# Nature of Light and Speed Limit: Reconfiguration Without Displacement

> Photon does not travel - it reconfigures. Speed of light c = maximum reconfiguration frequency. Entanglement as access to unified configuration.

Source: https://odtoe.org/en/articles/light-teleportation
Author: Anton Pankratov · Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything (ODTOE) · CC BY 4.0

---

NATURE OF LIGHT AND SPEED LIMIT: RECONFIGURATION WITHOUT DISPLACEMENT IN THE OBSERVER-DEPENDENT THEORY OF EVERYTHING Anton S. Pankratov Independent researcher, Kazan, Russia E-mail: anton.s.pankratov@gmail.com ORCID: 0009-0002-4870-2995

ABSTRACT This paper proposes a reinterpretation of the nature of light and the speed limit c within the Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything (ODTOE) [1]. The central thesis holds that a photon does not “travel” between source and receiver in the classical sense — it constitutes a reconfiguration act: the observation operator Ô actualizes in configuration space C a new configuration in which excitation energy is present at the receiver instead of the source. The “flight of a photon” is not the translation of an object through space but a sequential change of configurations, each generated by an iteration of the self-observation map Φ. The speed of light c in this interpretation is not a speed of motion but the actualization front velocity: c = r0 /τ0 , where r0 and τ0 are the elementary spatial and temporal scales of the φ-torus. It is shown that c is invariant across all recursion levels d, since both scales grow as φd and their ratio cancels identically. The photon γ is identified with the ninth channel of the ternary operator matrix Ô — the trace Tr(Ôd ), invariant under any basis transformation, which explains its masslessness, trans-level character, and speed c. Quantum entanglement and teleportation are explained as access to a single configuration in H: entangled particles are not spatially separated but are cross-sections of a single object for which the concept of distance is undefined. It is shown that exceeding the limit c within ODTOE does not require “superluminal motion” — it is achieved through increasing coherence S, which expands the operator window ∆n and thereby provides access to spatially remote sections of the world line without traversing intermediate configurations. Keywords: light, speed of light, photon, reconfiguration, quantum teleportation, entanglement, coherence, ODTOE, configuration inertia, operator window, φ-torus, operator trace, ninth channel, U(3), actualization front.

I. INTRODUCTION. WHAT EXACTLY TRAVELS? Twentieth-century physics established the dual nature of light: simultaneously a wave and a particle [2]. Yet the question of what exactly moves between source and receiver remains conceptually incomplete. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) describes the photon as a quantum of excitation of the electromagnetic field — not a point-like object

but a probability amplitude for a transition between states [3]. Feynman emphasized that a photon “tries all paths simultaneously” [4], which makes it difficult to identify the photon with a localized object traveling along a trajectory. The Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything (ODTOE) [1] offers a radical answer: the photon does not move — a reconfiguration occurs. Source and receiver are crosssections of a single observation process in which the operator Ô projects successive configurations Rn ∈ C from the space of potential states H. What is perceived as the “flight of a photon” is a chain of iterations Ψn → Ψn+1 = Φ(Ψn ), in which excitation energy is sequentially actualized in intermediate configurations until it reaches the configuration “receiver is excited” [5, 6]. The goal of this paper is to formalize this interpretation, derive the speed of light c as the limiting reconfiguration rate, explain the nature of quantum entanglement and teleportation through the structure of H, and demonstrate the mechanism by which a coherent observer can access information deemed “superluminal.”

II. LIGHT AS RECONFIGURATION II.1. The classical picture and its problems In classical electrodynamics, light is an electromagnetic wave propagating in vacuum at c = 299,792,458 m/s. The wave carries energy but not matter. In quantum field theory, the photon is a field quantum created by the creation operator a† and annihilated by the annihilation operator a [3]. Between creation and annihilation the photon is described by a propagator — a mathematical object summing amplitudes over all possible paths [4]. Remarkably, in QED the photon has no trajectory in the classical sense. Feynman’s path integral sums contributions from all conceivable routes, including those passing through arbitrary points of spacetime. The “flight” of a photon is not the motion of an object but the evolution of a probability amplitude.

