Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein's Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved

Last updated: Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein’s Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved

Last updated: Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Prologue

What if Einstein’s relativity and the century‑old debate with Bohr over the role of the observer were really two sides of the same puzzle? The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) suggests they are. By treating entropy as the hidden substrate of reality, ToE shows that time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction are not just geometric illusions tied to frames of reference, but real physical consequences of entropy’s finite budget. In doing so, it unifies Einstein’s relativity with his quantum realism, offering a bold new principle: all relativistic effects are entropy striving to conserve itself.

Entropy, Relativity, and the Observer: A New Synthesis

For more than a century, Einstein’s relativity has shaped our understanding of space and time. It tells us that clocks slow down when they move fast, that rods contract when they approach the speed of light, and that energy grows without bound as velocity increases. But relativity also insists that these effects depend on the observer’s frame of reference. What you measure depends on where you stand.

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) challenges this picture in a subtle but profound way. It begins with a simple postulate: entropy — the measure of disorder and information — cannot redistribute infinitely. From this principle alone, ToE derives the same kinematic laws that Einstein discovered, including the famous Lorentz factor. But unlike relativity, ToE says these effects are not just geometric descriptions tied to observers. They are real, physical consequences of how entropy enforces the rules of motion.

Relativity vs. ToE in Plain Terms

• Relativity: Time dilation is real, mass increase is energy growth, but length contraction is only geometric. Observers matter because measurements depend on frames.

• ToE: Time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction are all real, enforced by the entropic field itself. Observers don’t matter; the universe obeys entropy whether or not anyone is watching.

Both theories agree on the numbers. They disagree on what those numbers mean.

Back to Einstein and Bohr

This debate echoes the famous clash between Einstein and Bohr in quantum mechanics. Bohr argued that observation defines reality. Einstein insisted that reality exists whether or not it is observed. Ironically, in relativity Einstein leaned toward Bohr’s side: frames of reference define what you see. ToE restores Einstein’s deeper intuition. It says: in both quantum mechanics and relativity, the observer is not the cause. Entropy is.

Why This Matters

If relativity is the geometry of appearances, ToE is the mechanism beneath them. Relativity tells us how the world looks from different vantage points. ToE tells us why the world must look that way, even in the absence of observers. It unifies Einstein’s two legacies — relativity and his realist stance in quantum mechanics — under a single principle:

All relativistic effects are entropy striving to conserve itself.

(End of Prologue)

Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein’s Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved

The central question is how to reconcile the different ontological commitments of Einstein’s relativity and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Relativity asserts that time dilation is a real physical effect, that mass increase is best understood as energy–momentum growth with invariant rest mass, and that length contraction is a geometric effect of simultaneity rather than a literal physical compression. By contrast, ToE asserts that the entropic field itself causes actual mass increase, actual time dilation, and actual length contraction, independent of observers or measurements. Since ToE insists that entropy must be obeyed irrespective of who is doing the measuring, the reconciliation requires careful philosophical and physical framing.

Relativity’s Commitments

• Time dilation: A real, physical slowing of processes such as atomic clocks and particle decays. This has been experimentally confirmed in aircraft, satellites, and high-energy physics.
• Mass increase: Interpreted as growth of energy and momentum, not as a literal change in invariant rest mass \(m_0\). The modern view avoids the older “relativistic mass” language.
• Length contraction: A geometric effect arising from the relativity of simultaneity. Objects are not permanently squashed; rather, their measured length depends on the observer’s frame.
• Epistemology: All effects are relative to frames of reference. There is no absolute substrate or preferred frame.

ToE’s Commitments

• Time dilation: Real, because the entropic field’s finite updating capacity is reduced at high velocity. Less entropy is available for temporal progression.
• Mass increase: Real, because the entropic field must regenerate more inertia as velocity rises. This is not merely a bookkeeping convention but a physical reallocation of entropy.
• Length contraction: Real, because the entropic field enforces structural compression for stability. Contraction is not just a coordinate artifact but an entropic optimization.
• Ontology: There exists an absolute entropic field that enforces these effects, independent of observers or measurements.

Shared Mathematics

Both relativity and ToE reproduce the Lorentz factor:

\[ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}. \]

Thus, they agree on all quantitative predictions, including the impossibility of reaching the speed of light with finite energy.

Different Interpretations

• Relativity: The Lorentz factor is a geometric necessity of Minkowski spacetime.
• ToE: The Lorentz factor is an entropic necessity of the substrate. Geometry is the shadow, entropy is the cause.

Observer vs. Substrate

• Relativity: Effects are relative to observers and frames of reference.
• ToE: Effects are enforced by entropy itself, regardless of who observes. The entropic field provides an “absolute check” on motion.

