(RST v1.1–v1.5: A Consolidated Interpretive Framework)
Abstract
Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is a constraint-first interpretive framework intended to account for the empirical success and shared breakdown regimes of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and thermodynamics without modifying their established mathematical formalisms. RST assumes that physical interactions occur through a continuous medium with finite, nonlinear, and dissipative response capacity. Spacetime geometry, matter, time, inertia, and interaction are treated as operational descriptions of organized response within this medium. This paper consolidates RST v1.1–v1.5, presenting time as an operational rate quantity, measurement as irreversible substrate coupling via coherence-bandwidth exhaustion, thermodynamic quantities as rate phenomena, inertia as impedance to coupling retuning, and interaction as response-field phenomenology. A minimal coupled-field representation is provided as an interpretive scaffold. The framework makes strong negative commitments in extreme regimes and is therefore falsifiable by any empirical requirement for unbounded response or environment-independent rate behavior.
1. Introduction and Scope
Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is a constraint-first framework developed to address the empirical success and shared breakdown regimes of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and thermodynamics without modifying their established mathematical formalisms. Rather than proposing new fundamental entities, RST seeks to clarify the physical interpretation of quantities that appear in successful theories but lose coherence in extreme regimes.
RST assumes that physical interactions occur through a continuous medium with finite, nonlinear, and dissipative response capacity. Spacetime geometry, matter, time, inertia, and interaction are treated as operational descriptions of organized response within this medium. No new particles, fields, dimensions, preferred frames, or exotic matter are introduced. All known laws are retained at the level of effective description.
This paper consolidates the central results of RST versions v1.1 through v1.5. Earlier foundational commitments (v1.0), including the treatment of singularities as regime transitions rather than physical infinities, are assumed and not rederived.
2. Time as an Operational Rate Quantity (v1.1)
In RST, time is not treated as a fundamental dimension. Instead, time is defined operationally as the accumulated rate at which a physical system samples accessible substrate-coupled microstates. A “second” corresponds to a standardized count of transitions in a reference physical process.
Under varying physical conditions, different systems may complete different numbers of internal transitions during the same coordinate interval. Relativistic time dilation, gravitational redshift, and kinematic time effects are interpreted as consequences of restricted transition availability rather than variations in an abstract temporal flow.
This interpretation preserves the quantitative predictions of GR. Proper time retains its empirical role while acquiring a physical interpretation tied to transition availability rather than geometric abstraction alone.
3. Measurement as Irreversible Substrate Coupling (v1.2)
RST treats quantum measurement as a physical, irreversible interaction between a coherent configuration and the substrate rather than as collapse, branching, or observer-dependent update.
Measurement corresponds to a coupling event that exhausts available coherence bandwidth by dispersing phase information into substrate degrees of freedom. Decoherence is therefore identified as a physical dissipation process governed by finite response capacity. This account preserves the Born rule, introduces no hidden variables, and avoids observer-dependent or many-worlds ontologies.
Irreversibility in measurement is unified with thermodynamic irreversibility under the same rate-limitation principles that govern time.
4. Energy, Temperature, and Entropy as Rate Phenomena (v1.3)
Within RST, thermodynamic quantities are interpreted in continuity with time and measurement. Energy sets the maximum pace at which transitions may occur. Temperature determines the bandwidth of accessible states. Entropy tracks irreversible dispersion into substrate modes.
Heat flow, temporal evolution, and information loss are thus not distinct physical processes but operational expressions of the same underlying irreversibility. Time asymmetry, thermodynamic irreversibility, and measurement irreversibility are distinct manifestations of finite response capacity.
5. Mass and Inertia as Substrate Impedance (v1.4)
RST does not treat mass as a primitive property. Instead, inertia is interpreted as impedance: resistance arising because coherent configurations must retune their coupling to the substrate under acceleration. This retuning incurs a finite cost due to bounded response capacity.
This interpretation provides a physical account of inertial resistance, preserves the equivalence principle, and unifies inertial and gravitational mass operationally. No new fields or mechanisms are introduced; where applicable, the Higgs mechanism remains intact as an effective description.
6. Interaction as Response-Field Phenomenology (v1.5)
RST does not propose new forces. It reinterprets known interactions as emergent response patterns arising from substrate–matter coupling.