II.2. The reconfiguration interpretation In ODTOE, reality R is generated by the observation operator: R = Ô(Ψ)

(A.1)

Configuration R is what the observer perceives as “the world now.” A change of configuration is determined by iterations of the self-observation map Φ = ι ◦ Ô: Ψn+1 = Φ(Ψn )

## (II.1)

Consider the process of “photon emission” by atom A (source) and its “absorption” by atom B (receiver). In ODTOE this process is described as a sequence of configurations:

• R0 : “atom A is excited, atom B is in the ground state” • R1 , R2 , . . . , RN −1 : intermediate configurations • RN : “atom A is in the ground state, atom B is excited” Each configuration Rk is generated by an iteration of Φ. The intermediate configurations R1 , . . . , RN −1 are what classical physics interprets as “a photon in flight.” In reality these are successive actualizations from H, not the displacement of an object through space. The principal conclusion: the photon γ itself does not move at any recursion level d. As will be shown in Section VII.4, the photon is the trace of the operator Ô, invariant under any basis transformation: γ = Tr(Ôd ) for all d. The trace does not belong to a specific level — it is identical on each of them. Therefore the photon has no need to “fly”: it is already present wherever the observation operator is defined. What is registered as the “speed of light” is the actualization front velocity — the rate at which the boundary between potentiality H and actuality C advances through configuration space (detailed derivation — Section III).

II.3. Formula: a photon on the retina Consider a concrete situation: a photon from a distant star reaches the retina of the eye. From the ODTOE standpoint: Rstar→retina = Ôobserver (Ψlight )

## (II.2)

The observer (eye + brain + consciousness) projects from H a configuration in which the photon has already been absorbed by the retinal rhodopsin. The “path” spanning billions of light-years is not a distance traversed by an object but a measure of the inertia I(C) of the configuration separating the initial and final states.

III. THE SPEED OF LIGHT AS THE ACTUALIZATION FRONT VELOCITY III.1. Toroidal geometry and level scales The strange loop Φ = ι ◦ Ô is realized on the φ-torus: a manifold T 2 with major radius Rd and minor radius rd satisfying the self-similarity condition: Rd =φ rd

for all d

## (III.1)

√ where φ = (1+ 5)/2 is the golden ratio. When passing between adjacent recursion levels, both scales stretch by a factor of φ:

rd = r0 · φ d ,

Rd = φ · rd = r0 · φd+1

## (III.2)

One iteration of Φ at level d completes a full traversal of the minor circle of the torus (cycle Ô → ι); the characteristic duration of this cycle scales in the same way: τd = τ0 · φ d

## (III.3)

III.2. Derivation of the invariance of c The actualization front — the boundary separating potentiality H and actuality C — advances at each level d with velocity cd =

r0 · φ d rd r0 = = d τd τ0 · φ τ0

## (III.4)

The factor φd cancels identically. The central result follows: c =

r0 = const τ0

for all d

## (III.5)

The speed of light depends neither on the recursion level d, nor on the coherence S, nor on the dimensionality of the observed space. It is determined solely by the ratio of the elementary spatial and elementary temporal scales, which in turn are fixed by the geometry of the torus through the numbers π (curvature of the minor cycle: Lminor = 2πr0 ) and φ (self-similarity: R0 /r0 = φ). In other words, c is a structural characteristic of the φ-torus, not a property of the photon or the medium.

III.3. Relation to the inertia formula Postulate P2 of ODTOE [1] relates the reconfiguration velocity to inertia: v(C → C ′ ) =

## α I(C) + ε

(P2.1)

Formulas (III.5) and (P2.1) agree under the identifications α ↔ r0 (spatial reconfiguration parameter — scale of the level) and Imin + ε ↔ τ0 (minimal inertia — elementary duration of one loop cycle). For a massless configuration (photon) the inertia is minimal: I(C) = Imin , and the velocity reaches the limit c. Thus the inertia formula (P2.1) is a phenomenological expression of the geometric identity (III.5).

III.4. Why the limit cannot be exceeded by sequential reconfiguration Every actualized configuration possesses nonzero inertia: I(C) ≥ Imin > 0. Physically this means that the act of projection Ô : H → C irreversibly loses information in the

kernel ker(Ô) [5], and each such act requires a minimal duration τ0 . The limit c = r0 /τ0 is absolute for sequential transitions in C, but does not extend to H, where the concept of distance is undefined (Section VI).