Complementary Layers

• Relativity as epistemology: It describes how observers measure and compare phenomena.
• ToE as ontology: It explains why those measurements are constrained in the first place, by grounding them in entropy allocation.

Philosophical Resolution

• Relativity is not wrong; it is the correct description of appearances and measurements.
• ToE is not a contradiction; it is a deeper claim that the entropic field is the cause of those appearances.
• Thus: Relativity = geometry of effects; ToE = mechanism of effects.

Breakthrough Framing

Einstein: “The world is geometric, and geometry dictates what you see.”
ToE: “Geometry itself is generated by entropy, and entropy dictates what is possible.”

In this way, relativity can be understood as the surface law of appearances, while ToE provides the substrate law of being. The reconciliation lies in treating relativity as the correct description of how phenomena manifest to observers, and ToE as the deeper ontology that explains why those manifestations are inevitable.

---

Comparative Ontology and Epistemology: Relativity vs. ToE

To clarify the relationship between Einstein’s relativity and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE), we present a side‑by‑side comparison. Both frameworks reproduce the Lorentz factor:

\[ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}, \]

but they differ in their interpretation of what this factor means. The table below gives us an instant glance and overview of the conceptual and mathematical tensions between Einstein's Relativity and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) — and their resolutions.

Aspect of Tension	Einstein's Relativity	Theory of Entropicity (ToE)
Time Dilation	Physical slowing of processes (atomic clocks, particle decays). A geometric consequence of Lorentz transformations.	Real slowing due to entropy allocation: less entropic capacity remains for temporal updating at high velocity.
Mass Increase	Rest mass \(m_0\) is invariant. Energy and momentum grow with \(\gamma\). “Relativistic mass” is deprecated.	Effective inertia truly increases: the entropic field regenerates more mass as velocity rises. Energy growth is interpreted as entropic mass increase.
Length Contraction	A geometric effect of simultaneity. Objects are not physically squashed; contraction is frame‑dependent.	A real entropic compression: the field enforces structural contraction for stability, not just coordinate geometry.
Ontology	Spacetime geometry is fundamental. No absolute substrate; motion is purely relative.	Entropy is the substrate. Geometry is emergent. The entropic field provides an absolute check on motion.
Epistemology	Describes what observers measure. Effects are relative to frames.	Explains why those measurements are constrained. Effects are enforced by entropy itself, independent of observation.
Absolute Motion	No absolute motion; only relative frames exist.	Absolute motion relative to the entropic field. Observers may disagree, but entropy enforces the same Lorentz rules.
Simultaneity	No universal “now.” Simultaneity is relative.	Agrees: no instantaneity. Time is emergent from entropy’s updating.
Philosophical Framing	“The world is geometric, and geometry dictates what you see.”	“Geometry itself is generated by entropy, and entropy dictates what is possible.”

Resolution of the Einstein–Obidi Tension (EOT): Relativity is the geometry of effects, while ToE is the mechanism of effects. Relativity provides the epistemology of appearances; ToE provides the ontology of being. Together, they reconcile Newton’s intuition of a deeper substrate with Einstein’s insistence on relativity of simultaneity, by grounding spacetime itself in entropy.

---

Observer Dependence, Entropy, and ToE's Unification of Relativity and Quantum Debate

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) introduces a profound shift in how we understand the foundations of physical reality. Relativity, as formulated by Einstein, insists that time dilation is a real physical effect, that mass increase is best understood as energy–momentum growth with invariant rest mass, and that length contraction is a geometric effect of simultaneity rather than a literal physical compression. ToE, however, asserts that the entropic field itself causes actual mass increase, actual time dilation, and actual length contraction, independent of observers or measurements. This difference raises the question: how do we reconcile these two views of physical reality?

Relativity’s Commitments

Relativity is built on the principle that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and that the speed of light is invariant. From these postulates, the Lorentz factor emerges:

\[ \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}. \]

This factor governs all relativistic effects. Time dilation is physically real, as confirmed by experiments with atomic clocks and muon decay. Mass increase is interpreted as the growth of energy and momentum, not as a literal change in invariant rest mass \(m_0\). Length contraction, however, is treated as a geometric effect: objects are not physically squashed, but their measured length depends on the observer’s frame. Thus, relativity is fundamentally observer-dependent: the results of measurement vary with the frame of reference, though invariants such as proper time and rest mass remain the same.

