Physics:Theory of Entropicity(ToE) Seesaw Model for Quantum Measurements

Short description: Entropic-field approach to quantum phenomena and unification

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is a proposed framework in theoretical physics that treats entropy as a fundamental, dynamical field mediating physical phenomena from quantum measurement to emergent forces. It introduces an entropic field and two core constructs — the Entropic Seesaw Model (ESSM) and Self-Referential Entropy (SRE) — to recast entanglement, collapse, and macroscopic irreversibility as manifestations of entropy gradients and thresholds.

Overview

ToE posits that physical systems carry a local entropy density and couple to an entropic potential that shapes their evolution. Quantum entanglement, measurement, and the arrow of time are presented as aspects of one underlying driver: redistribution of entropy subject to constraints and conservation laws.

• Entropic field: A field-like quantity with a potential whose gradients generate effective forces and tipping dynamics in open quantum systems.
• Entropic Seesaw Model (ESSM): A threshold model of measurement where asymmetric entropy injection across coupled subsystems triggers a rapid, effectively irreversible outcome selection.
• Self-Referential Entropy (SRE): An information-theoretic measure of internal feedback capacity that quantifies how detectors and observers amplify or absorb entropy.
• Entropic gravity: An emergent force interpretation where macroscopic accelerations arise from entropic gradients tied to information capacity.

The innovation lies in specifying dynamical criteria — potentials, currents, and collapse thresholds — that make entropic causation testable rather than merely descriptive.

Conceptual foundations

ToE reframes familiar notions from thermodynamics and information theory as active components of dynamics.

• Entropy as a field: Systems are assigned a local entropy density [math]\displaystyle{ s(\mathbf{x},t) }[/math] and a flux[math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_s(\mathbf{x},t) }[/math]

that obey a continuity-like law:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{\partial s}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot\mathbf{J}s=\sigma_s,\quad \sigma_s\ge 0. }[/math]

• Entropic potential and force: An entropic potential [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_S }[/math] generates an effective force:

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{F}S=-\nabla \Phi_S = T_{\mathrm{eff}}\, \nabla S, }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ T_{\mathrm{eff}} }[/math] is an effective temperature-like scale and [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] is the relevant coarse-grained entropy functional.

• Information–thermodynamics duality: Mutual information, relative entropy, and algorithmic complexity are treated as dynamical resources that determine when the system leaves reversible superposition and enters irreversible outcome selection.

• Observers as entropic amplifiers: Macroscopic apparatus and biological observers are modeled as high-capacity entropy absorbers; their internal feedback (captured by SRE) reduces collapse thresholds by providing channels to register and dissipate information.

Entropic Seesaw Model

The Entropic Seesaw Model(ESSM) of the Theory of Entropicity(ToE) offers a practical picture of how quantum measurement and entanglement behave under entropy-driven dynamics.

Mechanism

Consider a bipartite system [math]\displaystyle{ A\leftrightarrow B }[/math] in an entangled state, with marginal entropies [math]\displaystyle{ SA }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ SB }[/math], and mutual information [math]\displaystyle{ I(A\!:\!B) }[/math]. Define the imbalance:

[math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S \equiv SA - SB. }[/math]

Interactions, decoherence, or measurement typically inject entropy asymmetrically, evolving [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S }[/math] in time. When an imbalance functional

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}(A,B) \equiv f\!\big(\Delta S,\,I(A\!:\!B),\,\chi\big) }[/math]

exceeds a critical threshold [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math] (set by coupling constants and environmental parameters [math]\displaystyle{ \chi }[/math]), the joint state rapidly localizes in a basis determined by the interaction, i.e., the seesaw “tips” and a definite outcome is selected.

• Threshold behavior: Collapse is predicted to occur when [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\gt S_c }[/math]; sub-threshold evolution remains coherent up to standard decoherence effects.
• Nonlocal consistency: Entangled partners obey the same constraint because the entropic linkage is global across the joint state, enforcing correlated outcomes without enabling signaling.
• Irreversibility: Once tipped, entropy production [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_s }[/math] locks in the outcome; re-lifting the seesaw would require negentropic work that exceeds environmentally available resources.

