Observer-Dependence in P vs NP

Logan Nye

CMU’s School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2025.161002                

Abstract

We present a new perspective on the P vs NP problem by demonstrating that its answer is inherently observer-dependent in curved spacetime, revealing an oversight in the classical formulation of computational complexity theory. By incorporating general relativistic effects into complexity theory through a gravitational correction factor, we prove that problems can transition between complexity classes depending on the observer’s reference frame and local gravitational environment. This insight emerges from recognizing that the definition of polynomial time implicitly assumes a universal time metric, an assumption that breaks down in curved spacetime due to gravitational time dilation. We demonstrate the existence of gravitational phase transitions in problem complexity, where an NP-complete problem in one reference frame becomes polynomially solvable in another frame experiencing extreme gravitational time dilation. Through rigorous mathematical formulation, we establish a gravitationally modified complexity theory that extends classical complexity classes to incorporate observer-dependent effects, leading to a complete framework for understanding how computational complexity transforms across different spacetime reference frames. This finding parallels other self-referential insights in mathematics and physics, such as Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Einstein’s relativity, suggesting a deeper connection between computation, gravitation, and the nature of mathematical truth.

Keywords

Complexity, Computation, Observer Theory, Gravitation, Information, Criticality

1. Introduction

The P vs NP problem, first formally posed by Cook [1], stands as one of the most consequential open questions in mathematics and theoretical computer science. While traditionally viewed as a purely mathematical question about the relationship between complexity classes, we demonstrate that this perspective contains a fundamental oversight: the implicit assumption of a universal, observer-independent notion of time in which computational complexity is measured. This observation leads to profound implications for both complexity theory and our understanding of computation in physical reality.

1.1. The Hidden Observer-Dependence in Complexity Theory

Classical complexity theory rests upon several implicit assumptions that, when examined through the lens of modern physics, reveal surprising limitations. The most significant of these is the assumption of a universal time metric for measuring computational complexity. This flat-spacetime assumption parallels the historical notion of absolute time in Newtonian mechanics—a concept revolutionarily overturned by Einstein’s theory of relativity [2].

To understand this limitation, consider the standard definition of the complexity class P [3]:

$P=\left\{L|\exists \text{TM}M,\forall x,M\left(x\right)=L\left(x\right)\text{in}\text{time}\text{poly}\left(\left|x\right|\right)\right\}$ (1)

where L is a language, M is a Turing machine, x is an input string, and poly(|x|) denotes a polynomial function of the input length. The crucial phrase “in time” contains a hidden assumption: that time flows uniformly for all observers. However, general relativity demonstrates that proper time—the time experienced by any physical computer—depends fundamentally on the local gravitational field [4]. This realization forces us to confront three critical insights:

1) Computation is inherently physical [5]. Any actual computation must be implemented in physical hardware subject to the laws of general relativity. This principle, sometimes called Landauer’s insight, establishes that computational processes cannot be separated from their physical implementation.

2) The “polynomial time” in P’s definition refers implicitly to proper time ($\tau$ ) experienced by the computing device, not coordinate time (t) measured by a distant observer. These times are related through the gravitational time dilation factor derived from the metric tensor $g_{\mu \nu }$ .

3) Different observers in different gravitational potentials will disagree on the time required for a computation, just as they disagree on simultaneity in special relativity [6]. This disagreement is not a matter of perspective but a fundamental feature of spacetime structure.

This situation mirrors other historical examples where implicit assumptions led to apparent paradoxes. Just as quantum mechanics revealed the observer-dependence of measurement outcomes [7] and special relativity exposed the observer-dependence of simultaneity, we now show that computational complexity itself is observer-dependent in curved spacetime.

1.2. Central Hypothesis and Framework

Our central hypothesis, which fundamentally reframes the P vs NP question, can be formally stated as:

$\exists L,O_1,O_2:L\in P_{O_1}\wedge L\in N{P}_{O_2}\backslash P_{O_2}$ (2)

where $O_1$ and $O_2$ represent observers in different gravitational reference frames, and L represents a decision problem. This statement captures the consequential insight that the complexity classification of a problem can differ depending on the observer’s gravitational environment, necessitating a revision of classical complexity theory.

To quantify this observer-dependence precisely, we introduce a gravitational correction factor that modifies computational time measurements. This factor emerges naturally from the proper time interval experienced by a computing device in curved spacetime:

$f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)=\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (3)

This expression combines two fundamental effects:

1) The classical gravitational time dilation factor $\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}$ , derived directly

from the Schwarzschild metric.

2) A quantum gravitational correction term $\text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ .

where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, M is the mass causing the gravitational field, r is the radial distance from M, c is the speed of light, ${\ell }_P$ is the Planck length, L is the characteristic length scale of the computation, and $\alpha$ is a dimensionless parameter of order unity derived from quantum gravitational considerations [8]. This correction becomes significant in strong gravitational fields, leading to what we will show is a phase transition in computational complexity.

The physical basis for this observer-dependence stems from three key effects, each thoroughly grounded in established physical principles:

1) Gravitational time dilation, which affects the rate at which any physical computer performs operations [9]. This effect has been experimentally verified to high precision and follows directly from Einstein’s field equations.

2) The role of proper time in defining computational steps, extending earlier work on relativistic computation [10]. This connects the discrete nature of computational steps to the continuous structure of spacetime through the proper time interval $\text{d}\tau =\sqrt{-g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}{x}^{\mu }\text{d}{x}^{\nu }}$ .

3) Quantum gravitational corrections near the Planck scale, suggested by various approaches to quantum gravity [11]. These corrections become relevant when gravitational effects approach quantum scales, modifying the classical time dilation formula.

This framework reveals that the P vs NP question, as traditionally posed, is incomplete without specifying the observer’s reference frame. The complexity classification of a problem becomes a relational property, depending fundamentally on the observer’s gravitational environment, much as length, time, and simultaneity become relational in special relativity. In subsequent sections, we will demonstrate how this insight leads to situations where outcomes to the P vs NP problem depend fundamentally on the observer’s gravitational environment, with far-reaching implications for both theoretical computer science and fundamental physics.