Interactions correspond to gradients in permitted transition rates, coherence constraints, and accumulated substrate stress. Gravity reflects large-scale substrate stress, inertia reflects impedance to coupling retuning, and electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions arise as short-range, high-frequency coupling behaviours constrained by coherence bandwidth and saturation.
Unification in RST is therefore physical rather than mathematical: a shared response mechanism is identified without collapsing distinct interaction descriptions into a single formalism.
7. Minimal Dynamical Representation
RST may be summarized by a minimal pair of coupled field equations, presented as an interpretive scaffold rather than a replacement formalism.
Equations of this form are not proposed as fundamental field laws, but as nonlinear response-field equations of a type familiar from effective descriptions of dispersive and self-organizing media (e.g., nonlinear Klein–Gordon or Ginzburg–Landau–like forms), included here to make explicit the roles of saturation, backreaction, and finite response.
One equation describes the evolution of substrate stress with nonlinear stiffness and backreaction from coherent configurations. The second describes the dynamics of coherent matter configurations coupled to substrate stress. Nonlinearities and mutual backreaction prevent divergences and encode saturation behaviour.
No claim is made that this representation is complete or unique.
Methodological Interpretation: Response Manifold and Parameter-Space Constraints
The minimal dynamical representation is not intended as a predictive replacement for established formalisms nor as a parameter-free model yielding unique numerical outcomes. Its methodological role is to define a constrained space of physically admissible responses arising from finite, nonlinear, and dissipative substrate behaviour.
The coupled fields and parameters span a finite-dimensional response manifold. Each term corresponds to a continuous deformation axis—such as coupling strength, nonlinear stiffness, dissipation, or environmental boundary conditions—rather than a binary structural choice. Linear regimes occupy interior regions of this manifold, while nonlinear saturation terms define boundary surfaces beyond which idealized extrapolations fail.
Physical systems are represented as trajectories or neighborhoods within an admissible region of parameter space. Empirical confrontation consists of determining whether observational data consistently occupy the same constrained subregion across environments and scales, and whether deviations occur preferentially near predicted rate-limitation or saturation boundaries.
RST is falsified if empirical data require stable behaviour outside this bounded response manifold, such as unbounded stress response, infinite coherence capacity, or environment-independent rate behaviour. This mode of assessment aligns with standard practice in effective field theory and critical phenomena.
8. Empirical Commitments and Failure Modes
RST makes strong negative commitments. It predicts the absence of physical infinities, infinite coherence sinks, perfectly reversible dynamics in extreme regimes, and interaction behaviour independent of rate or impedance constraints.
Singularities are interpreted as regime transitions rather than physical divergences. Any empirical requirement for unbounded response or environment-independent ageing would falsify the framework.
9. Relation to Existing Approaches
RST is not an entropic gravity model, does not quantize spacetime geometry, does not modify GR, and does not introduce hidden variables or collapse mechanisms. It is compatible with effective field theory reasoning and is intended to clarify the physical interpretation and regime limits of existing formalisms rather than replace them.
10. Discussion
RST v1.1–v1.5 provides an interpretive unification of time, measurement, thermodynamics, inertia, and interaction as manifestations of rate-limited substrate response. The framework preserves all validated predictions of GR, QM, and thermodynamics while explaining their shared failure modes.
Further progress depends on empirical discrimination rather than theoretical elaboration.
11. Conclusion
Reactive Substrate Theory reframes foundational physical quantities as operational consequences of finite, nonlinear, dissipative response. The framework is complete as an interpretive structure and sufficiently constrained to admit empirical rejection.
No further theoretical extension is required prior to confrontation with data.
