Causal Theories for Physics

By D. Gilbertson (email)


Causal Theories in Physics Basic Perspective

1         Preferred Foliation/Frame Type Causal Theories

If you think that this concept is already proven wrong then read “Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity(QM&R) by Tim Maudlin. This is an excellent book to start getting into the details of the conflict between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. To be sure I will reference this book a number of times.

This book does not state that a preferred foliation is the answer. It only states that it is a possibility. It was written by a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University and he is well accepted by academics in his field.

Investigation into that possibility is what this web site is about. It’s not a main stream investigation, not anymore that is. So it leaves the field more open to enthusiasts.

Second note: There is now a theory which combines in principle QM and Relativity but it is just a theory of one method in which to do it. It is not proven and it too has its peculiarities. It does not disprove the possibility of preferred frame causal physics.

The main point of this site is to investigate what is required for a causal physics theory and to pose some possibilities. The main line of approach is a causal preferred foliation type of physics. In the Special Relativity limit this would be called preferred frame causal physics.

I will go into the reasons, strengths and weaknesses of such an approach and contrast with some of the strengths and weaknesses of Relativity.  I will go into a number of different forms that a strictly causal theory may take. I will present a manner in which non-local action can make sense in a world that is generally local. I will discuss sifting physical reality insights from quantum mechanics. There are a great number of topics to explore. The main purpose here is to give an overview of what they are. Much of this discussion involves the philosophy of physics.

2         Importance of the Philosophy of Physics

The Philosophy of Physics has been very important in the development of revolutionary new Physics. One can say that Einstein developed his theories guided by his philosophical views. Einstein has his own contributions to the philosophy of physics (

Consider the theory of General Relativity. Einstein observed that acceleration due to Gravity and acceleration due to change in velocity where essentially the same. He wrote on this concept in 1907. Driven by this principle and continuing to consider all its implications he developed and published the General Theory of Relativity in 1916.

So from a simple principle and years of research work, Einstein developed a revolutionary new theory in Physics, the theory of General Relativity. This started from a conceptual basis. The implications of that basis were investigated and eventually developed into a mathematical framework.

Do not overlook the work it took to go from 1907 equivalence principle to the 1916 Theory of Relativity. It was not simply “acceleration is like gravity so the equation for gravity must be this…” Consider the issue from the perspective of someone in 1907. One might say, “So what? How does that help me solve any problem?” Well eventually it became a part of the path to General Relativity which helped shed new light on a number of phenomena. Initial concepts that are powerful can lead to new and great works. However, it still takes 99% perspiration to get to the final answer.

The Philosophy of Physics in brief is takes a detailed look into the pieces of Physics theories. Cause and Effect analysis is one of the main tools.

Philosophy and meta physics can go off on farfetched tangents. To keep the effort driven with the purpose of an eventual usable theory one must always consider how mathematics might be engaged. Purpose driven Philosophy of Physics develops mathematical frameworks for different the different constructs that it creates.

My final take on this is:

·         Seek to understand that which is with the best Philosophical Foundation you can find and develop your mathematical framework from that.

3         Main Stream Physics vs. Preferred Foliation Causal Theories

First of all let me state that I am not against main stream physics. I think it has validity to its approach and I think there are many very intelligent physicists in the field who understand it much better than I do. My approach is to consider an alternate viable direction they are not in general taking.

Even among the best in the field there are differences in opinion in the details of what specific direction it should go. Read “The Trouble with Physics” by Lee Smolin. The problems in physics are immense and even after decades of work there is still no clear theory of everything. So at this point I think looking into all viable possibilities by those so disposed to those possibilities should be reasonable.

My main issue with main stream physics is not in the direction that it is going. It is in the direction that it is not going and it is more than that. It seems that it is set up to oppose alternative directions. It misses investigations into some viable options. Paraphrasing some select portions of QM&R (ch 9 & 10) “the clearest and cleanest way…(is) a Preferred Foliation in space time … remains an open and tempting option …” it requires a rejection of Relativity at the fundamental level and “a fundamental rejection of Relativity … has few enthusiasts”.

At any rate, I suppose I could be thankful at this time because it leaves the field open to the amateur fundamental Physics enthusiast. I do think I have a couple of insights that I have developed over the years in my pursuit to contemplate what it would take to have a physics model that is fundamentally causal.

I am focused on my own efforts on causal physics but I also try to understand the reasons for main stream physics. I will also attempt to do my best to point out main stream concepts versus those presented here so that the reader may understand what is along the main stream line of reasoning versus things that may want to make a main stream physicist leave you at a party.

3.1      Terminology “Preferred Foliation” and “Preferred Frame”

The reasons for a preferred foliation will be discussed shortly but first it seems appropriate to discuss some background understanding requirements and some terminology which goes beyond simple Special Relativity.

To understand the concepts here one needs to understand Special Relativity and its conceptual fundamental lack of a preferred frame along with an understanding of General Relativity simply in that it states that mass curves space time.

I need to proceed as if some of these concepts are understood. If not then email me perhaps I can help at least point you in the right direction.

So in simple terms, a preferred frame is a Special Relativity term. It assumes a uniform space time. General Relativity which trumps Special Relativity talks of mass curving space. This means space is not uniform. So to be precise one cannot talk about a “preferred frame”. One needs to use a mathematical term more appropriate to the variable curvature in space time. In this case the term happens to be “foliation”.

·         Preferred Frame: the simplified uniform space-time of Special Relativity.

·         Preferred Foliation: full variability of space-time in General Relativity

So I may use the term preferred frame to simplify a discussion or I may use the term foliation which is more generally applicable.

4         The trouble with Alternative Physics

There are many “way out there” alternative physics sites.  There are a few good ones that are done by fairly knowledgeable people with different ideas.