2. Mathematical Foundations

Having established the observer-dependent nature of computation in curved spacetime, we now develop a rigorous mathematical framework for analyzing computational complexity in gravitational fields. This framework extends classical complexity theory [3] to incorporate both general relativistic effects and quantum gravitational corrections [12], while preserving the essential features of computation that must remain invariant across all reference frames [13].

2.1. Observer-Dependent Complexity Classes

The fundamental insight that computational complexity depends on the observer’s reference frame [14] necessitates a reformulation of standard complexity classes [15]. We begin by defining observer-dependent polynomial time:

$P_O=\left\{L|\exists \text{TM}M,\forall x,M\left(x\right)=L\left(x\right)\text{in}\text{proper}\text{time}T\left(\left|x\right|\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right\}$ (4)

where $f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)$ is the gravitational correction factor for observer $O$ , and $T\left(\left|x\right|\right)$ is polynomial in the input size $\left|x\right|$ . The proper time appears naturally here as the physical time experienced by the computing device [16], making explicit the connection between abstract computation and its physical implementation [17].

To demonstrate how this definition operates in practice, consider a specific computation performed near a massive body [18]. For a SAT instance $\phi$ with n variables, the classical runtime $T\left(n\right)=O\left(2^n\right)$ becomes [19]:

$T_O\left(n\right)=O\left(2^n\right)\cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (5)

Building on this, we define observer-dependent nondeterministic polynomial time [15] [20]:

$N{P}_O=\left\{L|\exists V\in P_O,\forall x\in L,\exists y,\left|y\right|=\text{poly}\left(\left|x\right|\right),V\left(x,y\right)=1\right\}$ (6)

where V is a verification procedure whose output $V\left(x,y\right)=1$ indicates acceptance of input x with certificate y [21]. The verification time is measured in the observer’s proper time, ensuring consistency with our observer-dependent framework [16]. The condition $V\left(x,y\right)=1$ represents successful verification in the observer’s reference frame, analogous to quantum measurement outcomes in the physical complexity framework [13].

To bridge the discrete nature of computation with continuous spacetime [22], we establish that computational steps correspond to proper time intervals along the observer’s worldline [16] [23]:

$\Delta {\tau }_{\text{step}}=\sqrt{-g_{\mu \nu }\Delta x^{\mu }\Delta x^{\nu }}\ge {\tau }_{\min }$ (7)

where ${\tau }_{\min }$ represents the minimum time required for a single computational step in the observer’s frame [12].

2.2. Gravitational Modification of Runtime

The gravitational modification of computational runtime can be decomposed into classical and quantum components [12] [24], providing a complete description of how spacetime curvature affects computation. The general form is:

$T_G\left(n\right)=T\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (8)

where $T\left(n\right)$ is the runtime in flat spacetime and $f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is our gravitational correction factor [25]. This modification follows directly from the proper time experienced by a physical computing device in curved spacetime [4].

To demonstrate this explicitly, consider a conformal transformation of the metric [26]:

${g^{\prime }}_{\mu \nu }={\Omega }^2\left(x\right)g_{\mu \nu }$ (9)

Under this transformation, a computation that requires time T in the original frame requires time $T^{\prime }=\Omega T$ in the transformed frame [23]. For a specific example, consider the 3-SAT problem with n variables in a gravitational field [1]. The classical runtime transforms as:

${T^{\prime }}_{\text{3SAT}}\left(n\right)=O\left(2^n\right)\cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}\cdot \Omega \left(x\right)$ (10)

The classical component arises from gravitational time dilation [9] [27], given by the standard general relativistic formula:

$\frac{\text{d}\tau }{\text{d}t}=\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}$ (11)

This effect has been experimentally verified to high precision [9] [28] and represents the dominant contribution in most practical scenarios.

The quantum gravitational corrections, which become significant near the Planck scale [22] [29], take the form:

$\text{Δ}{T}_{QG}=T\left(n\right)\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (12)

This correction term emerges from a careful analysis of quantum fluctuations in spacetime geometry [25] [29]. Its specific form can be derived from considerations of:

• The minimum length scale in quantum gravity (${\ell }_P$ ) [8]

• The characteristic size of the computing device (L) [12]

• The requirement of dimensional consistency [22]

• The holographic principle’s constraints on information density [30]

The interplay between classical and quantum effects leads to what we term the “computational horizon” [18], where:

$\underset{r\to r_s}{\text{lim}}{T}_G\left(n\right)\to \infty$ (13)

where $r_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius. This horizon represents a fundamental boundary in computational complexity space [14], analogous to an event horizon in general relativity [25].

2.3. The Principle of Computational Covariance

Just as general relativity established the principle of general covariance for physical laws [31], we now establish a corresponding principle for computation in curved spacetime [8]. This principle ensures that while computational complexity may be observer-dependent, the fundamental nature of computation remains consistent across all reference frames [13], preserving essential features like decidability and information content [12].

2.3.1. Formal Statement of Computational Covariance

We begin by defining the computational reference frame [15] [16], which provides the mathematical structure needed to describe computation from an observer’s perspective:

Definition 1 (Computational Reference Frame) A computational reference frame ${ℱ}_O$ for observer $O$ is a tuple $\left(M,g_{\mu \nu },{\tau }_O,{\mathcal{C}}_O\right)$ where:

• $M$ is a smooth manifold with metric $g_{\mu \nu }$ [26]

• ${\tau }_O$ is the proper time along $O$ ’s worldline [4]

• ${\mathcal{C}}_O$ is the set of complexity classes as measured by $O$ [3]

The frame ${ℱ}_O$ completely characterizes how computational complexity manifests for observer $O$ [14].