ToE’s Commitments

ToE begins with a different postulate: entropy exists as a global and local field which cannot redistribute infinitely. That is, ToE reframes these effects as redistributions of a finite entropy budget. This finite redistribution principle is expressed as:

\[ \Delta S_{\text{local}} + \Delta S_{\text{struct}} + \Delta S_{\text{temporal}} = \Delta S_{\text{budget}}, \qquad \Delta S_{\text{budget}} < \infty. \]

Here, \(\Delta S_{\text{local}}\) sustains identity and inertia, \(\Delta S_{\text{struct}}\) governs spatial organization (length contraction), and \(\Delta S_{\text{temporal}}\) governs temporal updating (time dilation). As velocity increases, more entropy is allocated to inertia, leaving less for time and structure. This yields the same Lorentz factor as relativity:

\[ \gamma(v) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}, \]

but with a different interpretation:

\[ \text{Effective inertia} \propto \gamma, \] \[ \text{Temporal updating} \propto \gamma^{-1}, \] \[ \text{Structural compression} \propto \gamma^{-1}. \]

Thus, ToE treats the Lorentz factor not as a universal multiplier, but as a redistribution index.

This asymmetry is intentional: it reflects a zero-sum entropic field, not a symmetric transformation.

Thus, ToE asserts that time dilation, mass increase, and length contraction are not merely coordinate effects but real entropic reallocations. Crucially, these effects occur whether or not there are observers. The entropic field enforces them as absolute constraints.

Thus, they agree on all quantitative predictions, including the impossibility of reaching the speed of light with finite energy. 

But relativity links it intrinsically to the speed of light; while the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) links it intrinsically to the entropic field manifesting in the speed of light.

Reconciling the Two Views

At first glance, relativity and ToE seem to diverge sharply: relativity insists on observer dependence, while ToE insists on observer independence. Yet both yield the same quantitative predictions. The reconciliation lies in distinguishing between epistemology and ontology. Relativity provides the epistemology: it describes how observers measure and compare phenomena across frames. ToE provides the ontology: it explains why those measurements are constrained in the first place, by grounding them in entropy allocation. In this sense, relativity is the geometry of effects, while ToE is the mechanism of effects.

The Einstein–Bohr Analogy

This tension recalls the Einstein–Bohr debate in quantum mechanics. In quantum theory, Bohr insisted that observation is central: measurement defines outcomes. Einstein resisted, arguing that reality exists independently of observation. In relativity, paradoxically, Einstein took the opposite stance: observer frames are central to defining time, length, and simultaneity.

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) restores Einstein’s realist intuition, but now within relativity itself: the entropic field enforces relativistic effects independently of observers. Thus, ToE unifies Einstein’s two positions by saying: in both quantum mechanics and relativity, the observer is not intrinsically relevant to the result. Reality is enforced by entropy, not by measurement.

Comparative Table

To make this reconciliation clearer, we present a comparative table:

Aspect	Relativity	Theory of Entropicity (ToE)
Time Dilation	Real slowing of processes, but described as frame-dependent.	Real slowing due to entropy allocation, independent of observers.
Mass Increase	Energy and momentum grow with \(\gamma\), rest mass invariant.	Effective inertia truly increases; entropic field regenerates mass.
Length Contraction	Geometric effect of simultaneity, not physical squashing.	Real entropic compression for stability, enforced by entropy.
Ontology	Geometry is fundamental; no absolute substrate.	Entropy is fundamental; geometry is emergent.
Epistemology	Observer-dependent description of appearances.	Observer-independent enforcement of constraints.
Quantum Analogy	Like Bohr: observer central to description.	Like Einstein: observer irrelevant; reality enforced by entropy.

Philosophical Resolution

• Relativity is correct in its description of appearances: measurements are frame-dependent, and geometry dictates what observers see.
• ToE is correct in its deeper ontology: entropy dictates what is possible, and these constraints hold even in the absence of observers.
• Together, they unify Einstein’s relativity with his quantum realism: the world is not created by observation, but by entropy.

Breakthrough Framing

In summary, Einstein said:
“The world is geometric, and geometry dictates what you see.”

ToE responds:
“Geometry itself is generated by entropy, and entropy dictates what is possible.”

In this way, ToE provides a realistic unification of relativity and the Einstein–Bohr debate, grounding both in the absolute enforcement of entropy.

---

Conclusion: The Entropic Horizon of Einstein's Relativity and Physics

By embedding the Entropic Resistance Principle (ERP) and the No-Rush Theorem within the informational geometry of the Fisher–Rao and Fubini–Study metrics, and within the Amari–Čencov dual \(\alpha\)-connections, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) achieves a new level of explanatory power and self-consistency.

The ToE field equations now encompass not only statistical and quantum curvature but also the relativistic transformations of Einstein’s theory. The traditional Lorentz factor \(\gamma\) becomes a limiting subset of the richer entropic Lorentz factor \(\gamma_e\), while the ERP governs the redistribution of entropy between motion and timekeeping.