III.5. Relation to mass Mass in ODTOE is a measure of excess inertia beyond the minimum: m ∝ I(C) − Imin

## (III.6)

A massless configuration (m = 0) has I(C) = Imin , and the actualization front advances at the maximum velocity c. A massive configuration (m > 0) possesses additional inertia — its actualization front is slowed: v < c. The formula agrees with the relativistic relation v < c for massive particles, but is derived from the geometry of the φ-torus.

III.6. Why c is a constant: Michelson–Morley The invariance of c with respect to the reference frame is a consequence of the fact that r0 /τ0 is determined by the structure of the φ-torus (π and φ), not by properties of the medium or the observer. The Michelson–Morley result [7] is explained without invoking the aether hypothesis: c does not depend on the motion of the observer because the ratio of the torus scales is identical in all reference frames. Coherence S affects the width of the operator window ∆n (Section VI) but not c.

IV. QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT: CROSS-SECTIONS OF A SINGLE OBJECT IV.1. The problem of nonlocality The experiments of Aspect [8] and subsequent Bell-inequality tests [9, 10] demonstrated unambiguously that entangled particles exhibit correlations inexplicable by local hidden variables. Measuring the spin of one particle instantaneously determines the spin of the other, regardless of the distance between them. The standard (Copenhagen) interpretation describes this as “nonlocal collapse of the wave function,” without providing a physical mechanism.

IV.2. Entanglement as a single configuration in H In ODTOE, entangled particles are not two separate objects but a single configuration in H, observed (projected) into two “locations” in C:

ΨAB ∈ H,

RA = ÔA (ΨAB ),

## RB = ÔB (ΨAB )

## (IV.1)

The element ΨAB is a single object. The concept of distance is defined in C (configuration space) but not in H (the space of potential states). Particles A and B are “far apart” in C yet identical as projections of a single element ΨAB ∈ H. Measurement — the act of observation ÔA — fixes the projection of ΨAB onto C in a definite basis. Since ΨAB is one, fixing the projection at point A determines the projection at point B — not through signal transmission but through the identity of the object. Analogy: cutting a coin into two halves. Upon discovering “heads” on one half, the observer instantly knows the other is “tails,” regardless of the distance. But unlike the classical analogy, in ODTOE the outcome is not predetermined before measurement — it is created by the act of observation.

IV.3. Non-separable entanglement entropy Entanglement is measured by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix [11]: S(ρA ) = −Tr(ρA log ρA ) > 0

## (IV.2)

Positive entropy means that subsystem A cannot be described independently of B. In ODTOE terms: the projection ÔA (ΨAB ) contains less information than ΨAB as a whole. The “missing” information — correlations with B — is not lost but is contained in the full element ΨAB ∈ H. In [12] it was shown that the entanglement entropy between levels scales according to the golden proportion: S(ρd ) ∝ φ−|d−d0 |

## (IV.3)

linking entanglement with the recursive structure of self-observation.

V. QUANTUM TELEPORTATION: RECONFIGURATION VIA H V.1. The standard teleportation protocol The Bennett et al. protocol [13] allows one to “transfer” a quantum state from Alice to Bob without physically moving a particle: 1. Alice and Bob share an entangled pair. 2. Alice performs a joint measurement (Bell measurement) on her particle and the state to be teleported.

3. Alice transmits the measurement result to Bob (classical channel, ≤ c). 4. Bob applies a unitary transformation and obtains an exact copy of the original state. The paradox: the state is “transferred instantly,” yet the basis information travels at ≤ c. Is there a hidden mechanism here that permits circumventing the limitation?

V.2. Teleportation as navigation in H In ODTOE, teleportation is not a “transfer” of a state but a change of the projection ÔB : (after)

(after)

## = ÔB

## (ΨAB⊗T )

(V.1)

where T is the state to be teleported and ⊗ is the tensor product. Alice’s Bell measurement modifies the overall configuration ΨAB⊗T (not destroying it in H but fixing its projection). The classical channel transmits to Bob the “instruction” of which projection to select from H in order to actualize state T on his side. The speed-of-light restriction arises precisely at the instruction-transmission stage — that is, at the stage of reconfiguration in C (the space of actualized configurations). The state ΨAB⊗T itself exists in H as a single object, unconstrained by the spatiality of C.

