This work is Part 2 of a three‑paper series developing the physical consequences of Postulate P1. Building on the formal framework established in Part 1, this paper develops the dynamical interpretation of quantum behaviour as a direct consequence of representational coherence and structural openness. The analysis introduces the remainder term x and the minimal coherence threshold Cmin, which together determine the transition between classical stability and quantum manifestation.Quantum phenomena—interference, tunneling, superposition, entanglement, and cloud‑chamber tracks—are reinterpreted as expressions of representational multiplicity within an open domain rather than as properties of ontological particles or waves. The paper introduces a modified path‑integral framework in which integration domains are intrinsically incomplete and amplitudes become coherence‑weighted. The classical extremal condition δS=0 is replaced by the structurally mandated condition δS=x, unifying classical and quantum regimes as coherence‑dependent manifestations of the same representational structure.The work further develops the emergence of interaction, symmetry, and conservation laws as coherence‑stability regimes rather than fundamental ontological constraints. Several observational implications are identified, including potential departures from standard quantum mechanics in near‑dissolution, ultra‑low‑coherence, and boundary‑instability regimes. This paper provides the dynamical core of the P1 framework and prepares the way for Part 3, where established physical laws will be derived as limiting cases of maximal coherence.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
H.N. van Roon
Indepth Network
National Council on Indepedent Living
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
H.N. van Roon (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/698c1bff267fb587c655e075 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18566784