## A Foundational Incoherence in the Language of Physics [Rowan Brad Quni](mailto:[email protected]) Principal Investigator, [QNFO](https://qnfo.org) ORCID: [0009-0002-4317-5604](https://ORCID.org/0009-0002-4317-5604) The most damning challenge confronting contemporary physics stems not from a deficit of empirical data or mathematical rigor, but from a deep, debilitating chasm between its sophisticated theoretical understanding and its archaic descriptive language. Despite a century of revolutionary discoveries unveiling a cosmos of dynamic, interconnected processes, the foundational lexicon and conceptual framework remain stubbornly anchored in an antiquated, substance-based ontology. This persistent adherence generates a deep-seated incoherence, a form of cognitive dissonance, compelling physicists to employ a noun-centric language rooted in a worldview of static 'things' to articulate a reality their own experimental findings and theoretical constructs demonstrate is fundamentally verb-based – a universe of actions, interactions, and transformations rather than immutable entities. This creates a profound and misleading incongruity between the observed dynamic nature of reality and the static framework used to describe it, giving rise to significant conceptual paradoxes and inconsistencies that are not inherent features of the universe itself, but rather artifacts generated by the limitations and misapplication of our descriptive language and inherited concepts. Let us first acknowledge the established consensus within the field. No physicist informed by the last century of discovery genuinely adheres to the classical, local-realist paradigm of discrete, solid entities akin to billiard balls. The bedrock theoretical framework is Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which posits the universe as constituted by pervasive, dynamic fields, and describes what were historically termed "particles" not as fundamental entities themselves, but as energetic excitations, quantized disturbances, or localized interactions *within* these fields. This represents a decisive conceptual migration towards a process-oriented understanding of existence, where the fundamental reality is not substance, but dynamic activity and potentiality. The fields themselves are not passive containers but *are* the fundamental dynamic substrate; their excitations *are* the processes we observe. The compelling empirical evidence necessitating a departure from a substance-based ontology is not confined to abstract philosophical debates; it forms the very bedrock of modern experimental physics. Three pivotal experimental results particularly underscore this point, each profoundly challenging core tenets of a classical, substance-based view and compelling a process-based interpretation: **The Aharonov-Bohm Effect:** This experiment demonstrates that an electron beam's trajectory is demonstrably influenced by a magnetic vector potential (`A`) even in spatial regions where the magnetic field (`B = ∇ x A`) is identically zero. If treated purely as localized substances interacting only with local forces (`F = qv x B`), electrons should be entirely unaffected by a zero magnetic field. Their demonstrable interaction with the non-local, mathematical potential (`A`), evidenced by a measurable phase shift in their wave function, reveals they are engaging not with a substance or a direct, local force field, but with a potential for a process, an informational property inherent to the field configuration that affects the phase of their wave function. This provides direct empirical support for the idea that process, potential, and information are more fundamental descriptors than localized substance or force, influencing the *dynamic state* of the electron process rather than applying a force to a static entity. **The Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser:** This experiment strikingly illustrates that the apparent "history" or trajectory of a quantum entity is not a fixed, predetermined fact existing independently of observation or subsequent interaction. Instead, this "history" is shown to be determined by later interactions, even those occurring *after* the initial event one might assume had a definite outcome. A substance-based view posits that entities possess definite properties and follow determined trajectories irrespective of measurement or future events. This experiment directly contradicts that notion, demonstrating that reality exists as a superposition of potential processes until defined and actualized by interaction, effectively dismantling the concept of a fixed, substance-based past and highlighting the fundamentally relational and context-dependent nature of quantum reality, where outcomes emerge from the *process* of interaction itself. Interaction is not merely between entities; it is constitutive of reality. **Bell's Theorem and its Experimental Violations:** John Bell rigorously proved that if local realism holds true (the cornerstone assumption of a substance-based ontology where entities have definite, pre-existing properties independent of measurement and are influenced only by their immediate surroundings, with no instantaneous action at a distance), then correlations observed between entangled particles must satisfy a specific mathematical inequality. Numerous experiments have consistently and decisively violated this inequality. This demonstrates conclusively that reality, at the quantum level, is either non-local (influences can propagate instantaneously across space) or non-real in the classical sense (entities do not possess definite properties prior to measurement). The overwhelming consensus, supported by all experimental evidence, is that classical "realism" fails – quantum entities do not possess definite properties independently of the measurement process. Their characteristics are fundamentally relational and contextual, emerging from the dynamic process of interaction itself, underscoring that reality is fundamentally about relationships and interactions rather than intrinsic properties of isolated substances. These experiments, alongside others which compellingly illustrate the context-dependent and relational nature of observed reality, provide irrefutable evidence that reality is intrinsically non-local, contextual, and relational. They are far from being mere abstract academic curiosities; they form the empirical bedrock of numerous advanced technologies and provide irrefutable evidence that reality