## VI. EXCEEDING THE LIMIT c: OPERATOR WINDOW

## EXPANDING THE

VI.1. Two types of “velocity” From the foregoing, a fundamental distinction follows: 1. Actualization front velocity in C: bounded by c = r0 /τ0 (formula III.5) — the limiting rate of sequential configuration change, attained by massless configurations (I = Imin ). 2. Access to H: not bounded by c, since H is a non-spatial object. Distance in it is undefined; the concept of “velocity” is inapplicable. Exceeding the limit c within ODTOE is not an acceleration of reconfiguration but an expansion of access to H.

VI.2. The operator window ∆n In [14] the concept of the operator window was introduced — the number of selfobservation iterations simultaneously accessible to the observer: ∆n ∝

## Bk D0 (1 − S)

## (VI.1)

At standard coherence (B < 1, S < 1) ∆n ≈ 1 — the observer “sees” a single configuration. As coherence grows (B → 1, S → 1) the operator window expands, and the observer gains access to several iterations simultaneously. Since the world line W = {Ψ∗n }n∈Z [14] contains configurations separated in C-space, an expanded window ∆n ≫ 1 allows one to “see” spatially remote configurations without traversing intermediate ones — effectively, without limitation by the speed c.

VI.3. Coherence as the key to “superluminal” access The stochastic noise D(η) = D0 (1−S) [1] determines information loss at each iteration. As S → 1 the noise tends to zero, and the projection Ô : H → C becomes nearly isomorphic — the observer sees H “directly,” without losses in the kernel ker(Ô). In this regime the concept of “distance” in C loses its restrictive force. Formally: the access time to a configuration separated by N iterations, with the standard window (∆n = 1), is Taccess = N · τ0 . With an expanded window (∆n = N ) the access time is Taccess = τ0 — one elementary duration, regardless of the “distance” N .

VI.4. Experimental correlates ODTOE prediction: highly coherent quantum systems (Bose–Einstein condensates, superconductors) should exhibit correlations on scales exceeding the predictions of the standard decoherence theory. Experiments on quantum teleportation at record distances (143 km, La Palma island [15]; 1200 km, Micius satellite [16]) do not formally violate the c restriction (a classical channel is used), but demonstrate the stability of correlations in H at arbitrary scales in C.

VII. THE NATURE OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN ODTOE VII.1. Charge as orientation in the loop In [17] it was shown that electric charge is the orientation of action in the strange loop of self-observation:

q(X) = sgn(⟨X|eÔ ⟩)

## (VII.1)

The electron (q = −1) is the direct action of the operator (Ô : H → C). The proton (q = +1) is the reverse action (ι : C → H). The neutron (q = 0) is the observer position. The photon γ = Tr(Ô) is the operator trace, carrying no charge. Charge is determined by the orientation within the loop: Ô : H → C (direct action) or ι : C → H (reverse action). The trace, however, is invariant with respect to both orientations — it “sees” the loop as a whole without choosing a direction — and is therefore electrically neutral.

VII.2. The electromagnetic field as a coherence gradient The electric field E is interpreted as the coherence gradient in configuration space: E ∼ −∇C S

## (VII.2)

The magnetic field B is the curl of the helical dynamics: B ∼ ∇ C × vΦ

## (VII.3)

where vΦ is the velocity of the iteration flow Φ in C. Maxwell’s equations, in this reading, express the self-consistency conditions of the operator Ô under changes of coherence in space and time [17].