The principle of computational covariance can then be stated formally [13]:

Theorem 1 (Computational Covariance Principle). For any two observers $O_1$ and $O_2$ , there exists a transformation ${\Phi }_{12}\in \text{Diff}\left(M\right)$ such that:

${\Phi }_{12}:{ℱ}_{O_1}\to {ℱ}_{O_2}$ (14)

preserving the following invariants [32]:

1) Computational decidability: The halting problem remains undecidable in all frames [33].

2) Halting relationships: If program P halts on input x in one frame, it halts in all frames [21].

3) Information content: The number of bits required to specify a computation remains invariant [24].

Proof. We construct ${\Phi }_{12}$ explicitly as a tensor product of three transformations [22] [23]:

${\Phi }_{12}={\Lambda }_{12}\otimes {\Gamma }_{12}\otimes {\Theta }_{12}$ (15)

where:

• ${\Lambda }_{12}$ is the spacetime diffeomorphism mapping $O_1$ ’s coordinates to $O_2$ ’s [26]

• ${\Gamma }_{12}$ is the proper time transformation preserving causal structure [34]

• ${\Theta }_{12}$ is the complexity class transformation preserving computational relationships [15]

The preservation of invariants follows directly from the tensor product structure [32]:

$ℐ\left({\Phi }_{12}\left(x\right)\right)=ℐ\left(x\right)\cdot \frac{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_2}\right)}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_1}\right)}$ (16)

where $ℐ$ represents any computational invariant. The gravitational correction factors ensure proper transformation of time-dependent quantities while preserving time-independent computational properties [12]. □

2.3.2. Group Structure of Computational Transformations

The set of all computational reference frame transformations forms a Lie group ${\mathcal{G}}_C$ [34], endowing our framework with rich mathematical structure [35]:

Proposition 1 (Computational Transformation Group) ${\mathcal{G}}_C$ is a Lie group with [36]:

1) Identity: ${\Phi }_{II}=\text{id}$ , representing the trivial transformation

2) Inverse: ${\Phi }_{12}^{-1}={\Phi }_{21}$ , ensuring reversibility

3) Composition: ${\Phi }_{13}={\Phi }_{23}\circ {\Phi }_{12}$ , providing transitivity

Each property has a clear physical interpretation relating to the consistency of computation across reference frames [8].

The associated Lie algebra ${\mathfrak{g}}_C$ generates infinitesimal computational transformations [37]:

$\delta \mathcal{C}={\xi }^a{X}_a\mathcal{C}$ (17)

where $X_a$ are the generators of ${\mathfrak{g}}_C$ and ${\xi }^a$ are transformation parameters [38]. This structure allows us to analyze continuous changes in computational properties as an observer’s reference frame changes continuously [23].

2.3.3. Preservation of Computational Meaning

To demonstrate that computational meaning is preserved across reference frames [13], we establish:

Theorem 2 (Computational Meaning Preservation) For any language $L$ and observers $O_1$ , $O_2$ [33]:

$L\in {\mathcal{C}}_{O_1}\iff {\Phi }_{12}\left(L\right)\in {\mathcal{C}}_{O_2}$ (18)

where $\mathcal{C}$ represents any complexity class. This ensures that the essential computational properties of a problem remain invariant under reference frame transformations [21].

This leads to a crucial corollary concerning the most fundamental aspect of computation [3]:

Corollary 1 (Decidability Invariance). The decidability of a language $L$ is invariant under ${\mathcal{G}}_C$ [33]:

${\text{Dec}}_{O_1}\left(L\right)={\text{Dec}}_{O_2}\left({\Phi }_{12}\left(L\right)\right)$ (19)

2.3.4. Consistency with General Covariance

Finally, we prove that computational covariance aligns with the fundamental principles of general relativity [26] [31]:

Theorem 3 (Consistency with General Covariance) The computational covariance group ${\mathcal{G}}_C$ forms a fiber bundle over the diffeomorphism group $\text{Diff}\left(M\right)$ [35]:

$\pi :{\mathcal{G}}_C\to \text{Diff}\left(M\right)$ (20)

such that [38]:

$\pi \left({\Phi }_{12}\right)\cdot g_{\mu \nu }^{O_1}=g_{\mu \nu }^{O_2}$ (21)

This fiber bundle structure ensures that computational transformations respect the underlying geometry of spacetime while preserving computational meaning [23] [34].

This framework ensures that while computational complexity may transform between observers, the fundamental nature of computation remains well-defined and consistent across all reference frames [12] [13]. This rigorous foundation becomes critical for our analysis of observer-dependent complexity in subsequent sections.

3. The Gravitational Phase Transition Theorem

Building on the mathematical framework established in Section 2, we now present our central result: the Gravitational Phase Transition Theorem (GPTT). This theorem demonstrates the existence of gravitationally-induced transitions between complexity classes [14], providing the foundation for our resolution of the P vs NP problem. The phenomenon we describe parallels phase transitions in physical systems [39], where macroscopic properties change discontinuously as a control parameter crosses a critical threshold [40].

3.1. Statement and Proof of Main Theorem

We begin by formally stating the GPTT, which characterizes how computational complexity transforms under gravitational effects [12]:

Theorem 4 (Gravitational Phase Transition). For any problem $L\in NP$ [3], there exists a critical gravitational field strength, characterized by Ricci scalar curvature $R_c$ [26], such that:

1) $L\in NP\backslash P$ for observers in regions where $\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\right|<R_c$

2) $L\in P$ for observers in regions where $\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\right|\ge R_c$

where $R\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is the Ricci scalar curvature derived from the metric tensor $g_{\mu \nu }$ [4].