is not fundamentally composed of localized "things" possessing intrinsic, independent properties. They point collectively towards a reality where dynamic processes and interactions are primary and constitute the fundamental nature of existence. The central indictment is that notwithstanding the widespread acceptance of QFT as the fundamental description of reality, the entire operational language of physics persists as a vestige of the discredited substance-based model. This linguistic inertia actively generates the very inconsistencies and conceptual paradoxes that the discipline grapples with explaining, functioning as a conceptual straitjacket that constrains intuition and communication. The continued use of noun-based terminology like "particle" or "wave" to describe phenomena that QFT defines as dynamic field interactions forces a fundamentally fluid reality into rigid, static conceptual containers, thereby obscuring its true nature and fostering conceptual confusion. This linguistic mismatch creates a cognitive dissonance that impedes deeper understanding and fosters the illusion of paradoxes, actively misrepresenting the dynamic universe revealed by experiment and theory. Consider the term "particle." If the fundamental reality is composed of fields, and what we observe are merely "processes of excitation" or interaction within these fields, why perpetuate the use of a word inextricably bound to the notion of a localized, independent "thing" or irreducible constituent? Employing the language of a substance ontology to describe a process ontology is not merely imprecise; it is the root cause of pervasive conceptual confusion, forcing a dynamic reality into static linguistic molds and obscuring its true nature as revealed by modern theory and experiment. This linguistic mismatch creates a cognitive dissonance that impedes deeper understanding and fosters the illusion of paradoxes. For example, the electron, routinely referred to as a "particle," is, according to QFT, a stable, self-sustaining excitation or resonance of the universal electron field. It is, in essence, a persistent dynamic process, a specific form of "vibrational activity" or "field mode," not a tiny, hard sphere. It is a localized process, not a discrete substance. The most striking manifestation of this linguistic mismatch is the concept of the "massless particle," exemplified most prominently by the photon. The term itself embodies an internal contradiction within a substance-based framework, conceptually akin to asserting the existence of a "square circle." If a particle is conceived as a "thing," and mass is understood as a measure of that thing's material substance, how can a "thing" simultaneously possess no substance? Physics is thus compelled to describe the photon, arguably the purest expression of dynamic action in the universe ("propagating energy-momentum"), using a static noun ("particle"). A photon is not a distinct entity that merely moves at the speed of light (`c`); it *embodies* the process of moving at speed `c`. It does not *have* momentum as a separate attribute; it *is* momentum in transit, a dynamic transfer of energy. It represents a pure transfer of energy and momentum, a fundamental dynamic process utterly devoid of static substantiality or rest mass. This phrase functions as a conceptual scar, the direct consequence of attempting to graft a novel discovery onto an obsolete ontological structure incapable of accommodating it. It is fundamentally a verb, "propagating," forcibly confined within a noun-shaped linguistic container, creating a linguistic paradox that obscures its true nature. This conceptual strain on language also fundamentally underpins the notion of "wave-particle duality." This is not an intrinsic, mysterious paradox of reality itself, but rather a conceptual compromise – an epistemological patch – devised to reconcile the observed wave-like behaviors (characteristic of a distributed process) with the localized interaction outcomes (often interpreted through a particle lens) within the restrictive confines of a substance-based conceptual box. A process ontology inherently resolves this apparent duality: a dynamic process can naturally exhibit outcomes that appear either localized or distributed, depending entirely on the nature of the interaction and the experimental setup, without necessitating the underlying entity to be two mutually contradictory "things" simultaneously. The observed phenomena are simply different facets or *manifestations* of a single underlying dynamic reality, revealed through interaction. The notion of 'duality' becomes conceptually superfluous, superseded by a unified understanding of how a single underlying process interacts with its environment and the instruments used to observe it, demonstrating different *manifestations* of the same underlying process. The inescapable conclusion is that many of physics' most deeply entrenched "paradoxes" are not intrinsic features of the universe awaiting deeper mathematical description. They are, in essence, grammatical artifacts, conceptual chimeras born from the attempt to apply noun-based logic to a fundamentally verb-based universe. "Wave-particle duality" represents the linguistic tension, while the "massless particle" signifies the audible fracture of that inadequate linguistic framework. These are not paradoxes of nature, but paradoxes of description, symptoms of an outdated linguistic framework straining to contain a dynamic reality it was not built to describe, actively misleading intuition and hindering progress. Physicists have already completed the most challenging part of the intellectual journey. Their own theoretical constructs (QFT) and the compelling experimental evidence have effectively dismantled the substance-based worldview. They have rigorously demonstrated that the universe is fundamentally composed of non-local, interacting processes, not static entities. The necessary and logical next step is to consciously adopt a language and conceptual framework that accurately reflects this established reality, aligning description with discovery. The current linguistic framework is not merely outdated; it actively hinders understanding, perpetuates confusion, and fundamentally misrepresents the profound insights gained over the last century, creating artificial barriers to a deeper, more coherent understanding. Embracing the logical and empirical implications inherent in QFT and these foundational experiments, we can adopt a process ontology where reality is fundamentally comprised of dynamic processes and interactions. Let us therefore replace the current incoherent foundation with a single, consistent, and empirically grounded axiom: **Reality is fundamentally process, and the primary intrinsic measure of a localized, stable process is its frequency.