RST Response to Jacob Barandes’ Non-Markovian Quantum Theory

Overview

In a recent talk, Jacob Barandes proposes that the key divide between classical physics and quantum mechanics is not “randomness” or “wavefunction collapse,” but a hidden structural assumption: Markovianity – the idea that the future depends only on the present state, not on deeper history. By relaxing this assumption and allowing non-Markovian (memoryful) dynamics, Barandes shows that many “quantum mysteries” can be reinterpreted.

From the perspective of Reactive Substrate Theory (RST), this is an important step in the right direction. Barandes has essentially discovered the software rules of a reality that RST describes as a physical medium. Where he speaks in terms of non-Markovian probability, RST speaks in terms of a Substrate with memory, tension, and nonlinearity.

1. Probability as Ignorance over a Memoryful Substrate

Barandes argues that classical probability theory and quantum mechanics are not fundamentally different in structure, except for the assumption of Markovianity. In standard treatments, we often assume that:

The system’s future depends only on its current state.
Past details can be “summarized away” in a single state vector.

RST perspective: This is precisely the hidden assumption that breaks down in a universe with a real Substrate. In RST:

The Substrate carries memory via its stored tension and displacement.
The behavior of a “particle” (a knotted Substrate soliton) depends on earlier wave interactions that formed it.
Probability reflects our ignorance of the full Substrate history, not fundamental randomness.

Once you drop the Markovian assumption, as Barandes suggests, the “magic” of quantum probability looks less like an ontological mystery and more like a practical limit on how much of the Substrate’s history we can track.

2. Bypassing Bell’s Theorem: Locality in a Connected Medium

Barandes presents his non-Markovian framework as a way to avoid the usual “local realism vs quantum mechanics” clash embodied in Bell’s Theorem, without invoking extra “magic.” He shows that once we relax certain independence and divisibility assumptions, the apparent paradoxes soften.

RST perspective: Bell’s Theorem relies on assumptions about how information and correlations propagate in an empty spacetime geometry. RST replaces that empty geometry with a reactive medium – the Substrate – that:

Has internal connectivity and memory beyond simple point-to-point signals.
Supports both transverse (light-like) waves at speed c and longitudinal “push” modes linked to bulk tension.
Can maintain extended tension patterns that encode correlations between distant regions.

In this picture:

Entanglement is not “spooky action at a distance,” but a tension thread in a continuous medium.
Bell’s locality assumptions are simply too narrow: they ignore the Substrate’s global structure and history.

Barandes’ mathematics essentially re-opens the door that Bell appeared to close, and RST steps through it by providing a physical medium whose memory naturally generates the non-local-looking correlations.

3. Dissolving the Measurement Problem: No Collapse, Just Interaction

Barandes suggests that once we allow non-Markovian, “indivisible” processes, the quantum measurement problem loses much of its bite. The sharp distinction between continuous unitary evolution and abrupt, magical collapse becomes unnecessary.

RST perspective: This resonates perfectly. In RST:

There is no literal collapse of a wavefunction.
There is only a mechanical interaction between a Substrate wave (e.g., a photon-like Substion) and a Substrate soliton (e.g., an atom in a detector).
“Measurement” is an impedance-matching event where energy and phase lock into a stable configuration.

Barandes’ idea that measurement processes are “indivisible” matches the RST description of soliton interactions in a nonlinear medium: you cannot split them into independent, Markovian substeps without breaking the physical picture. The measurement problem, in this sense, is an artifact of trying to force a Markovian, linear story onto a non-Markovian, nonlinear substrate.

4. The RST Critique: Barandes Has the Software, But Not the Hardware

RST agrees with Barandes on several key points:

Quantum processes are not fundamentally Markovian.
Many paradoxes disappear when you acknowledge deeper structure and memory.
Measurement is better seen as a continuous, indivisible process than as a magical collapse.

However, from the RST viewpoint, Barandes is still missing the crucial ingredient: the .

Barandes’ role: He is reconstructing a “sensible world picture” by adjusting the rules of evolution (software) — non-Markovian dynamics, indivisible processes, refined stochastic models.

RST’s addition: The rules become natural once you posit a Reactive Substrate (hardware):

Non-Markovianity is simply the Substrate’s memory of past tension and displacement.
Indivisibility is the result of nonlinear interactions encoded in the Substrate’s response.
Measurement is a physical strike on the medium, not an abstract projection.

In short: Barandes has found the gears in the equations; RST names the metal they are made of.