I want to endeavor to keep this site one that is logically correct and only contrast main stream physics in terms of a conceptual directions explored. I do not refuse to accept the empirical evidence of the many experiments or of many well founded ideas that are in physics.

For example, I will state that Special Relativity is at the very least mathematically and empirically highly accurate for its inertial frames of reference calculations. There are many experiments to support it. If it was incorrect then particle accelerators would not work for one example of its usage.

The main problem with alternative sites is:

·         Alternative Proposals are not generally peer reviewed

In that respect I will try to keep a few principles in mind

·         Understand Concepts of Main Stream Physics

You can’t really find viable alternatives if you do not understand where main stream is strong and where it is weak. You will just end up with some poor alternative conclusion and go down a bad path.

·         Understand Strengths and Weaknesses of my Proposals

o   Point out the stronger arguments.

o   Indicate Speculations and Conjectures

·         Start from a Strong Position

I want to start from a strong position and then follow down some paths of reasoning to see where they might head to. The farther one goes down the path away from the initial strong position, the more into speculation and conjecture one goes. However, I believe it is down those paths that one might glimpse something new. One can begin to get a feel for new possible solutions.

I fully understand that a solid theory requires a full mathematical model. In that regards much of this site relies more on simple logic starting from known physics and then delving into speculation on possibilities for causal models. It is in effect still that search for a conceptual basis that rises above the rest in the search for a causal model.

Mankind’s understanding of the fundamental nature of reality has evolved to the point where it is very complex and not straight forward from the natural concepts we perceive and glean from ordinary experience. There is something going on at the fundamental level that is not easily deciphered. It’s a puzzle and the main method to decipher this puzzle is to consider what is known, use some general philosophical considerations that help one start from a strong position, and then speculate on the shapes of some pieces that might fit.

·         Sift out Reasonable Principles

If you keep in mind what is known and work down a few paths it is possible to sift out a few principles along the way that a causal physics model would be good to heed. I call these the stronger points to keep in consideration.

From a causal perspective it certainly seems that there should be a single ontology for the fundamental nature of physics. It should be one set of things follow a set of rules and not choosing between a set of rules to suit the application at hand.

Modern Physics will eventually evolve into new and better understandings. How that will happen I believe is by the logically open minded understanding what is truly implied in experiments and present theories. They will then use the best of reasoning in their approach for developing models for explanations.

5         Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: A Reason for Preferred Foliation

A good background read as stated at the beginning is:

Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity(QM&R) by Tim Maudlin

The main strength of reason for a preferred foliation causal physics lies in an understanding of Quantum Mechanics Entanglement and its non-local nature. The book indicated (QM&R) is an excellent work covering the incompatibility between the implications of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

I think the author keeps a good distinction between what is known, what is logically possible, and the many ways this issue has been addressed over the years. One very well written aspect of this book is in its separation of what is truly known from the highly ingrained directions of present modern day main stream physics.

I say this is an excellent book.  Does that mean it’s easy to understand? No it does not. There are quite a few advanced concepts there. However, this book is written for a modest level of understanding of physics and mathematics. My suggestion is to glean out of it the most you can. If you do not understand the graphical representations of space-time then at least understand that there is such a mathematical framework in physics and try to get the gist of the statements.

5.1      Why Preferred Foliation Causal Physics?

 (The Strong Starting Point)

It at the heart of the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity there is something to be learned. In simple terms of modest accuracy mainly meant to give the gist of the issue at hand:

·         Relativity implies that simultaneity does not exist

o   Different frames of reference can see a different time order for events separated by a distance. The perspective of each frame of reference is valid according to the foundational basis of Relativity

o   There is no specific time order given to space-like separated events

o   If there is no time order then how can one event cause another

·         Quantum entanglement non-local behavior implies that a measurement at one point “instantly” affects an entangled object at a distant point.

o   Which event is the cause and which is the effect?

There are a number of ways to dissect this incompatibility and QM&R gives a good overview of the many different ways. I want to go down mainly one path to explain this. I want to contemplate one of the main reasons that Relativity implies that simultaneity does not exist.

In special relativity no inertial frame of reference has preference over another reference frame. In other words it implies there is no preferred velocity in space-time. Now observers in different inertial frames will see distant events happen at different times. One observer may see two distant events A and B happen at the same time. Another might see A happen before B. Yet another may see B happen before A.

Quantum entanglement non-local behavior implies that a measurement at one point “instantly” affects an entangled object at a distant point. Now what happens if you can use Quantum Entanglement for a communication device?

5.2      Nonlocal Instantaneous Communication Implications

What IF you could have a Nonlocal Instantaneous Communication Device

·         Assume a non-local instantaneous communication device can be built

o   Of course this is Hypothetical and no nonlocal communication device can be built from QM,  however there is something to learn

If a non-local instantaneous communication device could be used to signal when an even occurred one would no longer have to wait for the transmission of light to indicate this information. Going back to the two observes, assume each observer has their non-local receiver going waiting for the non-locally transmitted indication of events A and B. Assume observer one gets the A Event occurred signal and then B Event occurred signal. The second observer should see the same sequence of events regardless of inertial frame. They should see the same time sequence order in A then B.  Any other observation allows for time paradox inconsistencies.

5.2.1     Michelson Morley Experiment Revised

For one more example, assume that you have a light source that initiates a light pulse in two directions towards two boxes that will nonlocally transmit an indication of when the light is received: one transmits event A and one transmits event B.






Hypothetical Experiment IF a Non-Local Communication Device WERE Possible

In this experiment all observers will see the same time sequence for A and B as indicated by the nonlocal receiver. There will be one inertial frame that agrees with the specifics of times as indicated by the nonlocal receiver and by what they calculate as times for occurrence of the actual events.  This will be the preferred frame.

In other words if a nonlocal communication device were possible then a new type of Michelson Morley Experiment could be devised which would find a preferred frame of reference. This is the simplest consistent view of what would happen.