Foundations of Physics (Springer)
General editorial office:
fop@springer.com
Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics (Elsevier)
Journal office:
shps@elsevier.com
Entropy (MDPI)
Journal editorial office:
entropy@mdpi.com
Journal of Physics: Complexity (IOP)
IOP general editorial contact:
complexity@iop.org
Classical and Quantum Gravity (IOP)
Journal office:
cqg@iop.org
Annals of Physics (Elsevier)
Editorial office:
aop@elsevier.com
Journal of Statistical Physics (Springer)
Springer editorial contact:
jstatphys@springer.com
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
% ============================================================
% IOP / CQG LaTeX Submission — FINAL, AMENDED, LOCKED
% ============================================================
\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
\usepackage{iopams}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
\begin{document}
\title{Reactive Substrate Theory: Time, Measurement, and Interaction from Rate-Limited Response\\
(RST v1.1--v1.5: A Consolidated Interpretive Framework)}
\author{[Author Name]}
\address{[Affiliation or ``Independent Researcher'']}
\ead{[email address]}
\begin{abstract}
Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is a constraint-first interpretive framework intended to account for the empirical success and shared breakdown regimes of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and thermodynamics without modifying their established mathematical formalisms. RST assumes that physical interactions occur through a continuous medium with finite, nonlinear, and dissipative response capacity. Spacetime geometry, matter, time, inertia, and interaction are treated as operational descriptions of organized response within this medium. This paper consolidates RST v1.1--v1.5, presenting time as an operational rate quantity, measurement as irreversible substrate coupling via coherence-bandwidth exhaustion, thermodynamic quantities as rate phenomena, inertia as impedance to coupling retuning, and interaction as response-field phenomenology. A minimal coupled-field representation is provided as an interpretive scaffold. The framework makes strong negative commitments in extreme regimes and is therefore falsifiable by any empirical requirement for unbounded response or environment-independent rate behavior.
\end{abstract}
\begin{keywords}
emergent time, decoherence, irreversibility, inertia, gravity, foundations of physics
\end{keywords}
\section{Introduction and scope}
Reactive Substrate Theory (RST) is a constraint-first framework developed to address the empirical success and shared breakdown regimes of General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and thermodynamics without modifying their established mathematical formalisms. Rather than proposing new fundamental entities, RST seeks to clarify the physical interpretation of quantities that appear in successful theories but lose coherence in extreme regimes.
RST assumes that physical interactions occur through a continuous medium with finite, nonlinear, and dissipative response capacity. Spacetime geometry, matter, time, inertia, and interaction are treated as operational descriptions of organized response within this medium. No new particles, fields, dimensions, preferred frames, or exotic matter are introduced. All known laws are retained at the level of effective description.
This paper consolidates the central results of RST versions v1.1 through v1.5. Earlier foundational commitments (v1.0), including the treatment of singularities as regime transitions rather than physical infinities, are assumed and not rederived.
\section{Time as an operational rate quantity (v1.1)}
In RST, time is not treated as a fundamental dimension. Instead, time is defined operationally as the accumulated rate at which a physical system samples accessible substrate-coupled microstates. A ``second'' corresponds to a standardized count of transitions in a reference physical process.
Under varying physical conditions, different systems may complete different numbers of internal transitions during the same coordinate interval. Relativistic time dilation, gravitational redshift, and kinematic time effects are interpreted as consequences of restricted transition availability rather than variations in an abstract temporal flow.
This interpretation preserves the quantitative predictions of GR. Proper time retains its empirical role while acquiring a physical interpretation tied to transition availability rather than geometric abstraction alone.
\section{Measurement as irreversible substrate coupling (v1.2)}
RST treats quantum measurement as a physical, irreversible interaction between a coherent configuration and the substrate rather than as collapse, branching, or observer-dependent update.
Measurement corresponds to a coupling event that exhausts available coherence bandwidth by dispersing phase information into substrate degrees of freedom. Decoherence is therefore identified as a physical dissipation process governed by finite response capacity. This account preserves the Born rule, introduces no hidden variables, and avoids observer-dependent or many-worlds ontologies.
Irreversibility in measurement is unified with thermodynamic irreversibility under the same rate-limitation principles that govern time.
\section{Energy, temperature, and entropy as rate phenomena (v1.3)}
Within RST, thermodynamic quantities are interpreted in continuity with time and measurement. Energy sets the maximum pace at which transitions may occur. Temperature determines the bandwidth of accessible states. Entropy tracks irreversible dispersion into substrate modes.
Heat flow, temporal evolution, and information loss are thus not distinct physical processes but operational expressions of the same underlying irreversibility. Time asymmetry, thermodynamic irreversibility, and measurement irreversibility are distinct manifestations of finite response capacity.
\section{Mass and inertia as substrate impedance (v1.4)}
RST does not treat mass as a primitive property. Instead, inertia is interpreted as impedance: resistance arising because coherent configurations must retune their coupling to the substrate under acceleration. This retuning incurs a finite cost due to bounded response capacity.