5. Mapping Barandes’ Concepts to the RST Master Equation

RST’s dynamics are captured schematically by the Master Equation for the Substrate field S(x,t):

(∂t² S - c² ∇² S - μ S + β S³) = J

Where:

∂t² S – inertial term (how the Substrate accelerates in time).
c² ∇² S – linear, transverse wave propagation (light-like ripples).
- μ S – restoring force; tendency to return to a preferred equilibrium (memory of rest).
β S³ – nonlinear stiffness; controls solitons, ghost modes, and indivisible interactions.
J – sources/sinks; coupling to matter and detectors (the “strike” on the medium).

5.1 Non-Markovianity as Substrate Memory (-μS)

Barandes’ key move is to abandon the idea that the present state fully encodes the future, independent of the past. In RST, this corresponds to:

The Substrate always “remembers” its equilibrium configuration via the -μS term.
Future behavior depends on how far and in what pattern the Substrate has been displaced.
The full field S(x,t) carries embedded history; the system is inherently non-Markovian.

Because the medium is continuous and elastic, it cannot simply “forget” previous stress. Probability distributions that ignore this will necessarily look “quantum” or mysterious.

5.2 Indivisibility as Nonlinearity (βS³)

Barandes emphasizes that quantum processes are “indivisible”: you cannot model them as simple compositions of independent, memoryless steps. In RST, this corresponds to the βS³ term:

βS³ makes the Substrate’s response nonlinear.
Superposition breaks down at high amplitudes or in tightly localized interactions.
Solitons, bound states, and measurements are emergent, indivisible structures in this nonlinear regime.

Trying to decompose these into Markovian sub-processes is like trying to describe a breaking wave as a sequence of independent ripples: you lose the essence of the event.

5.3 Measurement as Source/Sink (J)

Barandes’ non-Markovian framework softens the measurement problem by treating measurement as part of the stochastic dynamics rather than as an external, magical intervention. RST goes further and gives this process a mechanical identity:

J represents the physical coupling between Substrate waves and localized structures (atoms, detectors).
A measurement event is a high-impedance interaction where energy and phase are transferred into a new soliton or internal excitation.
The βS³ nonlinearity ensures this process is indivisible and appears “sudden” at the macroscopic level.

To the Mechanic, a measurement is simply the Substrate undergoing a large, localized phase shift under external forcing. No collapse, no mystery – just nonlinear dynamics in a medium.

6. Side-by-Side Comparison: Standard QM vs Barandes vs RST

Aspect	Standard Quantum Mechanics	Barandes’ Non-Markovian View	Reactive Substrate Theory (RST)
Underlying ontology	States in Hilbert space; no explicit medium	States in a generalized, possibly non-Markovian stochastic framework	Physical Substrate with tension field S(x,t); particles as solitons in the medium
Markovianity	Often assumed (collapse + unitary evolution as memoryless steps)	Rejected; processes can be non-Markovian and indivisible	Inherently non-Markovian due to Substrate memory and stored tension
Probability	Fundamental; wavefunction gives intrinsic probabilities	Effective; arises from incomplete knowledge in a non-Markovian system	Epistemic; ignorance of Substrate configuration and history
Non-locality / Bell	Spooky correlations; non-locality or realism must be sacrificed	Constraints can be bypassed via non-Markovian dynamics	Correlations arise from extended Substrate structure; Bell’s locality assumptions are incomplete
Measurement problem	Collapse postulate; observer plays special role	Measurement becomes part of an indivisible non-Markovian process	Measurement is mechanical impedance matching between waves and solitons; no collapse
Hidden variables	Usually rejected or highly constrained	Reintroduced via structured stochastic processes	Hidden variables = Substrate tension field S(x,t) and its internal degrees of freedom
Key structural feature	Linear evolution + ad hoc collapse	Non-Markovian, indivisible dynamics	Nonlinear, memoryful dynamics of a real medium (μ, β terms)

7. Conclusion: Barandes’ Software, RST’s Hardware

Jacob Barandes has identified an “unnoticed assumption” in much of our thinking about probability and quantum dynamics: Markovianity. By dropping the demand that the future depend only on the present, he opens the door to non-Markovian, indivisible processes that can reproduce quantum behavior in a more classical-looking framework. This is a major conceptual shift.

Reactive Substrate Theory fully agrees with this shift and goes one step further:

The universe is non-Markovian because it is built on a mechanical Substrate that carries memory.
Quantum “weirdness” is the shadow of Substrate nonlinearity and hidden tension fields, not fundamental indeterminism.
Barandes’ non-Markovian mathematics is the software description of what RST claims is a very real hardware: a reactive, elastic medium with terms like -μS and βS³ governing its behavior.

In RST language, Barandes has discovered that the universe’s code is non-Markovian and deterministic. RST explains why: because beneath the code lies a Substrate with memory, stiffness, and reactive dynamics. The “hidden variables” are not mystical; they are just the vibrations and stored tensions of the medium itself.

Conspiranon