If one locates the boxes at equal distances then the underlying preferred frame can be inferred by the observation of times indicated by the nonlocal receiver. If B happens before A then the vector direction of the preferred frame will have a positive component towards point B and negative towards A. If one rotates the apparatus around to find the maximum time between A and B one could then find the preferred frame of reference and calculate its magnitude.

Are there some alternative possibilities to what would happen in this scenario? Yes there are but will have their conceptual and logical issues as well. This is the simplest view of how this would work. (QM&R ch10 1st paragraph) “…the clearest and cleanest way to implement a nonlocal physics would be to implement a preferred foliation…” (i.e. preferred frame in Special Relativity constrained terms)

5.2.2     Relativity is Safe from such QM Experiments

·         In Reality: It has been proven in QM that QM entanglement cannot be used for nonlocal communication. In brief, this is how Relativity is safe from QM non-local entanglement.

·         Special Note, Jul 2013: There is a lot of work going on these days to use QM entanglement for quantum communication. Physicist John G. Cramer at the University of Washington is attempting to create a superluminal experiment.  To date though, there has been no claim of superluminal communication. It will be interesting to see what this has to offer.

Because of the stochastic nature of QM you cannot know or control the precise states of QM entangled objects until the measurement is made. So QM entanglement cannot be used for nonlocal communication.

This keeps Relativity safe from direct experiment. However the point still remains:

·         There is a some type of causality in QM Entanglement

·         If you want a simple causal theory to explain QM entanglement then you need non-local causality.

·         Non-local causality is most easily implemented with a preferred foliation.

5.3      Weakness of Preferred Frame Physics

So QM entanglement is a potential strong reason to once again at least consider some type of preferred frame physics. Why is it not? The main reasons it is not is because there are simple no experiments that can directly show it. The main questions are:

·         Why is the preferred frame so well hidden?

·         Why cannot QM entanglement be used for signaling?

These issues are somewhat connected as indicated that if QM entanglement could be used then likely relativity would fall conceptually is not mathematically for its applications.

So the main issue for a preferred frame physics causal theory will be to have a model that naturally creates the mathematics of Special Relativity. A theory which simply states “this is the math of the motion” is ad hoc. The goal is to develop a philosophically founded model based on what is known in Physics and develop a mathematical model where Special Relativity is naturally derived. Can this be done? No one knows because no one has methodically investigated this in all the possible directions that models could be built.

5.4      Strength of Relativity

The main point to be made on Relativity is:

·         Relativity has been used to make strong and accurate predictions

Relativity has been used to predict things. Special Relativity was used to predict time and mass dilation. General relativity was used to predict light bending around the sun and much more. So Relativity has a very strong prediction basis.

In addition some less stringent reasons for Relativity can be stated as:

·         Relativity has an appealing Philosophical Foundation

·         Why would nature hide a preferred frame?

·         Relativity is a Beautiful Theory

Relativity has its own philosophically based foundation that is appealing. The equation for General Relativity is concise and has been described as a beautify equation. It appeals to our sense of what a theory and equation should look like.

Final note on Relativity on QM non-locality:

·         There is now at least one theory that can reconcile QM and Relativity GRW.

·         It too though has its peculiarities (QM&R ch 10) and this theory is not popular with a number of quantum mechanical physicists. (web search different interpretations of QM).

5.5      So Why Preferred Foliation or Preferred Frame Physics?

At the heart of core of my search for understanding is a desire to have a fully causal model with, in certain terms, physically tractable objects. This path leads me down non-local causal physics. Additionally it leads me down the path of preferred frame or foliation physics. As indicated by QM&R, it was never fully ruled out by experiment or by some mathematical proof. So in brief:

·         A fully causal model that has non-local causality has not been ruled out.

o   It has the potential for a simple explanation of entanglement

o   A principle for sensible non-local causality will be presented

·         Main stream physics in general has many intelligent people which are generally going down some well selected paths for good reasons.

o   However, the path they are on is not the only path.

5.6      Final Point - In Plain Sight

One of the main points made by strict Relativist is done by the questions “Why would nature hide a preferred frame if one exists?” To this I might state

·         Nature Loves to Hide Itself. (Heraclitus)

To this I would add

·         Nature Loves to Hide Itself - In Plain Sight

Things in plain sight are hidden because we ignore them. We ignore them because they do not fit in any neat and tidy way into our thinking. We can ignore things and still accomplish much. However, eventually things ignored may become important for a deeper more comprehensive understanding.

In this case I pose that to ignore the difficulties of merging the concepts of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is to leave a potentially valuable clue about the nature of the universe unused and in plain sight.

As for why nature would hide a preferred frame, I would posit that it would be the result of some conservation principles and/or perhaps some deeper relativistic mechanism.

The one example to elucidate the concept of a possible deeper relativistic mechanism is as follows: if there is some continuous existent, i.e. a medium, in which particles and photons are conditions or states of that medium, then the question still remains but must be asked at a deeper level “What does this medium move with respect to?”

Could there be a purely relative dynamic medium? What would be the equations of motion of a relative dynamic medium? I will say this: the equations for such a medium are not those of any material mediums.  This will be a future topic for it requires some considerable contemplation.

6         Shift of Terminology to Simplify the Discussion

Up until this point I wanted to indicate why non-local causality has not been ruled out and why it has potential to be a simple explanation of QM entanglement. I wanted to indicate what main stream physics was thinking verse the non-local causality path. I want to now focus the discussion down this path. My assumptions will be:

·         Assume a nonlocal causal model of some type exists.

·         Assume it is a preferred frame or foliation type physics

I wish to explore the implications of these assumptions with questions such as

·         What is the nature of this nonlocal causality?

o   How can nonlocal causality be a sensible solution?

