The first paradox
Let’s begin with the EPR paradox. The 1935 thought experiment by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen deals with particles that instantaneously affect each other at a vast distance, a phenomenon Einstein famously labeled as “spooky action at a distance”. The concept of entanglement (a term coined by Schrödinger) was needed to resolve this issue. How can this be reconciled with the locality of the macroscopic world? It seems that an indivisible whole can exist in different locations simultaneously. What if isolation doesn’t exist, and everything is interconnected?

Elementary particles as combinations of relations
According to particle physics, an elementary particle is a particle that cannot be further divided into other particles: the smallest and indivisible entity. In the model above, elementary particles are depicted as they are typically represented. However, in a perspective of coherence, these elementary particles can also be seen as combinations of relations. In this view, what distinguishes these combinations from one another? What makes information and shared information non-uniform? What imparts these particles with their specific characteristics?

Differences in complexity
Let’s assume that sets of relations differ from each other because they have entangled additional information at different positions. Then, that aspect determines the behavior during the collapse of superposition based on probability. Because the more complex, the fewer options there are for redistribution. And remember that these partners also share information with their neighbors. Hence, to know something about a particle, you also need to know the neighbors. Because before and after the collapse of superpositions (redistribution of information), there should be no differences in the total amount of information in the universe, as implied by the no-hiding theorem. What the respective particle redistributes with its neighbors, those neighbors must redistribute as well. Net-wise, everything must remain the same. The degree of probability with which its neighbors can change also affects the particle itself.

Mass, charge, and spin are effects of the probability of change
Mass, charge, and spin might not be intrinsic properties of particles at all, but rather emergent properties of a larger whole. For instance, the mass of a particle may be nothing more than the ease or difficulty with which it changes. In scenarios with large amounts of shifting information, entropy (the degree of probability) determines what happens during collapse. Thus, entropy governs the properties of spin, charge, and mass of elementary particles.

Consider a set of relations that is bound to its surrounding neighbors by just one additional entanglement. It then only has an orientation, but lacks charge, mass, and has a neutral spin. This is applicable to the photon. Because the photon readily exchanges information with its environment, it can move linearly at the maximum possible speed. It travels at the speed of light in a ‘vacuum’. This speed is the Planck length (1.616255 x10⁻³⁵ m) divided by the Planck time (5.391247×10⁻⁴⁴ s), which gives us 299,792,458 m/s. Of course, all these concepts are extrapolations from the macroscopic world.

The photon is the simplest ‘elementary particle’. Other particles are more complex due to combinations of additional entanglements, making change less probable and bestowing them with properties like mass, spin, and charge.

A challenge
Cause and effect are macroscopic concepts. We are accustomed to seeking explanations, calculating the effects of particles, and predicting their behavior. However, for quantum effects, this is hardly possible. Here, we deal with probability distributions. The entire interconnected universe transitions from one state to the next based on probability in a single event. Do you remember ‘t Hooft’s holographic principle that we discussed in Part 1? This cannot be calculated. Yet, even at the quantum level (or is this already the transition to the macroscopic level?), some stability can be recognized. In the case of elementary ‘particles’ in a more or less neutral environment, the differences between the probable and improbable sharing of entangled information are significant enough to provide some stability. Thinking in terms of cause and effect then becomes tempting. However, this is unjustified. Also, let go of the idea of objective measurement, objective space, and time. Measurement, space, and time are all dependent on the observer. Everything exists within the space and time it is entangled with. During measurement/interaction, both parties change.

No metaphysical forces, just probability
All the events/changes described in this thought experiment are the effects of probability. There are no elusive metaphysical forces that bring about a direction of change. What appears as a force is simply the most probable development under certain conditions. The discussed ‘particles’ have six relations. Through the relations of their relations, they are ultimately connected to all other particles. Different combinations of relations change with greater or lesser probability. This imparts them with properties, influencing their behavior in a specific way. The four fundamental forces are each discussed separately.