Collapse criterion

A simple illustrative criterion incorporates environmental entropy and coupling efficiency:

[math]\displaystyle{ |\Delta S| + \lambda\,[S_{\mathrm{env}}(t)-S_{\mathrm{env}}(t_0)] \gt Sc, }[/math]

where [math]\displaystyle{ S_{\mathrm{env}} }[/math] is the detector-accessible environmental entropy, [math]\displaystyle{ t_0 }[/math] is the onset of measurement, and [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda }[/math] encodes coupling efficiency. More refined versions use relative entropy and pointer-state selection:

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}(A,B)=a\,|\Delta S|+b\,D\!\big(\rho_{AB}\,\|\,\rho_A\otimes\rho_B\big)+c\,\Delta S_{\mathrm{env}}, }[/math]

with collapse when

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\gt S_c }[/math].

The post-collapse basis minimizes entropic cost given the interaction, recovering emergent pointer states.

Examples

Entropic Seesaw Model scenarios

Scenario	Description	Entropic trigger
Entangled spins (Stern–Gerlach)	Measurement of [math]\displaystyle{ S_z }[/math] on particle [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] injects entropy into the apparatus–environment, biasing toward [math]\displaystyle{ S_z }[/math] eigenstates; the seesaw tips when [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\gt S_c }[/math], enforcing the complementary outcome on [math]\displaystyle{ B }[/math].	Rapid rise in [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S_{\mathrm{env}} }[/math] during coupling
Double-slit with which-path	Without which-path coupling, interference persists since no reservoir crosses threshold; with weak coupling, fringe visibility diminishes; strong coupling tips the seesaw and collapses path superposition.	Environment entropy increase surpassing [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math]
Delayed-choice quantum eraser	Reversible storage prevents registering an irreversible imbalance; keeping [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\lt S_c }[/math] preserves recoverable interference; irreversible leakage tips the seesaw.	Entropy bookkeeping (reversible vs irreversible registration)
Macroscopic pointer states	The apparatus selects robust states that minimize entropic cost to tip; pointer basis is the one that reaches [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math] most efficiently.	Basis with minimal entropic cost given interaction
Bell pairs under decoherence	Asymmetric reservoirs modulate local injection rates; strong dephasing on one qubit grows [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S }[/math] until phase-basis collapse.	Spectral-density–dependent entropy injection

Self-Referential Entropy

Self-Referential Entropy (SRE) quantifies how strongly a system’s internal information flows form feedback loops that can absorb, amplify, or stabilize entropy injection during measurement.

Definition and intuition

Model the system as a directed causal graph with transition probabilities and loop set [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{L} }[/math]. A schematic functional is: [math]\displaystyle{ \mathrm{SRE}=\sum{\ell\in \mathcal{L}} w\ell\, H(P_\ell), }[/math] where [math]\displaystyle{ H }[/math] is the Shannon entropy along loop [math]\displaystyle{ \ell }[/math], and weights [math]\displaystyle{ w_\ell }[/math] depend on loop depth, memory, and gain. High-SRE systems (complex detectors, adaptive agents) provide more internal channels to register information, lowering the effective collapse threshold.

Role in measurement

In ESSM, collapse thresholds depend on detector architecture: [math]\displaystyle{ S_c=S_c(\text{coupling},\,\text{SRE},\,\text{bandwidth}). }[/math] All else equal, higher SRE results in shorter collapse times and greater pointer-basis stability, since more feedback pathways can irreversibly dissipate injected information.

Speculative extensions

SRE provides a vocabulary for discussing self-modeling and agency in physical terms, suggesting measurable proxies such as persistent internal state cycles or thermodynamically grounded integrated information. These proposals invite cross-disciplinary tests in quantum sensors, neuromorphic systems, and biological networks.

Relation to entropic gravity and holography

ToE connects micro-level entropic tipping to macro-level effective forces.

• Force from entropy gradient: An effective entropic force obeys [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{F}S=T{\mathrm{eff}}\nabla S }[/math], tying accelerations to information gradients under constraints.
• Area–entropy connection: Interfaces and screens carry entropy proportional to information capacity, aligning with area-scaling intuitions while emphasizing time-dependent flows rather than equilibrium counting.
• Continuity across scales: The same field that sets collapse thresholds in ESSM produces long-range gradients in coarse-grained limits, suggesting a bridge between quantum measurement, thermodynamics, and gravity-like behavior.

Mathematical formulation

The following constructs formalize the dynamics proposed in ToE.