·         What are the properties that physical objects require?

o   The Quantum Mechanics Wave

·         What are some possible non-local causal models?

So to make the discussion simpler I want to now simply focus on the task at hand. I want to go down the path of non-local causality and explore its implications as well as the implications of the many experiments that have been done in terms of the types of models that are possible.

7         Principle of Causality

A study into causality is a study of how things interact. The set of all physical things that exist is a branch of physics called Kinematics. How physical things interact is the study of dynamics. So as the study into causality proceeds there are some simple starting principles:

·         Only physical existents or things that are physically real can interact

·         All dynamics results from relationships among physical existents

7.1      Spatiotemporal Locality verses Action at a Distance

An important topic in causality is Spatiotemporal locality. Up to this point I have assumed knowledge of the importance of nonlocal causality. This is how we experience our physical universe.

·         Spatiotemporal Locality in brief is that two things can only interact if they are at the same place at the same time.

The book “The Philosophy Of Physics” by Marc Lange delves into this subject. It is important to delve into this subject because there are questions to consider which are not obvious. There are questions which any physical theory must address in some manner. These questions get at the nature of what space and time should be within a model.

7.2      Sensible Non-local Causal Nature

Non-local causality breaks Spatiotemporal Locality. Einstein called QM entanglement spooky action at a distance. However, because of QM entanglement non-local causality must be a part of the capability of the model.

How can you make sense of a world in which cause between two points may just randomly act up and then go away? The answer is simply this: it does not randomly act up and then go away.  There must be a reason for its existence.

From a QM principle objects become entangled after being in contact. From consideration of this I glean the principle.

·         Principle: Non-local Causality will start from a Local Point and spread out.

So even though there may be a non-local causal connection, that connection required local contact to be formulated. This is the one principle that I think can help make a sensible non-local causal mathematical model.

Spatiotemporal action is strongly engrained in the world we experience. To get to point B from point A, a continuous path must be traversed between them. Somehow this spatiotemporal experiential basis must be accounted for. A strongly based spatiotemporal model which has mechanisms for non-local causality is the goal.

·         Spatiotemporal causal action should somehow be strongly engrained but not used as a total requirement. It is a strongly local world in which non-local causality somehow exists.

8         The Structure of Space and of Time

When one considers a preferred frame type physics one departs from the Space-Time concept. Space-Time is a Special Relativity term which indicates its concept of how space and time are interrelated. With a preferred frame type physics one goes back to discussing space and discussing time.

One point to make about space is that it is essentially a mixture of two concepts.

·         Space is essentially:

o   Locations where things can exist

o   Causal Relationships between locations.

8.1      Local Space and Nonlocal Causation

A local space concept is one that has basically only the ability for a causal event to propagate from point A to point B following some continuous path. Our general experience is entirely wrapped up into this type of causation. QM says you need to have nonlocal causal capability if you want a simple causal model.

·         A spatial model must somehow contain the three dimensional space we experience with the non-local causal requirement of QM.

A future discussion will be done to get deeper into this topic. The possibilities and the discussions on this can grow long. For now let me state just a few of the possibilities.

·         A higher dimensional space which has the dimensions higher than three locked up into a relatively small. i.e. string theory type methodology

·         General Relativity even if only as a mathematical framework and not being considered for an ontological description has potential for wormholes.

·         Separate the Concepts of Causality and Location and give Causality an Entity Existent Property in its own right

The last possibility is one I developed when contemplating what a non-local medium might be like and how it might be used for a unified field theory.

8.2      What is Time?

Without time however there would also be no cause. If nothing changes then nothing happens and no effects are propagates. So in effect the causal relationship between locations is inextricably tied in with the concept of time.

There are two main views on what time is:

Block Universe: Time could be viewed as our 3D space as being a surface in 4D space and moving through that 4 dimensional space.  In this way time would be a type of spatial relationship. This type of explanation has problems with explaining why we are tied to the one particular surface. The block universe also rules out free will in that the past, present, and future all exist.

Presentism: In Presentism there is only the now while the present and future do not exist and the passage of time is just an illusion. Personally, I pulled this from an academic web site but I do not really like the phrase that I put into italics that time is just an illusion. The fact of things moving and changing is the concept that the term “time” should more broadly represent.

Each of these has implications which differ and should be explored. The one question that should not be forgotten to be asked along the way is “Is time something outside of these two possibilities?” A mixture of the two is one possibility.

I tend to lean towards Presentism but as stated I cannot call the time an illusion. Things move and change. The past brought us to the now and the future is where we are going. That is our common experience. This is one area where I certainly think philosophy can go on large tangents. I don’t want to forget and totally ignore all the possibilities. However, the goal is a mathematical model to explain physics. The consideration is that we do not exist in illusion.

One question I have is that if time is infinitesimally thin between the past and the future then how our does our perception of the time exist. It would seem our perception of time would have to be wrapping up in being able to hold multiple concepts at once, in a sense a nonlocal connection of the physical components that contain the concepts of our perception. This is just loose speculation but definitely worth future reading and consideration.

Relativity has difficulty in relating to Presentism in that different observers have different surfaces of simultaneity. So different observers in theory see a different time slice into space. That is one observer sees space in one material configuration and a different observer sees space in a different material configuration. If both observations are equally valid how could time be infinitely thin? I read that physicists tend to the Block Universe view and this I likely the reason why. One solution to this is perhaps that the only real time perspective one has is at the exact location where they are at the exact moment.

So there are at least two ways to model how thing exist in time and probably many more. Two of the main concepts were presented. Each has its implications into models. Considering other possibilities for time might be interesting but for some future point in time.

8.2.1     Block Universe or Presentism: The Main Implicative Difference

The goal is to develop a model for things that exist and how they interact. So the main difference between the two concepts for time is how objects may interact.