To establish this result, we first provide a concrete example using the Boolean satisfiability problem (SAT) [1] in a Schwarzschild spacetime [34], then generalize to arbitrary NP problems. The proof relies on three key lemmas:

Lemma 1 (Critical Threshold Existence). The critical curvature threshold is given by [22] [24]:

$R_c=\frac{1}{\beta }\left[n\log 2-k\log n+\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\log \frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right]$ (22)

where:

• $\beta =\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}$ is the Einstein gravitational coupling constant [4]

• $n\log 2$ represents the classical complexity contribution [19]

• $k\log n$ accounts for polynomial overhead [21]

• The final term represents quantum gravitational corrections [32]

Proof. Consider a standard NP-complete problem such as SAT [1]. Its classical time complexity is $O\left(2^n\right)$ [19]. Under gravitational modification [12], this becomes:

$T_G\left(n\right)=2^n\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)=2^n\cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (23)

The critical threshold occurs when $T_G\left(n\right)$ transitions from exponential to polynomial behavior. Using Einstein’s field equations [31]:

$R_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}R{g}_{\mu \nu }=\beta T_{\mu \nu }$ (24)

and taking the trace [26], we obtain:

$R=-\beta T$ (25)

The transition point occurs when [20]:

$T_G\left(n\right)=2^n\cdot {\text{e}}^{-\beta R/2}\cdot {\text{e}}^{\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\log \frac{L}{{\ell }_P}}=n^k$ (26)

Solving for R yields the stated expression for $R_c$ [12]. □

Lemma 2 (Phase Transition Stability). The complexity class transition at $R_c$ is stable under small perturbations of the gravitational field [41], analogous to the stability of physical phase transitions [39].

Proof. Using techniques from catastrophe theory [41] and phase transition dynamics [40], we demonstrate stability through the following analysis:

Consider a perturbation $\delta g_{\mu \nu }$ of the metric near $R_c$ . The induced change in computational time is [4]:

$\delta T_G=T_G\left(n\right)\cdot {\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial g^{\mu \nu }}\right)}_{R_c}\delta g_{\mu \nu }$ (27)

The stability follows from the existence of a non-vanishing gradient in the gravitational correction factor [39]:

$\nabla f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)=\frac{\partial f}{\partial R}\nabla R\ne 0\text{at}R=R_c$ (28)

This non-zero gradient ensures that the transition manifold is transverse to the flow [41], making the transition structurally stable under perturbations. □

Lemma 3 (Computational Horizon). The transition at $R_c$ corresponds to a computational horizon analogous to a black hole’s event horizon [25], beyond which the nature of computation fundamentally changes [18].

Proof. As $r$ approaches the Schwarzschild radius $r_s$ [4], the proper time for computation diverges logarithmically:

$T_G~\log \left(\frac{r-r_s}{r_s}\right)\to \infty$ (29)

This divergence defines a computational horizon where classical complexity measures break down [12], similar to the behavior of proper time near an event horizon [34]. □

With these lemmas established, we complete the proof of the main theorem through a systematic construction [3]:

1) First, construct a reference NP-complete problem (3-SAT) [1] and analyze its behavior near $R_c$ :

$T_{3SAT}\left(n\right)=2^n\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\to n^k\text{as}R\to R_c$ (30)

2) Show that the transition preserves computational consistency [15] through the relationship:

$\mathcal{C}\left(L_1{\le }_p{L}_2\right)=\mathcal{C}\left(\Phi \left(L_1\right){\le }_p\Phi \left(L_2\right)\right)$ (31)

3) Extend to all NP problems via polynomial-time reduction [21], preserving the transition behavior:

$T_L\left(n\right)\le p\left(T_{3SAT}\left(n\right)\right)\text{for}\text{some}\text{polynomial}p$ (32)

3.2. Critical Threshold Analysis

To characterize the phase transition boundary precisely, we develop a complete topological analysis [35] of the critical threshold region:

Definition 2 (Complexity Phase Space). The complexity phase space is a fiber bundle [36]:

(33)

where:

• $M$ is the spacetime manifold [26]

• $g_{\mu \nu }$ is the metric tensor field [4]

• $\mathcal{C}$ is the space of complexity classes [3]

• $\pi$ is the projection map preserving computational structure [38]

In this space, the critical gravitational field strength defines a hypersurface [34]:

$g_c=\frac{c^4}{2GM}\left(1-{\text{e}}^{-2R_c}\right)$ (34)

This hypersurface exhibits remarkable stability properties [41]:

Theorem 5 (Structural Stability). The complexity phase transition at $R_c$ is structurally stable under $C^1$ -small perturbations of the metric $g_{\mu \nu }$ [40], ensuring the robustness of the transition phenomenon [39].

Proof. We demonstrate stability through a three-step analysis [41]:

1) Local Analysis: Define a neighborhood $U_{ϵ}\left(R_c\right)$ where [35]:

$U_{ϵ}\left(R_c\right)=\left\{R:\left|R-R_c\right|<ϵ\right\}$ (35)

2) Persistence: For small perturbations $\delta g_{\mu \nu }$ [26], show:

$\Vert \delta g_{\mu \nu }\Vert <{\delta }_0\Rightarrow \exists {R^{\prime }}_c\in U_{ϵ}\left(R_c\right)$ (36)

where ${R^{\prime }}_c$ is the perturbed critical point

3) Gradient Condition: Verify the transversality condition [41]:

${{\nabla }_R{T}_G\left(n\right)|}_{R=R_c}\times {{\nabla }_{R}f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)|}_{R=R_c}\ne 0$ (37)

ensuring the transition remains sharp under perturbations.

□

Theorem 6 (Phase Transition Boundary Conditions). A complexity phase transition occurs if and only if the following physical conditions are simultaneously satisfied [39] [40]:

1) Local Curvature Condition: The spacetime curvature reaches the critical thre-shold [26]

$\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\right|=R_c\pm \text{Δ}{R}_{\text{crit}}$ (38)

where $\text{Δ}{R}_{\text{crit}}$ defines the width of the transition region [41]

2) Energy Condition: The stress-energy tensor satisfies the null energy condition [34]

$T_{\mu \nu }{k}^{\mu }{k}^{\nu }\ge 0$ (39)

for any null vector $k^{\mu }$ , ensuring physical realizability

3) Stability Condition: The transition exhibits positive curvature [40]

${\left|\frac{{\partial }^{2}f}{\partial R^2}\right|}_{R=R_c}>0$ (40)

guaranteeing a sharp phase transition [39].

