum mechanics presents, and why none of the mainstream interpretations resolve them without cost. It also sketches a path toward a more relationally grounded account, which will be developed further in the posts to come.

---

1. The Measurement Problem

At the core of quantum theory is the wavefunction—a complex-valued function that evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation. But when a measurement occurs, the wavefunction appears to "collapse" into a definite outcome, in violation of that same evolution.

This discontinuity raises a profound question:

What constitutes a measurement, and why does it produce a definite outcome from a probabilistic wavefunction?

If the wavefunction is a complete description of reality, then collapse is a real, physical process—but one not accounted for by the theory’s own dynamics. If, on the other hand, collapse is epistemic (a change in knowledge), then we must explain how our observation transforms the state of a physical system. Either option leads to philosophical discomfort.

---

2. Nonlocality and Entanglement

Quantum entanglement describes correlations between particles that persist across spatial separation. In experiments such as those testing Bell inequalities, these correlations violate classical expectations and suggest that quantum systems are not composed of independently determined parts.

This raises ontological challenges to any theory built on local, separable entities. It suggests that quantum phenomena are not reducible to the behaviour of isolated components—a serious departure from classical metaphysics.

Worse still, no interpretation of quantum mechanics has managed to explain this nonlocality without introducing its own set of paradoxes. Bohmian mechanics, for instance, embraces nonlocality explicitly, but at the cost of reintroducing a preferred frame of reference—undermining relativistic covariance.

---

3. The Problem of Identity and Individuation

Quantum particles are often said to be “indistinguishable,” and yet they exhibit stable patterns (e.g. in atomic orbitals or statistical ensembles). If two electrons cannot, even in principle, be individuated by any intrinsic property, in what sense are they two?

This problem goes deeper than mere labelling. The ontology of entities breaks down when quantum identity lacks classical substance. Fermi–Dirac and Bose–Einstein statistics reveal that what we call "particles" behave more like excitations of shared relational fields than self-contained units.

---

4. The Limits of Particle and Field Metaphors

Quantum theory is commonly taught using metaphors of particles and waves, but neither metaphor captures the theory’s full behaviour. Particles that diffract. Waves that "collapse." Dualities that never settle into unity.

We are left with a formalism that works but resists intuitive mapping onto physical reality.

If particles and fields are not fundamental, what is?

This opens the door to alternative ontologies—ones not based on things in space, but on relations, processes, and transformation under constraint. The challenge is to develop such frameworks without losing empirical adequacy or mathematical precision.

---

5. The Interpretation Landscape: No Clear Winner

Numerous interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to resolve these problems, but none do so without cost:

• Copenhagen interpretation avoids ontology altogether—collapsing the question into the observer.

• Many-Worlds solves the measurement problem at the cost of proliferating unobservable universes.

• Bohmian mechanics preserves determinism but introduces hidden variables and preferred trajectories.

• QBism and other epistemic interpretations sidestep reality in favour of subjective expectation.

What all these interpretations share is an inability to resolve the ontological paradoxes without importing new contradictions or speculative machinery.

---

Toward a Relational Ontology

If the recurring failure of interpretation points to a deeper problem, it may be this:

The classical ontology of objects-in-space is no longer fit for purpose.

A relational ontology begins not with substances but with patterned dependencies—systems of potential actualising under constraint. In such a view:

• The wavefunction encodes a structured field of affordance, not a hidden substance.

• Measurement is not collapse, but selection—where systemic tensions precipitate local resolution.

• Entanglement reflects non-separability, not spooky action-at-a-distance.

• Time, space, and individuality emerge from deeper relational coherence, not the other way around.

In the next post, we’ll begin to develop this approach systematically, contrasting relational ontology with classical substance metaphysics and exploring how such a framework might resolve the problems outlined here.

Why Ontology Matters in Quantum Physics and Relativity

Physics has revolutionised our understanding of reality over the past century. Quantum mechanics and relativity, two pillars of modern physics, have transformed how we conceive the natural world. Yet, despite their empirical successes, they have exposed profound conceptual and ontological puzzles that challenge our most basic assumptions about existence.

Classical metaphysics, centred on discrete substances moving through absolute space and time, struggles to accommodate phenomena such as quantum entanglement, tunnelling, and the relativistic deformation of spacetime. These challenges raise fundamental questions: What does it mean for something to exist? How is reality structured? What is the nature of time and space themselves?

This blog is dedicated to exploring these foundational issues. It examines the ontological assumptions embedded within quantum physics and relativity and seeks to develop alternative frameworks—especially relational and processual ontologies—that provide conceptual clarity and coherence. By critically unpacking the metaphysical foundations of modern physics, the blog aims to illuminate new paths toward a more integrated and philosophically robust understanding of the physical world.

Here, physics, philosophy, and related disciplines come together in dialogue. This space invites critical reflection on the language, concepts, and metaphors that shape scientific worldview and influence theory development. It confronts unresolved puzzles and explores innovative ideas that transcend traditional frameworks.

Join this ongoing inquiry as we unfold the foundations of reality.