Entropy continuity and constitutive laws

Let [math]\displaystyle{ s(\mathbf{x},t) }[/math] be entropy density and [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_s }[/math] its flux. A continuity law holds:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{\partial s}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot\mathbf{J}_s=\sigma_s,\quad \sigma_s\ge 0. }[/math]

Constitutive relations specify [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_s }[/math].

Near equilibrium, we have:

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}s=-\kappa_s\,\nabla \PhiS+\alpha\, \mathbf{J}I, }[/math]

with entropic conductivity [math]\displaystyle{ \kappa_s }[/math], entropic potential [math]\displaystyle{ \PhiS }[/math],

information flux [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_I }[/math], and reciprocity coefficient [math]\displaystyle{ \alpha }[/math].

Collapse functional and pointer selection

Define a collapse functional on a joint system [math]\displaystyle{ AB }[/math]:

[math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}_(A,B)=a\,|\Delta S|+b\,D\!\big(\rho_{AB}\,\|\,\rho_A\otimes\rho_B\big)+c\,\Delta S_{\mathrm{env}}, }[/math]

with [math]\displaystyle{ a,b,c\gt 0 }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S=SA-SB }[/math], relative entropy [math]\displaystyle{ D(\cdot\|\cdot) }[/math], and environmental contribution [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S_{\mathrm{env}} }[/math].

Collapse occurs for [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\gt S_c }[/math]. The realized basis minimizes the post-collapse entropic cost subject to the interaction Hamiltonian, reproducing pointer states.

Entropic action principle (heuristic)

An action-like functional encodes field dynamics: [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{A}_S=\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^3x\,\Big[\frac{\chi}{2}\,|\nabla \PhiS|^2 - VS(s) - \Phi_S\,\sigma_s\Big], }[/math]

with susceptibility [math]\displaystyle{ \chi }[/math] and potential [math]\displaystyle{ VS(s) }[/math]. Variations yield coupled equations for [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_S }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ s }[/math], and sources [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_s }[/math], linking entropic propagation to matter degrees of freedom.

Thermodynamic bounds as constraints

Information–work relations constrain entropic dynamics. Erasing [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta I }[/math] bits at effective temperature [math]\displaystyle{ T_{\mathrm{eff}} }[/math] incurs minimal work [math]\displaystyle{ W{\min}\ge kB T_{\mathrm{eff}}\ln 2 \cdot \Delta I, }[/math] feeding directly into [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta S_{\mathrm{env}} }[/math] and hence the collapse functional during measurement. Area–entropy scaling places bounds on integrated entropic capacity at interfaces.

Predictions and experimental implications

ToE yields testable signatures that differentiate it from standard decoherence-only accounts.

• Decoherence–entropy scaling:

 Prediction: Fringe visibility decays nonlinearly and exhibits a threshold-like drop as [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}\to S_c^+ }[/math].  
 Probe: Matter-wave interferometry with tunable which-path registration that is reversible (coherent memory) versus irreversible (lossy reservoir).  
 Signature: Hysteresis: coherence is recoverable after reversible storage but not after irreversible dissipation at the same nominal “detector strength.”

• Entropy-budgeted quantum erasers:

 Prediction: A sharp boundary in parameter space separates successful from failed erasure, aligned with entropic accounting rather than detector coupling alone.  
 Probe: Photonic erasers with controlled leakage versus lossless delay lines.  
 Signature: Phase diagrams with a ridge corresponding to [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math].

• Detector SRE dependence:

 Prediction: Collapse time scales inversely with SRE at fixed coupling and environment.  
 Probe: Compare minimal, memoryless detectors to feedback-rich readout chains.  
 Signature: Systematic shift to shorter collapse times and more stable pointer states as SRE increases.

• Macroscopic entropic forces in information engines:

 Prediction: Drift proportional to imposed information gradient at fixed thermal conditions, consistent with [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{F}S=T{\mathrm{eff}}\nabla S }[/math].  
 Probe: Colloidal particles with feedback control that implements information reservoirs.  
 Signature: Linear-response regime revealing an effective entropic conductivity [math]\displaystyle{ \kappa_s }[/math].