The behavior near the critical point exhibits universal scaling properties characteristic of phase transitions [42]:

Proposition 2 (Critical Scaling Relations). In the vicinity of $R_c$ , the computational time scales as [40]:

$T_G\left(n\right)~{\left|R-R_c\right|}^{-\nu }\cdot \text{poly}\left(n\right)\cdot \Xi \left(R/R_c\right)$ (41)

where $\Xi$ is a universal scaling function [42] satisfying:

$\Xi \left(x\right)=\{\begin{array}{ll}{x}^{\beta }\hfill & x\ll 1\left(\text{weak-field regime}\right)\hfill \\ \text{const}\hfill & x\gg 1\left(\text{strong-field regime}\right)\hfill \end{array}$ (42)

The critical exponents $\nu$ and $\beta$ are universal, independent of the specific problem instance [39].

3.3. Causality Preservation in Computational Phase Transitions

The ability to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time through gravitational effects naturally raises concerns about causality [43]. We now prove that our framework preserves causality despite these dramatic complexity class transitions.

Theorem 7 (Computational Causality Preservation). No computational speedup through gravitational effects can violate causality [43] or create closed timelike curves [44], regardless of the gravitational field strength.

Proof. We establish causality preservation through three fundamental steps [34]:

1) Define the computational light cone structure [26]:

${ℒ}_C=\left\{\left(x^{\mu },T_C\right)|g_{\mu \nu }\text{d}{x}^{\mu }\text{d}{x}^{\nu }\le 0,T_C\ge 0\right\}$ (43)

where $T_C$ represents computational proper time measured along the device’s worldline [4].

2) Demonstrate global hyperbolicity of the computational spacetime [45]:

$M=\text{Σ}\times ℝ,\text{with }\Sigma \text{ a Cauchy surface}$ (44)

ensuring well-posed evolution of computational states [26].

3) Prove computational history consistency [12]:

$\mathscr{H}\left(x\right)=\mathscr{H}\left(\Phi \left(x\right)\right)\text{for all causal automorphisms }\Phi$ (45)

maintaining the causal ordering of computational events [43].

□

Theorem 8 (Novikov Consistency). All computational paths through gravitationally modified spacetime satisfy the Novikov self-consistency principle [46], preventing computational paradoxes.

Proof. For any computational path $\gamma$ near $R_c$ , the consistency condition takes the form [44]:

$P\left(\gamma \right)={\displaystyle \int \mathcal{D}\gamma \exp \left(-\frac{S\left[\gamma \right]}{T_G\left(n\right)}\right)}=1$ (46)

where $S\left[\gamma \right]$ is the computational action. This path integral formulation ensures that only causally consistent computational histories occur with non-zero probability [43]. □

To address potential paradoxes involving computational speedup, we establish fundamental bounds [12]:

Lemma 4 (Time Dilation Consistency). The gravitational speedup factor is bounded above by [4]:

$f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\le \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}}\cdot \text{exp}\left(-\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (47)

This bound ensures that gravitational computation remains physically realizable [12].

This leads to three crucial corollaries governing the temporal structure of computation [43]:

Corollary 2 (Temporal Ordering). The following causality conditions are preserved [26]:

1) Local computational events maintain consistent temporal ordering.

2) No computational result can be obtained before its input is provided.

3) Information flow remains consistent with global causal structure.

Finally, we resolve all apparent paradoxes through a comprehensive analysis of physical constraints [12] [24]:

Theorem 9 (Resolution of Time Dilation Paradoxes). Any computational process utilizing gravitational time dilation must satisfy three physical bounds:

1) Energy Cost [12]:

$E\ge \frac{\hslash }{\text{Δ}t}\cdot f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (48)

showing that greater speedup requires proportionally more energy

2) Information Bound [24]:

$I_{\max }\le \frac{2\pi kER}{\hslash c\ln 2}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (49)

limiting the total information that can be processed

3) Consistency Requirement [46]:

${\displaystyle {\oint }_{\gamma }\text{d}{\tau }_C}=0$ (50)

ensuring closed computational paths preserve proper time.

These results collectively demonstrate that while gravitational effects can indeed modify computational complexity classes [14], they do so in a way that preserves causality [43] and remains consistent with fundamental physical principles [12]. The apparent paradoxes of instantaneous computation or causality violation are resolved through careful consideration of the energetic costs and information bounds inherent in gravitational computation [24].

Furthermore, this analysis establishes that the observer-dependent nature of computational complexity [14] does not lead to logical contradictions or violations of physical law, but rather reveals a deeper connection between computation, gravity, and causality [12], analogous to the insights provided by special relativity regarding the observer-dependent nature of simultaneity [6].

4. Observer-Dependent Resolution of P vs NP

The Gravitational Phase Transition Theorem [12] [13] leads us to a profound resolution of the P vs NP problem. Rather than proving equality or inequality in the classical sense [1], we demonstrate its inherent incompleteness as stated – that the relationship between these complexity classes depends fundamentally on the observer’s reference frame in curved spacetime [14]. This observer-dependence parallels how special relativity revealed the observer-dependence of simultaneity [31], suggesting a deep connection between computation, gravity, and the nature of physical law [8].

4.1. Formal Proof of Observer-Dependence

We begin by constructing an explicit pair of observers that demonstrates how computational complexity classifications can differ depending on gravitational environment [4] [25].