Within this framework, mass increase, time dilation, and length contraction are no longer postulates of spacetime geometry but natural consequences of entropy conservation and entropic resistance. This realization confirms that Einstein’s kinematic relativity is embedded within ToE as a special regime of a deeper entropic law in which entropy alone drives motion, inertia, and temporal structure.

How ToE Reflects Einstein's Postulates

This is exactly where the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) shows its power: it does not merely assume Einstein’s two postulates, but derives them from the entropic field itself. We break this down carefully below.

Einstein’s Two Postulates

Einstein’s 1905 formulation of Special Relativity rests on two foundational principles:

1. Constancy of the speed of light: All inertial observers measure the same value of \(c\), regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the source.
2. Relativity principle: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

ToE’s Entropic Field and the Constancy of \(c\)

In ToE:

• The entropic field \(S(x)\) defines the universal causal cone through its Master Entropic Equation (MEE).
• The principal part of the linearized MEE is always proportional to \(g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu\).
• This means the characteristics of entropic disturbances are exactly the null cones of the spacetime metric.

Since all matter and radiation are constrained by the No‑Rush Theorem to propagate within the entropic cone,

\[ g^{\mu\nu} k_\mu k_\nu = 0 \]

the propagation speed is thus universally fixed to \(c\).

Key point: Because the null cone is a geometric object, all observers agree on it. Thus, every inertial observer measures the same \(c\), not because it is imposed, but because the entropic field enforces a single causal structure for the universe.

ToE and the Relativity Principle

In ToE, the entropic field is covariant: the action (Obidi Action) and MEE are written in terms of tensors (\(g^{\mu\nu}, \nabla_\mu\)), which are form‑invariant under coordinate transformations. This guarantees that the laws of physics derived from ToE have the same form in all inertial frames.

In other words, the entropic field does not privilege any observer: its dynamics are geometric, not frame‑dependent. Thus, the relativity principle is not an assumption but a consequence of the entropic field’s covariance.

How ToE Strengthens Einstein’s Postulates

• Einstein: \(c\) is constant for all observers (postulate).
  ToE: \(c\) is the maximum entropic propagation rate, enforced by the No‑Rush Theorem. Since the entropic cone is the same for all observers, the constancy of \(c\) follows automatically.
• Einstein: Laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames (postulate).
  ToE: The MEE is covariant under diffeomorphisms, so its form is invariant across frames. This guarantees the universality of physical laws.

Local Variations of the Entropic Field

The entropic field \(S(x)\) is not a rigid or uniform background. As a scalar field defined over spacetime, it can vary locally, and indeed such variations are essential to the explanatory power of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Local changes in \(S(x)\) encode the way entropy flows and resists motion in different regions of the universe.

Physical meaning of local variations.

• Time dilation: Regions of higher entropic density slow down internal processes, so clocks tick more slowly relative to regions of lower entropic resistance.
• Length contraction: Spatial intervals compress along directions where the entropic gradient is steep.
• Gravitational analogy: In Einstein’s relativity, mass-energy curves spacetime. In ToE, mass-energy (which is itself emergent from the entropic field) alters the local entropic field, and the geometry we perceive is the imprint of these entropic variations.

Mathematical reflection.

From the Master Entropic Equation (MEE),

\[ \nabla_\mu \!\left( K(S)\,\nabla^\mu S \right) - V'(S) = 0 \]

local variations in \(S(x)\) imply that \(K(S)\) and its derivatives also vary with position. This makes the coefficients of the wave operator position-dependent. As a result, entropic disturbances can be slowed, refracted, or redirected by local gradients in \(S(x)\), but the null cone structure remains intact. The maximum propagation speed is still \(c\).

Universality preserved.

Even though \(S(x)\) can vary locally, the null cone condition

\[ g^{\mu\nu}k_\mu k_\nu = 0 \]

is preserved everywhere. Thus, all observers agree on the causal structure and the value of \(c\). Local variations affect the unfolding of processes (e.g., gravitational redshift, entanglement delays), but never the universal speed limit.

Philosophical Implication

Relativity says:  

“Observers disagree on time and mass, but all agree on the math.”

ToE says:  

“Observers are irrelevant. The entropic field enforces real reallocations — mass increase and time dilation are not illusions, they’re field-driven consequences.”

Conclusion.

Local variations of the entropic field are not only possible but necessary. They are the mechanism by which ToE explains relativistic effects and gravitational phenomena. At the same time, the universality of \(c\) is safeguarded, since the entropic null cone is invariant and shared by all observers.

Summary Highlight

ToE reflects Einstein’s statements by showing that:

1. The constancy of \(c\) is a thermodynamic consequence of the entropic field’s null cone, not a postulate.
2. The universality of physical laws arises from the covariance of the entropic action, ensuring all observers share the same entropic dynamics.