In the Block Universe since all points in time exists, then there can be interactional relationships between objects at different points in time. That is temporal locality need not hold.

In the Presentism Universe there is only one infinitely thin moment in time that exists. In this model temporal locality must hold because nothing outside of the moment exists.

8.2.2     Models for Time

In the Block Universe model all relationships can be defined in terms of spatial location. The path equation that a moving object follows could be described in terms of its locations only. For example, two points into the past can give velocity. An object in motion with no forces must satisfy the equation that for each increment of time it must traverse the same distance. With a force on an object the equation would be a proportional change in distance for the next step in time. The relationship with time is there for spatially based:

st1 = F (s(0), s(t-1), s(t-2), …)

In the Presentism Universe model the situation is quite different. Since all objects exist in only one infinitesimally thin moment then time or something related to it must exist. An object must have some existent property that indicates its motion. The relationship with time is that the object has a property that relates it to time. This relationship can be indicated using the time derivative

st1 = F (s(0), s`(0), s``(0), …)

For models like these one would have to ask “How far back in time or how many derivatives would be required?” It’s a good question. An object with no forces needs only present location and velocity information. The change in velocity or acceleration is based on some force.

That force comes from a spatially relational and interactive object. Or another way to say it is that force comes from a differential in potential energy term. Potential energy comes from object spatial relationships. For example with a spring and mass, the acceleration is based on F=kx and x is a spatial relational variable. The potential energy in the spring is a function of a spatial relationship.

In this manner, most of physics can be done with object location and the second derivative in terms of time or motional information and then adding spatial relationships to other interactive objects.

It is important when considering dynamics equations if they would require more than a second term that brings in information about relationship to time.       The Block Universe Could Simulate the Presentism Universe

To be completely fair the Block Universe could be described exactly like the Presentism Universe. However the concept of the Presentism universe is that no information from the past or future can be used. In a sense it isolates each slice in time for the block universe. In this case one might ask what use the Block Universe has except to make Relativity conceptually palatable.

8.2.3     Time as an Axiomatic Existent

My starting point and most general concept for time is that it is an axiomatic existent that has properties associated with it. That is thinking about it as something we can understand but we cannot break it down further. So the concept of time here is more of it being a unit of motion or as the mediator of causal relations.

·         Time will be considered an axiom of existence

·         Space will be considered to be a set of locations that can have a set of one or more values associated with them for each particular point in time.

·         Objects must have some term that relates time and space. That is the second term in the previous discussions, i.e. velocity at a minimum.       Absolute Time

The ability to have non-local causation between any two or more points and not have the ability for reverse time communication necessitates the need for an absolute time or some type of absolute time.

By some type of absolute time I am considering the least constrictive description for how points in space can relate non-locally to each other.  Consider an object that leaves A and continuously transmits a clock signal back to A non-locally. That signal must continue to tick forward in time. Its rate may change to be faster or slower but the clock must always move forward in time.

I will primarily focus on absolute time in that it is one of the easiest ways to view non-local causal physics. As a secondary consideration I will keep in mind that my second description is really the main constraint for non-local communication and a model that will not allow for communication into the past.

8.3        Positional Relationship, Motional Action, and Time

One more discussion into the nature of time which I think is informative. Physics can be boiled down to two types of energy which are: Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy. Kinetic Energy is the energy of motion. Potential energy is a spatial relationship property.

·         Kinetic Energy: The Energy of Motion.

·         Potential Energy: The Energy in Relationships

o   Object Properties and Spatial Relationships to other Objects

o   Object Transformation Properties, E = mc2

Matters Potential Energy in is related to its Mass. However, this could be a spatial relationship in some models. In the type of model I am seeking it should be a spatial relationship of some type. The type of model I am seeking is one in which there are only spatial relationships between object existents and there properties like charge and velocity.

Consider a single point in time and the Presentism Model. All the information about Potential Energy is there in that instance of time. That is the objects, their spatial relationships. However, where is the information about the Kinetic energy?

·         Where in an infinitesimal slice of time is the information about the motion?

This brings back the point that was raised early in that there must be some property of time that objects possess. There must be a property that exists that relates the motion of time and spatial relationship.

9          Causality and Mathematical Frameworks

When developing a mathematical framework it is important to understand equations that are simply mathematical frameworks that work and those which are causal.

Consider the difference between Newton’s Gravity and General Relativity. Newton’s Gravity is a mathematical model that is fairly accurate but at its heart it has unmediated action at a distance. General Relativity on the other hand is a fully causal model for gravity. It has an origin of the force mediator and propagation of that mediation through space.

10      Quantum Mechanics Wave Function

What is the QM wave function? This is a good question and of course QM&R gets into it from the perspective of whether it is physical or simply knowledge. The two considerations are:

·         Epistemic: Probability Based on Lack of Knowledge

·         Physical: Actual Physical Object.

So if one wants to have a causal model how does one explain what the QM wave function is? In short (QM&R ch10) the QM wave function is defined on the configuration space of a system… defining a point is tantamount to … specifying where every particle in the system is.

Let me restate the problem in terms of a possible causal model. If you do not know where any particles in a system are and particles have a wave like property making you have to deal with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when trying to ascertain location and momentum of a particle, what kind of a probabilistic model could you develop? The answer needs to be QM.

From my readings on the book and certain experiments I know of I would have to say that it can be strongly stated that:

·         The QM Wave Function does have a Physical Component

·         The QM Wave Function may have an Epistemic Component

Given the nature of the problem from a causal perspective it seems likely that:

·         The QM Wave Function very likely has an Epistemic Component

10.1    Physical information Supporting Thoughts

·         Two Path Experiments.

If that particle or photon only goes down one path then blocking the other path would not have any effect.