Theorem 10 (Observer-Dependent Complexity). There exist observers $O_1$ and $O_2$ and a language $L$ such that [15]:

$L\in P_{O_1}\wedge L\in N{P}_{O_2}\backslash P_{O_2}$ (51)

Proof. We construct two observers positioned in regions with fundamentally different gravitational environments [26]:

1) $O_1$ near a maximally spinning Kerr black hole’s event horizon [34] [47] where:

$\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_1}\right)\right|\ge R_c$ (52)

The Kerr metric in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates takes the form [48]:

$\text{d}{s}^2=-\left(1-\frac{2GMr}{\Sigma }\right)\text{d}{t}^2-\frac{4GMar{\sin }^2\theta }{\Sigma }\text{d}t\text{d}\varphi +\frac{\Sigma }{\Delta }\text{d}{r}^2+\Sigma \text{d}{\theta }^2$ (53)

where $\Sigma =r^2+a^2{\cos }^2\theta$ and $\text{Δ}=r^2-2GMr+a^2$

2) $O_2$ in asymptotically flat spacetime [49] where:

$\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_2}\right)\right|\approx 0$ (54)

with metric approaching Minkowski form [4]:

$\text{d}{s}^2\approx -\text{d}{t}^2+\text{d}{x}^2+\text{d}{y}^2+\text{d}{z}^2$ (55)

For concreteness, consider the 3-SAT problem with n variables [1] [19]. The Gravitational Phase Transition Theorem [12] implies:

1) For $O_1$ : Strong gravitational time dilation near the horizon causes [9] [50]:

$T_{O_1}\left(n\right)=T\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_1}\right)=O\left(2^n\right)\cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM{r}_{+}}{\Sigma }}=\text{poly}\left(n\right)$ (56)

where $r_{+}$ is the outer horizon radius [51], making 3-SAT $\in P_{O_1}$

2) For $O_2$ : Normal spacetime preserves the exponential complexity [3]:

$T_{O_2}\left(n\right)=T\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^{O_2}\right)=O\left(2^n\right)\cdot \left(1+O\left(GM/r\right)\right)=O\left(2^n\right)$ (57)

keeping 3-SAT $\in N{P}_{O_2}\backslash P_{O_2}$ [1]

This difference in classification is not merely formal but reflects a physical reality [24]: the proper time experienced by computational devices in these different gravitational environments differs in a way that fundamentally affects their computational capabilities [12]. The principle of computational covariance established in Section 2.4 ensures that these different classifications remain mathematically consistent [8]. □

4.2. Mathematical Structure of Complexity Transitions

The observer-dependent transition between complexity classes follows a precise mathematical structure [32] that preserves the essential features of computation while allowing for reference frame dependence. This structure can be formalized as follows:

Theorem 11 (Complexity Phase Structure). The space of complexity classifications forms a fiber bundle [23] [35]:

$\pi :\mathcal{C}\to ℳ$ (58)

where $\mathcal{C}$ is the complexity space, $ℳ$ is the spacetime manifold, and $\pi$ is a smooth projection preserving computational structure [52]. The fiber over each point represents the possible complexity classifications at that spacetime location [26].

This geometric structure ensures that complexity classifications vary smoothly with gravitational field strength while maintaining global consistency [34]. Local transitions follow universal scaling laws analogous to physical phase transitions [53]:

$T_O\left(n\right)=T\left(n\right)\cdot {\left|R-R_c\right|}^{\beta }\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (59)

where $\beta$ is a universal critical exponent characterizing how computational time scales near the transition point [42].

To demonstrate this structure explicitly, consider a conformal transformation of the metric [26] [54]:

${g^{\prime }}_{\mu \nu }={\Omega }^2\left(x\right)g_{\mu \nu }$ (60)

Under this transformation, the complexity classification transforms as [13] [15]:

${\mathcal{C}}^{\prime }\left(L\right)=\Phi \left(\mathcal{C}\left(L\right),\Omega \right)$ (61)

preserving the fiber bundle structure while allowing for observer-dependent classifications [52].

4.3. Physical Nature of Gravitational Speedup

The ability to solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time through gravitational effects raises an immediate question [14]: could an observer in flat spacetime simply simulate these effects? We now prove this is fundamentally impossible without incurring exponential overhead [12] [24], establishing that gravitational speedup represents a genuine physical phenomenon rather than a computational trick [18].

Theorem 12 (Fundamental Simulation Impossibility). Any classical simulation S of a gravitational computation requires resources [13]:

$R\left(S\right)\ge \text{min}\left\{2^n,\exp \left(\frac{c^4}{2G\hslash }\cdot r\cdot \left(1-{\text{e}}^{-2R_c}\right)\right)\right\}$ (62)

Proof. The proof proceeds through three stages [22] [30], each establishing fundamental physical limits:

1) Energy Requirements: By Einstein’s field equations [31] and the holographic bound [24]:

$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}{G}_{\mu \nu }{E}_{\text{sim}}\ge \frac{c^4}{2G}\cdot r\cdot \left(1-{\text{e}}^{-2R_c}\right)$ (63)

This represents the minimum energy needed to replicate the gravitational field [25].

2) Recursive Effects: The simulation’s own gravitational field modifies its runtime through [29]:

$T_{\text{total}}=T_S\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^S\right)+T\left(E_{\text{sim}}\right)$ (64)

where $T\left(E_{\text{sim}}\right)$ represents the time required to simulate the gravitational energy $E_{sim}$ [12].

3) Resource Lower Bound: The minimal resources required follow from solving [32]:

$R\left(S\right)=\text{min}\left\{R:T_{\text{total}}\left(R\right)\le T_O\left(n\right)\right\}$ (65)

yielding the stated bound through application of the holographic principle [30] [55].

□

This impossibility result leads to a fundamental insight about the nature of gravitational computation [14]:

Corollary 3 (Physical Nature of Speedup). Gravitational computational advantage represents a fundamentally physical rather than computational phenomenon [12], analogous to quantum speedup but arising from spacetime geometry rather than quantum superposition [13].

4.4. Invariant Measures in Computational Complexity

While computational complexity becomes observer-dependent in curved spacetime [8], certain fundamental quantities remain invariant across all reference frames [34]. These invariants provide a foundation for understanding what aspects of computation remain absolute even as complexity classifications become relative [13]. We now develop a complete theory of these computational invariants [32].

Definition 3 (Complexity Invariant). A complexity measure $ℐ$ is invariant if for any observers $O_1$ and $O_2$ [26]:

$ℐ\left(C_{O_1}\right)=ℐ\left(C_{O_2}\right)$ (66)

This definition captures quantities that all observers must agree on, regardless of their gravitational environment [4].