The closing of one age, the dawn of another

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) arises at the frontier where Einstein’s relativity reaches its conceptual limits. Relativity made geometry the language of motion; ToE reveals that geometry itself is emergent from entropy. The entropic field does not merely reproduce relativistic effects — it explains their origin.

From kinematics to causation

Einstein taught that the constancy of light speed and the equivalence of inertial frames yield Lorentz transformations. ToE generalizes this dictum:

Entropy tells motion how to resist, and resistance tells time and length how to transform.

Mass increase, time dilation, and length contraction are thus entropic necessities, not geometric assumptions.

From postulate to principle

Where relativity postulates invariance, ToE derives it. The Lorentz factor emerges from the entropic cone and conservation laws. The apparent mysteries of relativistic kinematics — slower clocks, contracted rods, heavier masses — are unified as consequences of a finite entropic budget.

The entropic unification

The ERP, the ERF, the No-Rush Theorem, and the entropic cone provide the scaffolding for ToE’s relativistic framework. Their synthesis through the Obidi Action yields a mathematically coherent field theory in which relativistic kinematics, thermodynamics, and information geometry are no longer separate domains but complementary limits of one entropic field.

The Entropic Horizon of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

Just as Einstein’s horizon defined the limits of spacetime, the entropic horizon defines the limits of motion and transformation. Beyond it, no body can accelerate without exhausting its entropic budget. This horizon demarcates what can move, how time can flow, and how length can contract. It is the new boundary condition for relativity in the twenty‑first century.

Einstein’s relativity is indeed 

• Geometric in the sense that it encodes physics into the geometry of spacetime. 
• But it is also frame‑dependent in the sense that each inertial observer has their own coordinate system, and quantities like time intervals and lengths transform between frames. 
• The invariance comes from the fact that the laws (and the speed of light) are the same in all frames. 
• But the measurements of time and space are relative to the observer.

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE), as is being developed by John Onimisi Obidi, goes one step deeper. It says: 

• The entropic field defines a universal causal structure (the entropic null cone), and this structure is not tied to any particular observer’s frame. 
• It is frame‑independent in the sense that the entropic field itself is a universal background regulator. 
• The geometry it casts is the same for all observers, because it is not derived from their coordinate choices but from the entropic dynamics themselves.

ToE and Einstein's Relativity: A Conceptual Contrast

Final reflection

From Newton’s absolute space to Einstein’s curved spacetime, and now to Obidi’s entropic manifold, the history of physics is the story of deepening recognition that the universe is not a geometry but a process. Entropy is the thread that connects all levels of that process — from the inertia of particles to the dilation of clocks and the contraction of rods. In its ultimate simplicity, the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) may be expressed in one sentence:

All relativistic effects are entropy striving to conserve itself.

Appendix-A

Constitutive Flux–Law Derivation (with Capacity and Speed Bound)

Entropy flux 4–vector and production

We define the entropy flux 4–vector by

\[ J^\mu = -\,\chi(S)\,\nabla^\mu S \]

where \(\chi(S)\) is the (generally state–dependent) entropic conductivity and \(\nabla^\mu\) is the metric–compatible derivative. Entropy balance is expressed by the production equation

\[ \nabla_\mu J^\mu = \sigma \]

with \(\sigma \ge 0\) the entropy production density. Substituting the flux law into the production equation gives

\[ \nabla_\mu\!\left(\chi(S)\,\nabla^\mu S\right) = \sigma. \]

Entropic capacity and hyperbolic transport

To obtain a propagating (hyperbolic) transport law, we introduce the entropic capacity \(C(S)\) via

\[ C(S)\,\nabla_t S + \nabla_\mu J^\mu = \sigma, \]

which encodes finite storage/inertia of entropic excitations (the hyperbolic analog of Cattaneo's law). Using the flux law and rearranging,

\[ C(S)\,\nabla_t S - \nabla_\mu\!\left(\chi(S)\,\nabla^\mu S\right) = \sigma. \]

In a local inertial frame, taking small perturbations about a homogeneous background \(S_0\) with

\[ S(x)=S_0+\delta S(x),\quad \chi(S)\approx \chi_0,\quad C(S)\approx C_0,\quad \sigma\approx 0, \]

the equation linearizes to

\[ C_0\,\partial_t \delta S - \chi_0\,\Box\,\delta S = 0, \qquad \Box \equiv g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu. \]

Differentiating once more in time (or adopting a standard relaxation closure) yields the strictly hyperbolic wave equation

\[ C_0\,\partial_t^2 \delta S - \chi_0\,\nabla^2 \delta S = 0, \]

whose plane–wave solutions \(\delta S \sim e^{i(\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}-\omega t)}\) obey

\[ \omega^2 = v_{\max}^2\,\|\vec{k}\|^2, \qquad v_{\max} \equiv \sqrt{\frac{\chi_0}{C_0}}. \]

Hence the characteristic (phase/group) speed of entropic excitations is \(v_{\max}\).