** This axiom aligns directly with the core tenets of quantum mechanics, where frequency (or energy, via Planck's constant, E=hf) is the most fundamental characteristic of quantum phenomena, providing a unified basis for describing all physical reality. Frequency, as a measure of oscillation or rate of change, is inherently a characteristic of process, not substance. The de Broglie relation (p=h/λ), linking momentum to wavelength (inversely related to frequency), further underscores the centrality of frequency/wavelength as fundamental descriptors of these dynamic processes, reinforcing frequency as the key identifier of a process's state and its intrinsic dynamic rate. Within the framework of this process ontology, the previously identified "paradoxes" and "inconsistencies" dissolve naturally, without necessitating any alteration to the established mathematical formalism: *   **There is no 'Massless Particle' problem.** Instead, the universe is described by two fundamental categories of processes, distinguished by their dynamic characteristics and relationship to spacetime:     1.  **Localized Processes (Manifesting as Matter):** These are stable, self-sustaining resonant modes or standing wave-like excitations within the fundamental fields. Their characteristic *rest frequency* (`ω₀`) inherently *defines* their mass (`m ≡ ħω₀/c²`). Mass is not an inherent property possessed by a static entity; mass *is the frequency* of its internal resonance or oscillation in its rest frame. It is an action, a dynamic state, not a passive thing. These processes are characterized by having a well-defined rest frame and exhibit particle-like interactions due to their localized energy density, representing concentrated bundles of dynamic activity.     2.  **Propagating Processes (Manifesting as Light/Interactions):** These are traveling-wave disturbances or dynamic transfers of energy and momentum within the fields. They possess no invariant rest frame and thus no rest frequency (no mass). Their energy is directly proportional to their *traveling frequency* (`E = hf`). They are pure propagation, inherently defined by their rate of oscillation as they traverse spacetime at the invariant speed `c`. These processes exhibit wave-like phenomena due to their extended nature, representing dynamic flows of activity. *   **There is no 'Wave-Particle Duality'.** There is only the fundamental concept of 'process.' A process, depending on the specific interaction or measurement context, can manifest its effects either at a discrete point (resulting in a 'particle-like' detection event) or across a distributed region (resulting in a 'wave-like' interference pattern) contingent upon the nature of the interaction or measurement. The perceived duality resides not in the fundamental reality of the process, but in the *observable manifestations of that process* and the anachronistic language employed to describe them. The process itself is unified; its observed behavior is context-dependent. *   **There is no 'substance' requiring justification.** The fundamental reality is already accepted within modern physics to consist of dynamic fields and their inherent potential for action and interaction. A process ontology based on frequency provides the most accurate, coherent, and parsimonious description of this reality as it has been revealed by the empirical evidence and formalized by QFT. The question of "what are fields made of?" is rendered moot; they *are* the fundamental 'stuff' of process itself, the dynamic substrate of reality, requiring no underlying substance for their existence. Reality is fundamentally dynamic potentiality and activity. Furthermore, the iconic equation `E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²` is not an arbitrary formula patching together disparate concepts, but rather the Universal Relation for Process Energy, elegantly describing the total energy of any fundamental process as the sum of its intrinsic, localized resonant energy (`mc²`, directly related to its rest frequency) and its external, propagating kinetic energy (`pc`, directly related to its traveling frequency/momentum). It describes the energy of a process based on its internal oscillation and external translation. When interpreted through the lens of a consistent process ontology, the fundamental equations cease to be sources of paradox and instead become clear, elegant expressions of the underlying nature of vibration, interaction, and dynamic change that constitute reality, reflecting the energy inherent in different modes of process activity. The pivotal question confronting physics is no longer solely centered on refining mathematical formulas, but on embracing intellectual honesty and linguistic integrity. The accumulated data unequivocally demonstrates that the universe operates as a system of dynamic processes. Physics has, through its own advancements, intellectually abandoned the reality of static nouns, yet it paradoxically continues to cleave to their grammatical structure. The pressing question is not 'What does the evidence indicate?' but rather, 'When will the language used to describe reality evolve to accurately reflect what the evidence has already definitively established?' When will physics cease confusing the dance with the dancer, particularly when its own mathematical language reveals that only the dance exists? The assertion that "photons have no mass and everything is a particle" is not an inevitable truth dictated by nature; it is the predictable symptom of a conceptual system desperately clinging to an outdated ontology that is fundamentally incompatible with the wealth of contemporary evidence. The universe is not a static collection of objects that passively possess properties; it is a dynamic symphony of interacting processes, each fundamentally defined by its characteristic frequencies, modes of vibration, and interactions. The ongoing challenge for physics is to align its descriptive language and conceptual framework more accurately and consistently with the reality that its own profound discoveries have unveiled, finally allowing language to serve, rather than obscure, our understanding of the cosmos.