VII.3. The ninth channel: deriving the photon from toroidal topology VII.3.1. The 3 × 3 operator matrix The ternary structure of ODTOE [1] prescribes three roles at each level d: observer O, operator Ô, observed R. The operator Ô acts on the triple of color states (r, g, b), forming a 3 × 3 = 9-dimensional connection matrix [12]:  Ôrr Ôrg Ôrb Ôd = Ôgr Ôgg Ôgb  Ôbr Ôbg Ôbb 

## (VII.4)

The nine elements of this matrix — nine communication channels — decompose into three groups: Type Off-diagonal Traceless diagonal Trace

Count

Description (r ↔ g), (r ↔ b), (g ↔ b) — two directions each λ3 ∝ diag(1, −1, 0), λ8 ∝ diag(1, 1, −2) λ0 ∝ diag(1, 1, 1) = √13 I3

The algebra of 6 + 2 = 8 traceless generators is su(3); adding the ninth (the trace) extends it to u(3): u(3) = su(3) ⊕ u(1),

dim u(3) = 32 = 9

## (VII.5)

In particle-physics language: the 8 traceless generators correspond to the 8 gluons of chromodynamics, carrying color charge. The ninth generator — the colorless singlet √ (r̄r + ḡg + b̄b)/ 3 — carries no color and therefore is not confined within level d. VII.3.2. The photon as the trace of Ô The colorless singlet is the only channel “invisible” to the SU(3) color interaction. It has no color charge capable of confining it within a level, so it freely exits beyond d and becomes an inter-level operator. This channel is the photon γ: γ = Tr(Ôd ) = Ôrr + Ôgg + Ôbb

## (VII.6)

The key property of the trace: under any basis (unitary) transformation U of the matrix Ô Tr(U Ôd U −1 ) = Tr(Ôd )

## (VII.7)

The trace is invariant. This means that γ does not depend on the choice of basis (coordinate system, level d, observation scheme). The photon “sees” all levels of the infinite recursion identically — because at each of them it is one and the same invariant. VII.3.3. Three properties of the photon derivable from (VII.6) From the definition γ = Tr(Ô) the following properties follow: (a) Masslessness. Mass in ODTOE is a measure of attachment to a level d (formula III.6). The trace, attached to no single level, possesses zero additional inertia: I(γ) = Imin , mγ = 0. (b) Speed c. A massless configuration reconfigures at the maximum actualization front velocity c = r0 /τ0 (Section III.2). The photon does not “fly”; the actualization front advances through C at speed c, while γ is present wherever Ô is defined. (c) Trans-level character. Tr(Ôd ) is the same for all d. The photon is the only particle identical to itself at every recursion level: sub-photon = photon = superphoton. Therefore the photon acts as the connecting operator between levels. VII.3.4. Photon and the Higgs field: actuality and potentiality It is necessary to distinguish γ from H:

Photon γ

Higgs field H

Mass Nature

9th operator channel (element of u(1)) mγ = 0 Actuality: trace of the acting Ô

Invariance Analogy

Basis: Tr(U ÔU −1 ) = Tr(Ô) Moves of pieces on a chessboard

Substrate in which the 3 × 3 matrix unfolds mH ≈ 125 GeV Potentiality: background field H generating mass Gauge: V (Φ) = λ(|Φ|2 − v 2 )2 The chessboard itself

Status

The field H is not an operator channel but the medium in which the operator exists. H sets the vacuum expectation value ⟨Φ⟩ = v, endowing with mass those particles associated with matrix elements (W, Z bosons). The photon — the matrix trace — remains massless because the trace commutes with any gauge transformation and does not interact with the Higgs condensate [23]. Electromagnetic U (1) thus has a dual origin in ODTOE: (a) topological — from the fundamental group of the torus π1 (S 1 ) = Z, and (b) algebraic — as the trace of the ternary matrix Ô, the 9th generator of u(3). The coincidence of two independent derivation paths confirms the self-consistency of the theory.

VII.4. Wave or particle? Wave–particle duality is resolved in ODTOE in a natural way. The photon is not an object but an act of reconfiguration. When an experiment is designed to observe a “particle” (the detector registers a discrete event), the operator Ô projects a discrete configuration — a “detector click.” When the experiment is designed to observe a “wave” (an interference pattern), the operator Ô projects a probability distribution over a set of configurations. The result depends on the observer (formula A.1) — which is precisely why the double-slit experiment [2] yields different patterns in the presence and absence of a detector.