·         QM Entanglement

Making a measurement at one location in QM affects the linked object.  One might simply say that this could just be information or epistemic. However, what is the linked photon? It is a simple object. For it to change or adjust its polarity something physical happens. It does not affect its energy only a certain orientation but I think this has a physical aspect non-the-less.

10.2    Epistemic information

This one is a little harder:

There is talk on the internet at respected sites about this.

To find out more Google: quantum mechanics wave function epistemic

I would say this. In simple terms: Because the location of particles is unknown at the start of the experiment and QM has to account for the possibilities that the particles might be at any locations its general construct would need to take into account the possible locations of all objects. Measurements that reduce the possible starting points but not all of them would to certain extent be an epistemic reduction.

The more I look into this the more interesting it becomes. There is work going on in main stream physics on this and it will be interesting to see what it found out. In brief here is what it seems to be happening

·         There is a theory that the QM Wave Function is Strictly Physical

·         The Mathematical formulism makes it different from standard QM.

·         There is an experiment planned to determine which is correct.

·         There are well respected people on both sides of this debate.

11      Continuous or Discrete Space

In simple terms it could be either. This basically means we do not have enough information or logic base on what we know to decide between the two choices.

Should space be made of a pure down to the infinitesimal continuum or should it be a minimum smallness discrete space? Ether of these could be considered.

Just as a very loose aside: It seems to me that main stream physics today tends to desire a discretized space. It does not want a pure continuum. I expect there are some philosophical implications of a pure continuum. The Greeks did not like concept of transcendental numbers which is one reason I think why they had the concept of atoms. It was not until much later that transcendental numbers were proven to exist. It was a simple as pi. Whether space is continuous or discrete and how to differentiate between the possibilities of the models created from the two would be very interesting and not an easy problem to say the least.

12      Deterministic or Stochastic

In simple terms it could be either. There is only one restriction for a stochastic system. There should be a cause to the probabilities that are given. The mathematics should not state something along the lines of “if particle A1 is distance D from particle A2 then the probability of a Boson B exchange is P”.  It has to be something more along the lines of “Given the causal emanations from particle A1 and from particle A2 at distance D that is according to the math of how the causal emanations travel through space, there will be a probability P for Boson B exchange”.

I can certainly image a fully continuous space which in a sense is fully deterministic but because of the nature of interactions ends up containing fully stochastic actions.

13      Dual Nature Particles and Waves

During the 19th century the physical model was that something was either a particle or a wave. However, it has now long been known that particles and photons both exhibit particle properties and wave properties. I would say that there is strong reason to believe that every object should intrinsically have both of these properties all the time.

The main difficulty with the wave principle is that waves tend to disperse energy. The wave component of particles and photons does not diminish their energy. This brings up one main principle:

·         Physical Objects Require a Contained Wave Constitution

By “contained” I mean that the wave does not disperse energy ever outward. A contained wave is a centralized wave where the energy is contained around the central point. It may be worth consideration if the term “centralized” is required. However, since the location of a particle can be ascertained to a very small location, albeit at the cost of moment information, it seems the term centralized is applicable.

The “contained” part will exhibit the “particle” aspect and the “wave” part naturally exhibits the wave component. String theory holds one possible direction for this. Medium theories will have a tougher time achieving this.

13.1    Quantum Exchange

In the Standard Model of Particle Physics the interaction between particles is based on the exchange of individual Boson force carriers. This is a highly accurate model. Therefore this has to be kept strongly in mind for any causal model. Einstein’s photo voltaic effect certainly put this need for photons at the front line.

While it seems plausible that forces resulting in motion could be more of a continuous motion action there is another concept to consider. A change in relative velocity changes the nature of the particles wave property. If particles are to have a wave nature to them it seems reasonable that the exchange interactions between them will be based wave harmonics and from this will result the desired quantum exchanges.

·         Strong Possibility: The Interactions between Objects should be based on their Contained Wave Constitution

Whatever particles exist in a model it is strongly desired that they must be modeled in a manner that has a quantum exchange of a Boson force carrier.

I would not want to rule out other let’s say more continuous type interactions just yet. However, given the accuracy of the standard model of particle physics something else is a very low possibility.

14     Gravity

Gravity gets a special note. It is not a strong concept in physics that gravity is via the graviton. General Relativity which is the preeminent description of gravity has it more of a continuum. It certainly seems reasonable that Gravity could be an object’s effect on space. Another way to say this might be an object’s effect on the causal existence that formulates space whatever that might be.

15      Target Particles and Photons

There are a large numbers of particles to consider. How does begin to formulate what may be an entirely new foundation for a causal theory? I believe that the best ones to focus on are the known stable particles, photons, and of course the Neutron which is so important for the nucleus.

·         Proton and Neutron

o   An Up-Down quark type constituent model

·         Electron

·         Neutrinos

·         Photon

·         Appropriate anti-particles

This is a small subset of known particles but even this small set presents challenges for a physical theory. As different concepts for models are explored this set of particles will have strong implications for how they are formulated.

16      Some Basic Thoughts for Models

There are a number of different types of model construct existents or components to choose from. So much so that it elicits a broad discussion. Here are three thoughts:

·         A particle is a large set of strings, i.e. string theory.

·         A particle is an indelible point object with causal extent

o   Different kinds of knots in spatial dimensions that emanate some causal impact into the structure of space.

o   Space requires a more complex structure than that afforded by General Relativity

·         A particle is an indelible elastic type volume object with causal extent

16.1    String Theory

String theory has a number of ways to implement these particles. However, there might be a path or two different from the present concepts that work with a preferred foliation type causal construct where particle interaction requires a causal.

16.2    Expanding Particle Until Interaction (GRW simulation)

Side note: After reading in a minor way on the new GRW theory that unites quantum mechanics and relativity there was one thought that I had to model such a theory. It was that a model where particles are elastic volumetric of some type that expand until they have an interaction.