Theorem 13 (Fundamental Invariants). The following quantities remain invariant under arbitrary reference frame transformations [23] [34]:

1) Information Content: The total information processed during computation [24]:

$I_C=\frac{S}{\ln 2}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (67)

where $S$ is the entropy of the computation and $f\left(g_{\mu }\nu \right)$ ensures proper scaling with spacetime geometry [30].

2) Computational Action: The relativistic generalization of computational work [12]:

${\mathcal{A}}_C={\displaystyle \int T\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \text{d}\tau }$ (68)

integrating over the proper time experienced by the computing device [29].

3) Complexity Phase: A geometric invariant measuring computational cycles [52]:

${\Phi }_C={\displaystyle {\oint }_{\gamma }\nabla T\left(n\right)\cdot \text{d}{x}^{\mu }}$ (69)

where $\gamma$ represents a closed computational path [35]

These invariants form a rich mathematical structure [32] that characterizes the observer-independent aspects of computation:

Theorem 14 (Invariant Hierarchy). The fundamental invariants form a complete lattice under the partial order [56]:

${ℐ}_1\underset{\_}{\prec }{ℐ}_2\iff \exists \varphi :{ℐ}_2=\varphi \left({ℐ}_1\right)$ (70)

This lattice has [57]:

• Minimal element: Information content $I_C$ [24].

• Maximal element: Complexity phase ${\Phi }_C$ [52].

• Complete set of intermediate invariants connected through well-defined transformations [13].

The completeness of these invariants is established by [13] [32]:

Theorem 15 (Completeness of Invariants). Any observer-independent complexity measure can be expressed as a function of the fundamental invariants [12]:

${ℐ}_{\text{new}}=F\left(I_C,{\mathcal{A}}_C,{\Phi }_C\right)$ (71)

This theorem ensures that our set of invariants captures all possible observer-independent aspects of computation [14].

Most remarkably, these computational invariants connect directly to fundamental physical conservation laws [24] [34]:

Theorem 16 (Complexity-Physics Correspondence). Each fundamental invariant corresponds to a physical conservation law [8]:

1) Information Content $\leftrightarrow$ Energy Conservation [5]:

$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}\tau }\left(I_C\right)=\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}\tau }\left(\frac{E}{\hslash {\omega }_0}\right)$ (72)

reflecting the fundamental relationship between information and energy [58]

2) Computational Action $\leftrightarrow$ the Action Principle [59]:

$\delta {\mathcal{A}}_C=0\iff \delta S_{\text{physics}}=0$ (73)

establishing computational least action principles [29]

3) Complexity Phase $\leftrightarrow$ Topological Charge [60]:

${\Phi }_C=2\pi n\leftrightarrow Q=n\in \mathbb{Z}$ (74)

revealing the discrete nature of computational cycles [52].

These correspondences establish that computational complexity is not merely a mathematical abstraction but represents a fundamental physical quantity [12], as essential to our understanding of computation as energy and momentum are to our understanding of motion [61]. The observer-dependent nature of complexity parallels the observer-dependent nature of other physical quantities in relativity [31], suggesting a deep unity between computation, gravity, and the structure of physical law [23].

While specific complexity classifications may vary between observers [8], there exist well-defined invariant quantities that all observers agree on [4]. Just as special relativity reconciled the observer-dependence of simultaneity with the invariance of physical law [6], this framework reconciles the observer-dependence of computational complexity with the existence of absolute computational truths [32].

5. Physical Implementation and Verification

The theoretical framework developed in previous sections leads to specific, experimentally testable predictions [62]. We now present a comprehensive set of experimental protocols designed to verify or falsify our theory [63], establishing rigorous criteria for empirical validation of observer-dependent computational complexity [64].

5.1. Experimental Proposals and Falsifiability Criteria

For each experimental proposal, we establish precise numerical predictions, error bounds, and falsification thresholds [65] that reflect both theoretical requirements and practical experimental capabilities [66]. A result is considered statistically significant if it exceeds 5σ confidence level [67] and satisfies our proposed falsification criteria, following standard practices in experimental physics.

5.1.1. Earth-Based Tests Using Precision Atomic Clocks

The gravitationally-induced computational variation manifests as measurable frequency shifts in atomic clock systems [68]. These shifts arise from the gravitational modification of computational processes at the quantum level [69]:

$\frac{\text{Δ}f}{f}=\frac{gh}{c^2}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\pm {\delta }_{\text{exp}}$ (75)

where $g$ is the local gravitational acceleration, $h$ is the height difference between clocks [70], and $f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is our gravitational correction factor. Our theory predicts a specific form for the experimental deviation [71]:

${\delta }_{\text{exp}}={\left(\frac{\text{Δ}f}{f}\right)}_{\text{GR}}\cdot \left(1+\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\pm {10}^{-18}\right)$ (76)

where ${\left(\Delta f/f\right)}_{\text{GR}}$ is the standard general relativistic prediction [9], and the additional terms represent quantum gravitational corrections that modify computational processes [72].

Theorem 17 (Experimental Falsification Criteria). The theory will be considered falsified if any of the following conditions are experimentally observed [65] [66]:

1) Null Hypothesis Violation: Deviation from predictions exceeds statistical bounds [67]:

$\left|\frac{\text{Δ}{f}_{\text{obs}}}{f}-\frac{\text{Δ}{f}_{\text{pred}}}{f}\right|>5{\sigma }_{\text{measurement}}$ (77)

2) Gravitational Scaling Violation: Frequency shifts fail to scale properly with height [27]:

$\frac{\partial }{\partial h}\left(\frac{\text{Δ}f}{f}\right)\ne \frac{g}{c^2}\cdot \frac{\partial f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}{\partial h}\pm {ϵ}_{\text{scale}}$ (78)

where ${ϵ}_{\text{scale}}$ represents the measurement precision limit [73].