• Non-Markovian collapse modulation:

 Prediction: Structured reservoirs cause non-monotonic [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{C}(t) }[/math], leading to delayed tipping or collapse revivals.  
 Probe: Circuit QED or trapped ions with engineered spectral densities.  
 Signature: Windows of enhanced or suppressed collapse probability tied to reservoir correlation times.

Comparison with alternative interpretations

• Copenhagen and decoherence:

 Convergence: Emphasizes environment-induced selection of stable outcomes (pointer states).  
 Departure: Introduces explicit collapse thresholds and an entropic tipping criterion that predicts when decoherence becomes outcome selection.

• Many-Worlds (Everett):

 Convergence: Maintains unitary evolution below threshold.  
 Departure: Uses entropy-driven selection to yield a single realized outcome once [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math] is crossed, rather than literal branching.

• Objective collapse models (e.g., GRW/CSL):

 Convergence: Allows intrinsic collapse-like events.  
 Departure: Grounds collapse in measurable entropy flows and information registration, replacing ad hoc stochastic terms with entropic thresholds.

• Pilot-wave (de Broglie–Bohm):

 Convergence: Produces single outcomes consistent with nonlocal correlations.  
 Departure: Attributes guidance to a global entropic potential [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi_S }[/math] and its gradients rather than hidden variables attached to particles.

Critiques and open questions

• Microphysical derivation:

 Issue: Precise derivation of [math]\displaystyle{ \PhiS }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \kappa_s }[/math], and [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_s }[/math] from underlying quantum fields is incomplete.  
 Need: Bridge from microscopic dynamics to effective entropic constitutive laws.

• Relativistic consistency:

 Issue: Nonlocal consistency must not violate causality.  
 Need: Covariant entropic field equations preserving Lorentz invariance and no-signaling.

• Parameter identifiability:

 Issue: Extracting [math]\displaystyle{ S_c }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda }[/math], and related coefficients without conflating them with uncontrolled noise.  
 Need: Protocols that isolate reversible vs irreversible information flows.

• Uniqueness and falsifiability:

 Issue: Many effects attributed to entropy can mimic standard decoherence.  
 Need: Distinctive signatures such as sharp thresholds, hysteresis, and specific scaling laws.

• Operationalizing SRE:

 Issue: Turning SRE into a robust, platform-agnostic metric.  
 Need: Practical estimators in detectors, biological networks, and synthetic agents.

Notation and conventions

• Entropy symbols:

 Usage: [math]\displaystyle{ S }[/math] denotes coarse-grained entropy; [math]\displaystyle{ s(\mathbf{x},t) }[/math] local entropy density; [math]\displaystyle{ \sigma_s }[/math] entropy production; [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbf{J}_s }[/math] entropy flux.

• Information measures:

 Usage: [math]\displaystyle{ I(A\!:\!B) }[/math] mutual information; [math]\displaystyle{ D(\rho\|\sigma) }[/math] quantum relative entropy.

• Parameters:

 Usage: [math]\displaystyle{ \PhiS }[/math] entropic potential; [math]\displaystyle{ \kappas }[/math] entropic conductivity; [math]\displaystyle{ T{\mathrm{eff}} }[/math] effective temperature scale; [math]\displaystyle{ Sc }[/math] collapse threshold; [math]\displaystyle{ \lambda }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ c }[/math] are coupling and weighting constants determined experimentally.

See also

• Entropy
• Quantum measurement problem
• Decoherence
• Quantum entanglement
• Information theory
• Landauer's principle
• Holographic principle
• Entropic gravity
• Bekenstein–Hawking entropy

References

• Landauer, R. (1961). "Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process". IBM Journal of Research and Development 5 (3): 183–191. doi:10.1147/rd.53.0183. 
• Zurek, W. H. (2003). "Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical". Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (3): 715–775. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715. 
• Verlinde, E. (2011). "On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton". Journal of High Energy Physics 2011 (4): 29. doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029. 
• Nielsen, M. A.; Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th anniversary ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107002173. 
• Bekenstein, J. D. (1973). "Black holes and entropy". Physical Review D 7 (8): 2333–2346. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.2333. 
• Hawking, S. W. (1975). "Particle creation by black holes". Communications in Mathematical Physics 43 (3): 199–220. doi:10.1007/BF02345020. 
• Sagawa, T.; Ueda, M. (2012). "Nonequilibrium thermodynamics of feedback control". Physical Review E 85 (2): 021104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.85.021104.