Movement in terms of information changes
Information exists as probability distributions in superpositions and entanglements and is redistributed in increments to form new superpositions. How does this work? The Copenhagen interpretation talks about a collapse of the wave function of Schrödinger’s equation. This collapse determines the outcome of the probability distribution. What does this look like in macroscopic terms like space and time? When Schrödinger’s equation describes space and time, the outcome is a particular value of space or time assigned to a situation. For example, space is assigned to the relations between two points/particles. In other words, space has been created between two particles. This can be visualized as space moving from one location to another, or – as we are more inclined to say – a particle is moving in relation to another particle. We could also say that for a moving particle, space information disappears at the front and is added at the back. Everything is, of course, seen in relation to the observer.

Don’t forget that displacement in space or time occurs not only linearly but also angularly. This angular exchange can be thought of as a change in orientation, in both space and time.

Getting started
The following chapter marks the beginning of describing elementary particles as sets of relations. In a relation interpretation, it will never be possible to describe elementary particles as exact entities. Each particle is ultimately connected to all other elements in the universe (isolation does not exist), but not in exactly the same way. A particle is a pattern, not an exact thing. However, within a particle, there is a significant difference in the probability of change for the various relations, which leads to a certain degree of stability. On the one hand, particles have entanglements that can exchange information almost freely. In these cases, it is unlikely that they do not redistribute information immediately. These are dull, invisible relations with the universe. On the other hand, they have relations that are so strongly bound that it is less likely that they will redistribute information easily. Redistribution of such a stronger entanglement is called a collapse and represents a genuine leap. A collapse is like a ‘point of no return’. These differences in the type of entanglement make particles somewhat stable, and recognizable as an elementary particle. There are also less stable or even unstable elementary particles that quickly decay into something else. These are the bosons and the 2nd and 3rd generation fermions. With the latter, you can question whether they are elementary particles or rather combinations of a 1st generation fermion with an appendage. This could explain why they are much heavier (i.e., more complex) and unstable.

New generations often resemble their parents
In terms of relation physics, particles can be viewed as constructions of relations. These particles do not remain intact during changes but continuously form new generations of information sets through the shifting of information. The new generations often resemble their parents, because the most likely options often involve only minor changes.

With each change, a set is disassembled and reconstructed anew

Interlude: matter and antimatter
Let’s briefly explore on the concept of time for a moment, a macroscopic notion. We distinguish two directions of time: towards the past and towards the future. Feynman diagrams nicely illustrate the effects of the direction of time. Matter moves into the future, while antimatter moves into the past. When a particle encounters its antiparticle, both annihilate into photons. For the latter the direction of time has no meaning. The newly formed photons represent energy that arises from the masses of the particle and antiparticle.

An electron and a positron ‘annihilate’ to form a photon (creation of one or more photons)

There is a theory that suggests that shortly after the Big Bang, there was more matter than antimatter. This is believed to be the reason why, now, besides photons – or more precisely, bosons, which do not experience time – there is almost exclusively matter. The occasional presence of antimatter fits within a perspective of coherence, as in countless events, the unlikely occurs occasionally, giving rise to the brief existence of an antiparticle. On a macroscopic level, this is neutralized. Our familiar matter is information that, in the grand scheme of things, evolves in one direction, which we refer to as the future. In our macroscopic world, we, therefore, live from the past to the future.

To align as much as possible with the Standard Model of Particle Physics, the following chapter initially focuses on what we commonly refer to as matter. Antimatter will be discussed later on.

More on time
When people talk about time in the sense of chronological order (there is a before and an after), or time related to causality (this follows from that), it refers to an emergent concept applicable at the macro level. Time is always subjective and only holds meaning for the observer. Everything exists within the time it is entangled with.

Entropy and coherence are the causes of the direction of time. Developments can momentarily and locally move backward at the quantum level because the improbable can still happen. Entropy is the factor that eliminates the possibility of reversing the direction of developments on a macro level because improbabilities get neutralized. Entropy ensures that, globally (across the entire universe), only the most probable events occur.