No–Rush bound and Maxwell tie–in

To enforce the No–Rush Theorem (no physical signal outruns the entropic field), we require

\[ v_{\max} \leq c, \qquad c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0\,\varepsilon_0}}. \]

Equations above together imply the parameter constraint

\[ \sqrt{\frac{\chi_0}{C_0}} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu_0\,\varepsilon_0}} \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \chi_0 \leq \frac{C_0}{\mu_0\,\varepsilon_0}. \]

Choosing the saturated case,

\[ \frac{\chi_0}{C_0} = \frac{1}{\mu_0\,\varepsilon_0}, \]

fixes the ratio of ToE’s entropic constants to measured electromagnetic constants and yields

\[ v_{\max} = c, \]

so that radiation appears as a special entropic excitation propagating at the universal speed \(c\) of the entropic field of ToE.

Constitutive Parameters: C and χ

In the constitutive flux–law derivation, two key parameters appear: the entropic capacity \(C\) and the entropic conductivity \(\chi\). Their physical roles are as follows.

Entropic capacity C.

• Definition: \(C(S)\) (with background value \(C_0\)) is the capacity of the medium to “store” entropy per unit volume per unit change in the entropic field \(S\).
• Analogy: It plays the same role as mass density in mechanics or heat capacity in thermodynamics. It represents the inertia of the entropic field — how resistant the system is to rapid changes in entropy.
• Units: If entropy density is measured in J/(K·m³), then \(C\) has units of J/(K·m³) per unit change in \(S\).

Entropic conductivity χ.

• Definition: \(\chi(S)\) (with background value \(\chi_0\)) is the conductivity of the entropic field — how easily entropy flux responds to gradients in \(S\).
• Analogy: It is the entropic analogue of thermal conductivity in heat transport or electrical conductivity in Ohm’s law. It measures how strongly entropy “flows” when there is a gradient.
• Units: Dimensionally similar to a diffusivity coefficient, but when paired with \(C\) it produces a velocity scale.

Characteristic speed.

The ratio of these two constants sets the maximum propagation speed of entropic disturbances:

\[ v_{\max} = \sqrt{\frac{\chi_0}{C_0}}. \]

• Large \(\chi_0\) (easy flow) and small \(C_0\) (low inertia) yield a high \(v_{\max}\).
• Small \(\chi_0\) or large \(C_0\) yield a low \(v_{\max}\).
• The No–Rush Theorem requires \(v_{\max} \leq c\). Saturating this bound, \[ \frac{\chi_0}{C_0} = \frac{1}{\mu_0 \varepsilon_0}, \] ties ToE’s constants directly to Maxwell’s constants and yields \(v_{\max} = c\).

Summary.

• \(C\) is the entropic capacity (storage/inertia of entropy).
• \(\chi\) is the entropic conductivity (ease of entropy flow).
• Their ratio fixes the universal speed scale, identified with \(c\).

Consistency and covariance

Because the wave equation is derived from the covariant balance and flux law, the principal part remains \(g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu\partial_\nu\) at each point, guaranteeing null–cone characteristics. The identification \(v_{\max}^2=\chi_0/C_0\) controls only the scale of the characteristic speed; imposing the No–Rush bound (or its saturation) aligns that scale with the relativistic value \(c\) while preserving covariance and hyperbolicity.

Conclusion. The inclusion of the capacity \(C_0\), the conductivity \(\chi_0\), and the production \(\sigma\) closes the constitutive structure: (i) entropy flux follows gradients, (ii) finite capacity yields hyperbolic, signal–carrying transport, (iii) the characteristic speed is \(v_{\max}=\sqrt{\chi_0/C_0}\), and (iv) the No–Rush bound ties ToE’s constants to Maxwell’s \(c\). This completes the derivation and makes the EM correspondence explicit.

Appendix-B

The Attosecond Constraint Cross–Check of ToE

Motivation

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) asserts that all physical processes are bounded by the entropic causal cone, with maximum propagation speed \(c\). While this has been shown at the level of the constitutive flux law and the No–Rush Theorem, it is essential to cross–check the prediction against the fastest experimentally accessible timescales. Attosecond (\(10^{-18}\) s) laser pulses and entanglement delay measurements provide a natural testbed, since they probe electron and correlation dynamics on sub–femtosecond scales where any deviation from relativistic causality would be exposed.