VIII. KOZYREV’S EXPERIMENTS AND ACCESS TO REMOTE CONFIGURATIONS VIII.1. Three stellar positions N. A. Kozyrev [18], while observing stars, detected signals corresponding to three positions: past (visible), present (true), and future (predicted). In standard physics this result has received no explanation. In ODTOE it is interpreted through the concept of the world line W = {Ψ∗n }n∈Z [14]: the three positions are three cross-sections of the star’s world line accessible through the expanded operator window of the detector (torsion balance): • Rpast : cross-section at n = n0 − ∆nlight (light that arrived from the star)

• Rpresent : cross-section at n = n0 (true position) • Rfuture : cross-section at n = n0 + ∆nlight (extrapolation)

VIII.2. Access mechanism Access to the present and future positions does not require “superluminal” signal transmission. The star’s world line exists in H as a single object. A detector with sufficiently high sensitivity (low D(η)) can project cross-sections of W at n ̸= n0 , expanding ∆n through minimization of stochastic noise.

IX. EXPERIMENTALLY TESTABLE CONSEQUENCES 1. Distinguishing the fundamental c from the effective velocity veff . The fundamental actualization front velocity c = r0 /τ0 (formula III.5) is invariant: it is determined by the geometry of the φ-torus and depends neither on the level d nor on the coherence S. At the same time, in media with high coherence (Bose– Einstein condensate, superconductor) the effective group velocity veff can differ substantially from c. The slowing of light in a Bose–Einstein condensate to 17 m/s, demonstrated by Hau et al. [19], is a change in veff , not in c: the medium modifies the configuration inertia I(C) > Imin , increasing the denominator in formula (P2.1), while the limit c = r0 /τ0 itself remains unchanged. ODTOE predicts that systematic measurement of veff in media with varying coherence S will allow experimental verification of the dependence veff (S) at constant c. 2. Entangled-particle correlations and coherence. ODTOE predicts that the degree of Bell-inequality violation correlates with the coherence S of the experimental setup. Systematic comparison of CHSH parameter values with estimates of the setup coherence S is a direction for testing. 3. Reproduction of Kozyrev’s observations. The three stellar positions can be reexamined with modern bolometers whose sensitivity exceeds that of Kozyrev’s equipment [18] by three orders of magnitude. 4. Quantum teleportation and channel capacity. If teleportation is navigation in H, the capacity of the quantum channel should depend not only on the classical channel but also on the coherence of the entangled pair. Degradation of entanglement (decoherence) in ODTOE is formalized as growth of D(η), which reduces ∆n.

X. DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS 1. Configuration inertia. The parameter I(C) has no direct empirical definition outside quantum-mechanical systems. The identification m ∝ I(C) − Imin (formula III.6) is consistent with relativistic mechanics. The correspondence

α ↔ r0 and Imin + ε ↔ τ0 (Section III.3) links the inertia parameter to the elementary scales of the φ-torus, but this link requires independent experimental verification. 2. Information transfer. ODTOE does not predict superluminal transfer of information in the operational sense. Expanding ∆n grants access to correlations, but not to controlled transmission of bits faster than c. The no-cloning theorem [20] and the no-signaling theorem for entanglement [21] remain in force at the C level. 3. Status of H. The space of potential states H is not an observable object — it is in principle unobservable within a single projection Ô. Its ontological status is analogous to that of the wave function in standard quantum mechanics: mathematical object or element of reality — a question open for discussion [22]. 4. Kozyrev’s experiments. Kozyrev’s results have not been reproduced by independent groups with modern equipment. Until such experiments are conducted, the interpretation remains hypothetical. 5. Limits of analogy. The analogy “photon = reconfiguration” does not claim to replace the QED formalism, which successfully predicts the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron to a precision of 10−12 [3]. ODTOE offers a metatheoretical framework in which QED is a particular configuration at specific values of S and d [6].