One loose speculation on this might be that a particle could be like a ball of strings as in string theory. This ball could grow larger until interaction causes an exchange of force particles.

A particle is an indelible elastic type volume object with causal extent

It’s a different kind of model from what I have considered before. So I put this out there as something to consider. There are definite implications to it.

17      Indelible Objects with Causal Extent

The term indelible is used because particles don’t disappear or disseminate.  However, indelible does not mean non-transformable. Particles need to be able to be transformed for example by particle – anti particle into a photon. Conversely, photons should be able to create particle-anti-particle pairs.

17.1    Thoughts on Particle Transformations

The ability of a particle and anti-particle to be converted into two photons gives a very important insight into the model being created because whatever it is that two particles are constructed of has now transformed into whatever it is that two photons are constructed of.

The thought of a particle being a point object follows the line of reasoning of standard particle theory. A spatial construct that allows for the different types of stable particles and photons to be built out of it would be a strong start.

Neutrinos are also very important in particle transformation. Neutrinos are tied into electron particle transformations. The electron is one kind of construct and the neutrino is another. Together electrons and neutrinos have interactional mechanisms forming the lepton family. However noting that only the electron and neutrons are stable.

The neutrino also allows for interaction between quarks and leptons and more specifically the electron. And electron does not have particle transformational interaction with quarks, i.e. the proton, without the presence of a neutrino. This in essence is the reason why atoms can exist at all.

Considering muons and tau particles decay with neutrinos I might venture a guess that electrons are a specifically unique fundamental construct. Also protons seem to be stable or are at least extremely stable. They also only interact in a particle transform with the electron through the presence of a neutrino. All other hadrons decay except for the Neutron in the confines of an atomic nucleus.

So the stable particles, electron / positron, proton / antiproton, and neutrinos along with photons would seem to establish a baseline for stable constructs that must differ from one another in some fundamental way.

The low energy electron-positron annihilation has a simple mode of just two photons while even the low energy proton-antiproton annihilation result is a much more complex process due to the composite makeup of the proton structure. The complexity of this process obscures the issue of quark conversion directly into photons. The general concept seems to be this: the neutrino construct forms the bridge between electrons and quarks.

17.2    Models

There are a number of different kinds of entities, existents, or perhaps in other terms local beables that models could be built from. In another writing I will go into some the different kinds of existents. This is where the philosophy of physics is very useful.

17.3 Spatial Fabric and that which occupies Space

One question what is empty space and what is different if there is something there such as a particle or a photon. How can we tell if there is something that exists at a point when a particle is there, when a photon is there, or when nothing is there? Different types of particles may have different things there?

The answer to this question may lie in the answer to the question “What is necessary for transformation of form of energy?” Energy can transform between particle types and photons. Energy stored in a particle is potential energy. Potential energy relates to spatially related difference properties which might be called a structure. The structure of each particle is different in some way and particles are different from photons.

In our materialistic concept of atomic physics and chemistry, the count of the type of atoms in a mixture never changes. This is a type of conservation property. In nuclear physics atomic nuclei may decay or combine to change the count of types of atoms. The count of nucleons, (protons plus neutrons = constant) remains the same. It takes exotic processes, such as colliding high energy protons, to convert whatever it is that protons are into a very different set of particles but such things are possible.

17.4    Model Constructs in the Spatial Fabric

My thought is that paricle-antiparticle collisions give an indicator that particles and photons are a construct of the spatial fabric. This is because whatever it is that makes up the two anti-particles before the collision is transformed into whatever it is that makes up two photons. Using the concept of conservation of whatever it is that exists in the strong local surroundings remains with a type of transformative constant. Photons are by general mainstream physics constructed from electro-magnetic fields, not “material” objects. They are very different from the “material” objects of the antiparticle pair. Yet the transformation indicates a type of rearrangement of some internal structure.

String theory explains this in a manner where it is still a set of strings which are still there just acting in a different way, i.e. a different internal construct. String vibrations go into different dimensions. The electromagnetic component is there but the other components that make it matter are cancelled out. The fabric of space in this instance is the degrees of freedom in motion and the string is an existent property.

Photons are by understanding constructed from the electro-magnetic fields. Electro-magnetic fields are very basic must be a construct of the spatial fabric. However, there must be something more to it because of the construct of particles. Particles are constructed from something and it is not simply a pure electro-magnetic field like photons. A charged particle holds the charge by some other construct other than a pure electromagnetic field and a charge can only be held at distinct quantum values.

To sum it up, whatever it is that makes up a particle and an antiparticle can be transformed into pure electro-magnetic energy. The fabric of space must support the electro-magnetic field and you conclude that the fabric of space must also somehow support the particle construct. That is, particles are constructed from the fabric of space. The alternative is that particles are objects that occupy spatial locations.

One note on the nature of light from Bottom line: light is certainly a wave and it has particle-like interactions with matter, but those may simply be features of the underlying waves.

So whatever model may be suggested, it must explain the observation of the particle wave duality. This can be a combination of the spatial fabric and that which can occupy the spatial fabric.

One more related note from on string theory: No. Not at all. String theory is a mathematical model. Whether it is the model that describes our universe is quite a different question altogether. As an abstract mathematical model, it is completely consistent to 'hypothesize' that our universe is made up of tiny vibrating strings and then study the consequences of such a hypothesis - which is currently the state of string theory.

Paraphrasing: It is completely consistent to 'hypothesize' that our universe is made up of some construct and then study the consequences

17.5    An Absolute-Relative Model Foundation

This is a model which is both “absolute in a sense” and “relative in a sense”.  Absoluteness is achieved by similarity of type not some “universal singular entity”, i.e. time. It is also absolute in the sense that there are points in which we exist and those points have relationships to other points. So there is a preferred frame or foliation for this model.