Entropic timescale bound

From the constitutive relation,

\[ v_{\max} = \sqrt{\frac{\chi_0}{C_0}} \;\leq\; c, \]

the minimal entropic response time \(\tau_{\min}\) for a spatial scale \(\ell\) is

\[ \tau_{\min} \;\geq\; \frac{\ell}{c}. \]

For atomic dimensions \(\ell \sim 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}\), this yields

\[ \tau_{\min} \;\gtrsim\; \frac{10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}}{3\times 10^8\,\mathrm{m/s}} \;\sim\; 3\times 10^{-19}\,\mathrm{s}, \]

i.e. a few tenths of an attosecond. Thus, ToE predicts that no entropic or electronic signal can be resolved below this bound without violating the causal cone.

Experimental cross–check: entanglement time

Recent ultrafast experiments have measured the characteristic time for entanglement correlations to establish between electrons as

\[ \tau_{\mathrm{ent}} \;\approx\; 232 \,\text{attoseconds}. \]

This value is three orders of magnitude larger than the theoretical lower bound \(\tau_{\min}\sim 0.3\) attoseconds derived above. Crucially, it lies well within the causal cone enforced by ToE: the entanglement signal does not propagate instantaneously, but instead requires a finite, sub–femtosecond time consistent with the entropic speed limit.

Implications

• Empirical anchor: The measured entanglement time of 232 as provides a direct benchmark for ToE’s causal bound.
• Consistency with \(c\): The fact that \(\tau_{\mathrm{ent}} \gg \tau_{\min}\) confirms that entropic excitations respect the universal limit \(c\).
• Falsifiability: Any future observation of entanglement correlations propagating faster than \(c\) (i.e. with \(\tau < \tau_{\min}\)) would falsify ToE, making this a sharp and testable prediction.

Conclusion. The attosecond entanglement measurement confirms that ToE’s entropic cone is not merely a theoretical construct but an experimentally robust causal boundary. By matching the fastest laboratory probes of electron correlation, ToE demonstrates consistency with both relativity and quantum dynamics, while offering a falsifiable prediction: no entropic or quantum correlation can propagate faster than \(c\), even on attosecond timescales.

Notes - A Postscript:

Convergence of Experiment and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

The Attosecond Constraint Cross‑Check of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

One of the boldest claims of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) is that no process in nature can outrun the causal structure defined by the entropic field. In simple terms: the universe has a built‑in speed limit, and it’s the same one Einstein identified — the speed of light. But ToE goes further, showing that this limit isn’t just a postulate; it emerges naturally from the way entropy flows.

How do we test such a claim? By pushing physics to its fastest observable timescales. That’s where attosecond science comes in. An attosecond is a billionth of a billionth of a second — so short that in this time, light itself barely travels the width of a few atoms. With today’s ultrafast lasers, researchers can probe electron motion and quantum correlations on these breathtakingly small timescales. If ToE’s causal cone were ever to fail, this is where we’d see it.

The theoretical bound

From ToE’s constitutive laws, there’s a minimum time it takes for entropy (the entropic field)— and therefore information [and uncertainty]— to propagate across a given distance. For atomic dimensions, that lower bound works out to a fraction of an attosecond, roughly three‑tenths of one. In other words, no signal should ever be able to establish itself faster than that without breaking the entropic speed limit.

The experimental reality

In late 2024, ultrafast experiments measured the time it takes for entanglement correlations to form between electrons. The experiment measuring the ~232‑attosecond entanglement time was reported in October 2024 by researchers at TU Wien (Vienna University of Technology) in collaboration with Chinese teams. The result was striking: about 232 attoseconds. That’s nearly a thousand times longer than ToE’s theoretical minimum. Far from violating the bound, nature seems to respect it with room to spare. Entanglement, often thought of as “instantaneous,” actually takes a finite, measurable time to unfold — and that time sits comfortably inside the entropic cone.

Why this matters for the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

This quantum entanglement formation time cross‑check is powerful for two reasons. First, it shows that ToE’s predictions are consistent with the fastest laboratory measurements we can make. Second, it makes the theory falsifiable. If future experiments ever revealed entanglement or any other process happening faster than the entropic bound, ToE would be in trouble. But so far, every attosecond probe has reinforced the same message: the universe plays by the entropic rules.

The bigger picture of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

By surviving the attosecond test, ToE demonstrates that its causal cone is not just a mathematical abstraction. It’s a real, physical boundary that governs everything from the motion of electrons to the unfolding of quantum correlations. The 232‑attosecond entanglement delay is more than a number — it’s a reminder that even the strangest quantum effects are still tethered to the same universal speed limit.