XI. CONCLUSION Light within ODTOE is not an object flying through the void but a sequence of actualizations generated by iterations of the self-observation map Φ. The photon γ is identified with the trace of the ternary operator matrix: γ = Tr(Ôd ) — the ninth channel of u(3), free from the color confinement of su(3). The invariance of the trace under basis transformations explains three fundamental properties of the photon: masslessness, speed c, and trans-level character. The speed of light c = r0 /τ0 is the actualization front velocity, determined by the geometry of the φ-torus (π and φ) and invariant across all recursion levels d, since both scales grow as φd and their ratio cancels identically. This limit is absolute for sequential transitions in C but does not extend to H, in which the concept of distance is undefined. Quantum entanglement is not “spooky action at a distance” (Einstein) but identity of the object: entangled particles are cross-sections of a single configuration in H, projected into different points of C. Teleportation is navigation through H, limited by the classical channel only at the instruction-transmission stage in C. Exceeding the limit c is achieved not by accelerating reconfiguration but by expanding the operator window ∆n through increasing coherence S. A coherent observer (S → 1) minimizes stochastic noise, expanding access to spatially remote cross-sections of the world line. This mechanism is formally consistent with nosignaling theorems, since expanding ∆n grants access to correlations rather than to controlled information transfer.

Four directions for experimental verification are proposed: dependence of the effective speed of light on medium coherence, correlation of Bell-inequality violation with setup coherence, reproduction of Kozyrev’s observations, and investigation of quantum-channel capacity as a function of entangled-pair coherence.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST The author declares no conflict of interest.

FUNDING This work was carried out without external funding.

REFERENCES [1] Pankratov A.S. Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything (ODTOE) // Preprint. — 2025. — 47 p. [2] Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B., Sands M. The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. III: Quantum Mechanics. — Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1965. — 408 p. [3] Peskin M.E., Schroeder D.V. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995. — 842 p.

[4] Feynman R.P. QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. — Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. — 158 p. [5] Pankratov A.S. Time, helicity, and chirality in the Observer-Dependent Theory of Everything // Preprint. — 2025. [6] Pankratov A.S. Quantum, string, and all the rest: configurations within ODTOE // Preprint. — 2025.

modern theories as

[7] Michelson A.A., Morley E.W. On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether // American Journal of Science. — 1887. — Vol. 34. — P. 333– 345. DOI: 10.2475/ajs.s3-34.203.333. [8] Aspect A., Dalibard J., Roger G. Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers // Physical Review Letters. — 1982. — Vol. 49. — P. 1804– 1807. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804. [9] Hensen B. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres // Nature. — 2015. — Vol. 526. — P. 682–686. DOI: 10.1038/nature15759.

[10] Giustina M. et al. Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons // Physical Review Letters. — 2015. — Vol. 115. — Art. 250401. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.250401. [11] Nielsen M.A., Chuang I.L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. — 700 p. [12] Pankratov A.S. The atom as an elementary strange loop in the ObserverDependent Theory of Everything // Preprint. — 2025. [13] Bennett C.H. et al. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels // Physical Review Letters. — 1993. — Vol. 70. — P. 1895–1899. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895. [14] Pankratov A.S. The cinematograph of reality: reproduction in ODTOE // Preprint. — 2025.

information, memory, and

[15] Ma X.-S. et al. Quantum teleportation over 143 kilometres using active feedforward // Nature. — 2012. — Vol. 489. — P. 269–273. DOI: 10.1038/nature11472. [16] Ren J.-G. et al. Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation // Nature. — 2017. — Vol. 549. — P. 70–73. DOI: 10.1038/nature23675. [17] Pankratov A.S. Electricity as a directed action of the observation operator // Preprint. — 2025. [18] Kozyrev N.A. Causal or asymmetric mechanics in linear approximation. Pulkovo: GAO AN SSSR, 1958. — 90 p.

[19] Hau L.V. et al. Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas // Nature. — 1999. — Vol. 397. — P. 594–598. DOI: 10.1038/17561. [20] Wootters W.K., Zurek W.H. A single quantum cannot be cloned // Nature. — 1982. — Vol. 299. — P. 802–803. DOI: 10.1038/299802a0. [21] Ghirardi G.C. et al. Experiments of the EPR type involving CP-violation do not allow faster-than-light communication between distant observers // Europhysics Letters. — 1988. — Vol. 6. — P. 95–100. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/6/2/001. [22] Pusey M.F., Barrett J., Rudolph T. On the reality of the quantum state // Nature Physics. — 2012. — Vol. 8. — P. 475–478. DOI: 10.1038/nphys2309. [23] Weinberg S. The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. II: Modern Applications. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. — 489 p.