A Coherence-Driven Method for Resolving Theory–Observation Tensions in Fundamental Physics
“The Math Works. The Trouble Is How We Read It.”
1. Methodological Context
Foundational tensions in physics frequently arise not from experimental failure but from the coexistence of multiple empirically successful formalisms whose physical interpretations become mutually incompatible when applied across overlapping regimes. General relativity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics each exhibit extraordinary predictive success, yet persistent conceptual conflicts remain concerning time, causality, irreversibility, localization, and interaction.
The method presented here treats such conflicts as methodological signals rather than immediate evidence for missing dynamics or new physical entities. It proceeds from the premise that interpretive incoherence—rather than formal inadequacy—is often responsible for explanatory breakdowns at theory interfaces.
2. Coherence as a Governing Criterion
Coherence is adopted as a primary evaluative constraint. In this context, coherence refers to the mutual compatibility of physical interpretation across distinct but overlapping theoretical frameworks, not merely logical consistency within a single formal system.
An interpretation is regarded as physically inadmissible if it:
- relies on mutually incompatible assumptions across regimes,
- invokes idealizations that contradict physical observability (such as unbounded response or infinite precision), or
- preserves consistency only by isolating contradictions within separate descriptive domains without principled justification.
Coherence functions as a restrictive criterion: interpretations that fail it are excluded even when they remain mathematically well-defined or empirically successful in limited contexts.
3. Identification of Tension Points
The method begins by identifying points of friction between theory and observation, or between multiple theories applied to the same physical phenomena. These tension points are characterized not solely by predictive mismatch, but by:
- interpretive ambiguity,
- breakdown of explanatory continuity, or
- dependence on ad hoc assumptions introduced solely to preserve formal consistency.
Such locations are treated as diagnostic sites where implicit assumptions become visible and subject to scrutiny.
4. Extraction of Implicit Assumptions
At each tension point, the underlying interpretive assumptions employed by the relevant frameworks are made explicit. These assumptions frequently concern:
- the ontological status of spacetime or background structure,
- the treatment of time as a parameter versus an operational quantity,
- reversibility versus irreversibility, and
- the independence or interdependence of interacting systems.
Assumptions that are normally absorbed into language or convention are explicitly isolated and evaluated.
5. Imposition of Minimal Physical Constraints
Identified assumptions are tested against a small set of physically motivated constraints treated as non-negotiable:
- finiteness of physical response,
- irreversibility of dissipative processes, and
- locality of operational measurement.
These constraints are not introduced as new laws but as necessary conditions for physical intelligibility. Interpretations that violate them are regarded as physically inadmissible, regardless of mathematical convenience.
6. Interpretive Filtering Rather Than Formal Modification
The method does not seek to modify existing equations or replace established theories. Instead, it filters interpretations of those theories by excluding readings that fail coherence or constraint tests.
Mathematical formalisms are retained as effective descriptions; divergences, singularities, and idealized limits are interpreted as indicators of regime extension beyond physical validity rather than as literal features of reality.
7. Iterative Stabilization Through Constraint Locking
As interpretive constraints are established, they are treated as progressively fixed. Subsequent reasoning is required to respect previously justified constraints, preventing conceptual drift or retroactive reinterpretation.
This iterative locking process produces a stable interpretive structure without premature closure or complete formalization.
8. Controlled Separation of Speculation
Exploratory or speculative ideas are not excluded but are rigorously separated from the core framework. Such ideas carry no empirical claims, do not alter established constraints, and are explicitly marked as speculative.
This separation allows conceptual exploration without undermining methodological discipline.
9. Outcome and Scope
The outcome of this method is not a unified predictive theory or a replacement for existing physics. It yields a coherent interpretive scaffold within which established theories may be applied across regimes without internal contradiction.
Progress is measured by reduction of conceptual inconsistency, elimination of category errors, and improved alignment between mathematical description and physically defensible interpretation.
10. Summary
This coherence-driven methodology resolves theory–observation tensions by refining interpretation rather than expanding ontology. It treats foundational problems as signals of interpretive overreach and addresses them through explicit constraint enforcement, iterative stabilization, and disciplined separation of speculation from core commitments.
By preserving the empirical success of existing theories while restricting physically inadmissible interpretations, the method restores conceptual continuity across domains where formal success alone has proved insufficient.