References

1. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and Unification of Physics. Link
2. Physics: HandWiki Master Index of Source Papers on Theory of Entropicity (ToE) (2025, September 9). HandWiki. Link
3. Obidi, John Onimisi. Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Encyclopedia. Link
4. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Derives and Explains Mass Increase, Time Dilation and Length Contraction in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (ToR): ToE Applies Logical Entropic Concepts and Principles to Verify Einstein’s Relativity. 
5. Wissner‑Gross, A. D., & Freer, C. E. (2013). Causal Entropic Forces. Physical Review Letters. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.168702
6. Amari, S. (2016). Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55978-8
7. Jaynes, E. T. (1957). Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics. Physical Review, 106(4), 620. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.106.620
8. Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976667
9. Vidal, G. (2008). Class of Quantum Many‑Body States That Can Be Efficiently Simulated. Physical Review Letters, 101, 110501. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.110501
10. Amari, S., & Nagaoka, H. (2000). Methods of Information Geometry. AMS/Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1090/mmono/191
11. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). The Vuli‑Ndlela Integral in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Link
12. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). The Obidi Action and the Foundation of the Entropy Field Equation. Link
13. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). The Master Entropic Equation (MEE). Link
14. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). Psych Entropy and the Entropy of the Mind. Link
15. Bianconi, G. (2009). Entropy of network ensembles. Physical Review E, 79, 036114. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.036114
16. Bianconi, G., & Barabási, A.-L. (2001). Competition and multiscaling in evolving networks. Europhysics Letters, 54(4), 436. https://doi.org/10.1209/epl/i2001-00260-6
17. Bianconi, G. (2025). Gravity from entropy. Physical Review D, 111(6), 066001. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.066001
18. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). The Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Entropy‑Driven Derivation of Mercury’s Perihelion Precession Beyond Einstein’s Curved Spacetime General Relativity (GR). Cambridge University. Link
19. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). Einstein and Bohr Finally Reconciled on Quantum Theory: The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) as the Unifying Resolution to the Problem of Quantum Measurement and Wave Function Collapse. Cambridge University. Link
20. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). On the Discovery of New Laws of Conservation and Uncertainty, Probability and CPT‑Theorem Symmetry‑Breaking in the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Cambridge University. Link
21. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). A Critical Review of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Conceptual Innovations and Pathways toward Enhanced Mathematical Rigor. Cambridge University. Link
22. A Brief Critical Review of John Onimisi Obidi’s Recent Paper: On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). (2025). Link
23. The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) On the Geometry of Existence and the Curvature of Space‑Time. (2025). Link
24. On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. (2025). Link
25. The Discovery of the Entropic α‑Connection: How the Theory of Entropicity (ToE) Transformed Information Geometry into a Physical Law. (2025). Link
26. An Introduction to the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): On the Evolution of its Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations (Part I). (2025). Link
27. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Historical and Philosophical Foundations. Encyclopedia. Link
28. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). A Simple Explanation of the Unifying Mathematical Architecture of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Link
29. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): An Alternative Path toward Quantum Gravity and the Unification of Physics. Authorea. Link
30. Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). On the Conceptual and Mathematical Beauty of Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE): From Geometric Relativity to Geometric Entropicity. Link
31. Collected Works on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Medium Publications. (2025). Link
32. Collected Works on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Substack Publications. (2025). Link
33.  Obidi, John Onimisi (2025). Master Equation of the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/58596
34. The Cumulative Delay Principle (CDP) and Relativistic Kinematics in the Theory of Entropicity (ToE). the-cumulative-delay-principle-cdp-and-relativistic-kinematics-in-the-theory-of-entropicity-toe-a9b34cdf7095
35. HandWiki contributors, "Biography:John Onimisi Obidi," HandWiki, https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Biography:John_Onimisi_Obidi&oldid=2743427 (accessed October 31, 2025).
36. Obidi, John Onimisi. ‘’Einstein and Bohr Finally Reconciled on Quantum Theory: The Theory of Entropicity (ToE) as the Unifying Resolution to the Problem of Quantum Measurement and Wave Function Collapse’’. Cambridge University. (14 April 2025). https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-vrfrx
37. Wikidata contributors, Biography: John Onimisi Obidi "Q136673971," Wikidata, https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q136673971&oldid=2423782576 (accessed October 31, 2025).
38. Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein's Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved. https://medium.com/@jonimisiobidi/reconciling-relativity-quantum-mechanics-and-the-theory-of-entropicity-toe-dfde1c9923f9
39. Google Scholar: ‪John Onimisi Obidi‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬
40. Cambridge University Open Engage (CoE): Collected Papers on the Theory of Entropicity (ToE)

41. Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein’s Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved.

42. Reconciling Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Entropicity (ToE): Einstein’s Relativistic Kinematics with Conceptual and Philosophical Tensions Resolved-2