This interpretation provides a physical account of inertial resistance, preserves the equivalence principle, and unifies inertial and gravitational mass operationally. No new fields or mechanisms are introduced; where applicable, the Higgs mechanism remains intact as an effective description.
\section{Interaction as response-field phenomenology (v1.5)}
RST does not propose new forces. It reinterprets known interactions as emergent response patterns arising from substrate--matter coupling.
Interactions correspond to gradients in permitted transition rates, coherence constraints, and accumulated substrate stress. Gravity reflects large-scale substrate stress, inertia reflects impedance to coupling retuning, and electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions arise as short-range, high-frequency coupling behaviours constrained by coherence bandwidth and saturation.
Unification in RST is therefore physical rather than mathematical: a shared response mechanism is identified without collapsing distinct interaction descriptions into a single formalism.
\section{Minimal dynamical representation}
RST may be summarized by a minimal pair of coupled field equations, presented as an interpretive scaffold rather than a replacement formalism:
\begin{equation}
\partial_t^2 S - c^2 \nabla^2 S + \beta S^3 = \sigma(x,t)\,\abs{\Psi}^2 ,
\label{eq:substrate}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_t^2 \Psi - v^2 \nabla^2 \Psi + \mu \Psi + \lambda \abs{\Psi}^2 \Psi = \kappa S \Psi .
\label{eq:coherent}
\end{equation}
Here, $S$ represents substrate stress and $\Psi$ denotes coherent matter configurations. Nonlinear stiffness and mutual backreaction prevent divergences and encode saturation behaviour. No claim is made that this representation is complete or unique.
\section*{Methodological interpretation: response manifold and parameter-space constraints}
The minimal dynamical representation is not intended as a predictive replacement for established formalisms nor as a parameter-free model yielding unique numerical outcomes. Its methodological role is to define a constrained space of physically admissible responses arising from finite, nonlinear, and dissipative substrate behaviour.
The coupled fields and coefficients appearing in equations (\ref{eq:substrate}) and (\ref{eq:coherent}) span a finite-dimensional response manifold. Each term corresponds to a continuous deformation axis—such as coupling strength, nonlinear stiffness, dissipation, or environmental boundary conditions—rather than a binary structural choice. Linear regimes occupy interior regions of this manifold, while nonlinear saturation terms define boundary surfaces beyond which idealized extrapolations fail.
Physical systems are represented as trajectories or neighborhoods within an admissible region of parameter space. Empirical confrontation consists of determining whether observational data consistently occupy the same constrained subregion across environments and scales, and whether deviations occur preferentially near predicted rate-limitation or saturation boundaries.
RST is falsified if empirical data require stable behaviour outside this bounded response manifold, such as unbounded stress response, infinite coherence capacity, or environment-independent rate behaviour. This mode of assessment aligns with standard practice in effective field theory and critical phenomena.
\section{Empirical commitments and failure modes}
RST makes strong negative commitments. It predicts the absence of physical infinities, infinite coherence sinks, perfectly reversible dynamics in extreme regimes, and interaction behaviour independent of rate or impedance constraints.
Singularities are interpreted as regime transitions rather than physical divergences. Any empirical requirement for unbounded response or environment-independent ageing would falsify the framework.
\section{Relation to existing approaches}
RST is not an entropic gravity model, does not quantize spacetime geometry, does not modify GR, and does not introduce hidden variables or collapse mechanisms. It is compatible with effective field theory reasoning and is intended to clarify the physical interpretation and regime limits of existing formalisms rather than replace them.
\section{Discussion}
RST v1.1--v1.5 provides an interpretive unification of time, measurement, thermodynamics, inertia, and interaction as manifestations of rate-limited substrate response. The framework preserves all validated predictions of GR, QM, and thermodynamics while explaining their shared failure modes.
Further progress depends on empirical discrimination rather than theoretical elaboration.
\section{Conclusion}
Reactive Substrate Theory reframes foundational physical quantities as operational consequences of finite, nonlinear, dissipative response. The framework is complete as an interpretive structure and sufficiently constrained to admit empirical rejection.
No further theoretical extension is required prior to confrontation with data.
\section*{Data availability}
No new data were generated or analysed in this work.
\section*{Conflict of interest}
The author declares no competing interests.
\end{document}