It is relative in the sense that points sit on nothing. They do not sit on a Euclidian or non-Euclidian spatial grid. Only the causal relationships to other points are important. Points can move in causal relationship to each other.

The things that exist in this model may be called existents and are:

·         Points exist with properties to be determined or researched.

·         Causal relationships exist between points.

o   This causal relationship exists in the sense that it also has a property.

o   The property can change and must vary by rules.

§  Two points do not spontaneously form a causal relationship

§  How the causal relationships came into existence is a matter for philosophy of physics consideration of origins.

·         All causal relationships may have been initially formed during the initial moment of the formation of the universe. Alternatively all points came from one.

o   The causal relationships can be between any points.

§  For some reason a local 3D space is strongly established. Perhaps it is a matter of minimal energy.

§  However, points can be connected non-locally compared to this strong 3d local geometry.

§  It is possible, i.e. not enough is known about the physics to decide, that local higher dimensions are possible.

o   It is strongly considered that there is a spread in causality between points and the points that are “near” in the 3d local geometry gets stronger as one approaches the nearest neighbor points.

·         Time is in the causal link.

o   The only reason there is change is because of the causal relationship existent. The flow of time must be based on the causal relationship existent properties.

o   Change is based only on point properties and the causal relationships. Similarity over space in flow of time is based on similarity of the construct of the points, their properties, and the causal relationships.

o   The flow of time is NOT absolute therefore in the sense of a single universal entity that causes it. It is based on point to point causal properties. The uniform flow of time forward is based on a similarity of extents. The universal commonality is of a type not an existent.

·         There is nothing else for the physical universe

o   The points do not sit on a Euclidian grid. A special physics of motion is required.

o   There is a point to point relationship function that changes. In simple terms the points can move with respect to one another. 

o   Consider the term space as a collection of nearest neighbor points in the 3D local structure. If they move together there is no “force” upon them. This section of space can rotate with respect to the greater external space. These points will NOT experience any rotational expansion forces. Therefore the mathematics of their motion will not be as a typical physics material motion. Forces will be experienced on the interface causal link to the external universe.

o   In simply terms this would be a “frame dragging” scenario.

o   The greatest weakness to this might be consciousness but that’s for a later discussion. For now an improved model to the physical universe is searched for.

This model uses its own definition for the geometry of space. In physics today there is the implicit assumption that the causality between different points in space is simply a mathematical model. That is they do not make a distinction between the points that exists and the causal relationships between them.

There are philosophy of physics discussions on how it is that something at one point can interact with another. One could consider that one point touches the nearest neighbor points and so move through this “touch”. However, what does it mean that a point would “touch” another point to form local space? The discussions on this can get lengthy, involved, and there are several present possible explanations.

None of these explanations of the causality between points ever really plays any role in physics. A mathematical grid of (x,y,z) or (x1, …,x10) is simply assumed and scientist move on.

The nonlocal behavior of the quantum mechanical objects would indicate that this causality is not so simply as “point touching point”. The causality seems to be able to be made and broken between points. The model given has the potential to explain this.

18      More to Go

At this point the main basics of why a preferred foliation theory is a potential path for a theory of everything or a grand unified field theory. The main topics of relevance for a causal theory have been discussed in very brief terms. At this point there are two ways to go:

·         Continue on a Broad Perspective of Possibilities

·         Choose Specific Models and Dig Deeper into their Implications

The broad perspective helps one understand the layout of the land. It helps one to better choose a potential specific model to dig deeper into. It takes a fair amount of effort and time to get into the intricacies of a specific model so one wants to choose well.

Digging deep into a specific model really helps to drive home the implications of certain decisions made in the broad perspective analysis

I have one specific model that I have worked on, the nonlocal medium theory for a unified field theory. I came to the conclusion that it lacks a little on being able to produce the desired different types of contained waves required for the selected particle set. I think the two particle path represents an interesting challenge for such a theory type also. That being stated, I do believe there were some interesting concepts which came from it. For example, there was a concept from it for how to have a model where time runs at different speeds for particles at different velocities.




Non-local Medium Theory for a Unified Field Theory (NMT UFT)

Writings that discuss what a Non-Local Medium is and how it could be used for a unified field theory. This is an alternate unified field theory. This is a causal theory and several thoughts are given for how a causal theory could be a unified field theory. These concepts could be applied to any causal theory.

After a number of years I have come to this conclusion this NMTUFT theory as it stands likely does not have the capability to describe the different types of particles. Most notably the electron verses the proton. The mechanism for the proton needs to be more complex than that which is described in this initial theory.

However that being stated I do think I have a few concepts which are different from what I have seen in any other theory. One concept is the model for particles as contained waves in a medium. My model for a variable causality between points which locks in a local direct point to point causality but which in theory could bifurcate into a non-local causal connection is another.

On the Use of a Non-local Medium Theory for a Unified Field Theory


Pdf version

Paper discussing the concept of a Nonlocal Medium and how it has potential for a unified field theory. A number of  known physical phenomenon are discussed along with how a non-local medium could act accordingly.

On the Kinematics of a Non-local Medium


Pdf version

Paper developing the kinematics of a non-local medium and some initial dynamics.



Non-local Causal Theories for a Unified Field Theory (NMT UFT)

Writing that discusses, why if the theory is fully causal it should be non-local causal, what a non-local causal theory implies, and how one will require a fundamental shift in underlying ontological concepts for such physics theories.  These concepts could be applied to any causal theory.

Some thoughts are given for what a fully causal string theory could look like.

Causal Theories for a Unified Field Theory

Pdf version

This is IN WORK and not yet posted



Keywords: Preferred Foliation, Preferred Frame, Nonlocal Medium Theory Unified Field theory, Grand Unified Field Theory, NMT UFT, Cosmological Expansion, Motions in Space, Motions in Spacetime, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Rotational Space, causal theory, non-local causal string theory, Causal Physics Theories