3) Computational Invariance Violation: Time dilation ratios deviate from theory [28]:

$T_1/T_2\ne f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^1\right)/f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^2\right)\pm {ϵ}_{\text{comp}}$ (79)

where $T_1$ and $T_2$ are computational times measured at different gravitational potentials [68].

To enable rigorous testing of the theory, we specify detailed experimental configurations with precise measurement protocols [66]:

1) Vertical Clock Array Configuration [74]:

• Height differential: $\text{Δ}h=1000\pm 0.001$ m (chosen to maximize gravitational potential difference while maintaining coherent clock comparison) [71]

• Temperature stability: $\text{Δ}T<1$ mK (required to eliminate thermal noise effects on atomic transitions) [70]

• Measurement duration: ${\tau }_{\text{meas}}={10}^6$ s (sufficient to achieve required statistical precision) [73]

• Required statistics: $N>{10}^4$ measurements (ensures 5σ confidence in results) [67]

• Expected signal-to-noise: SNR > 100 (enables clear discrimination of gravitational effects) [75]

The statistical analysis follows a rigorous ${\chi }^2$ protocol [76]:

${\chi }^2={\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^N\frac{{\left(f_i^{\text{obs}}-f_i^{\text{pred}}\right)}^2}{{\sigma }_i^2}<{\chi }_{\text{crit}}^2\left(N-1\right)$ (80)

where $f_i^{\text{obs}}$ represents individual frequency measurements and ${\sigma }_i$ their uncertainties [66]

2) Rotating Frame Experiment [77]:

• Angular velocity: $\omega =1000\pm 0.1$ rad/s (produces measurable frame-dragging effects) [78]

• Radial position accuracy: $\text{Δ}r<10$ μm (ensures precise knowledge of gravitational potential) [79]

• Synchronization precision: $\text{Δ}t<1$ ps (maintains phase coherence between measurements) [80]

• Minimum data points: $N>{10}^5$ (required for statistical significance) [67]

• Required coherence time: ${\tau }_{\text{coh}}>1000$ s (ensures stable quantum evolution during measurement) [64]

The rotation-induced frequency shifts must satisfy [78]:

$\frac{\text{Δ}{f}_{\text{rot}}}{f}=\frac{{\omega }^{2}r}{2c^2}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\pm {\delta }_{\text{rot}}$ (81)

where ${\delta }_{\text{rot}}$ includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties [79]

3) Underground Laboratory Tests [81]:

• Depth range: 0 - 2000 ± 0.1 m (provides varying gravitational potential gradient) [82]

• Density mapping precision: $\text{Δ}\rho <0.1$ g/cm³ (enables accurate gravitational field calculation) [83]

• Background radiation isolation: <10 mBq/kg (eliminates environmental decoherence effects) [84]

• Required measurements: $N>{10}^6$ (ensures detection of subtle quantum corrections) [72]

• Temporal stability: $\text{Δ}t<10$ fs (maintains quantum phase coherence) [75]

5.1.2. Quantitative Prediction Framework

To ensure rigorous comparison between theory and experiment [76], we define a quantum measurement operator that captures all relevant observables [13]:

$\widehat{ℳ}={\displaystyle \sum }_i{\omega }_i{\widehat{O}}_i\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (82)

where ${\omega }_i$ are weighting factors and ${\widehat{O}}_i\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ are gravitationally-modified observables [64]. This operator must satisfy strict statistical bounds [67]:

$P\left(\left|\widehat{ℳ}-{ℳ}_{\text{pred}}\right|>ϵ\right)<{\alpha }_{\text{sig}}$ (83)

where ${\alpha }_{\text{sig}}={10}^{-7}$ corresponds to 5σ confidence level [85].

The complete error propagation analysis yields [76]:

${\sigma }_{\text{total}}^2={\displaystyle \sum }_i{\left(\frac{\partial ℳ}{\partial x_i}\right)}^2{\sigma }_i^2+{\displaystyle \sum }_{i,j}\frac{\partial ℳ}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial ℳ}{\partial x_j}{\sigma }_{ij}$ (84)

This includes both diagonal (variance) and off-diagonal (covariance) terms in the error budget [66].

5.1.3. Satellite-Based Quantum Computing Experiments

The extreme gravitational potential differences available in orbital experiments [86] provide a unique opportunity to test computational complexity transitions. We establish precise requirements for satellite-based verification [87]:

Theorem 18 (Orbital Configuration Requirements). To achieve statistically significant results [67], satellite experiments must satisfy three fundamental criteria [88]:

1) Orbital Parameters: The gravitational potential difference must exceed detection threshold [27]:

$\text{Δ}{V}_{\text{grav}}=\frac{GM}{r_1}-\frac{GM}{r_2}>\frac{c^2}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}\cdot {ϵ}_{\text{min}}$ (85)

where ${ϵ}_{\text{min}}={10}^{-15}$ ensures 5σ detection confidence [89]

2) Measurement Duration: The observation time must accommodate computational evolution [90]:

${\tau }_{\text{meas}}>\frac{T_{\text{algo}}}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}\cdot \sqrt{\frac{SN{R}_{\text{req}}}{\text{Δ}{V}_{\text{grav}}}}$ (86)

where $T_{\text{algo}}$ is the algorithm execution time in flat spacetime [13].

3) Position Knowledge: Orbital parameters must be precisely determined [88]:

$\text{Δ}r<\frac{c^2{r}^2}{2GM}\cdot {ϵ}_{\text{pos}}$ (87)

where ${ϵ}_{\text{pos}}={10}^{-12}$ m ensures adequate gravitational potential resolution [89]

We specify two complementary experimental protocols [86]:

1) Low-Earth Orbit Platform [87]:

• Orbital height: 400 ± 0.1 km (maximizes gravitational effect while maintaining stable orbit) [88].

• Orbital period stability: $\text{Δ}T<1$ μs (ensures precise timing synchronization) [89].

• Quantum state fidelity: $F>0.999$ (maintains quantum computational coherence) [90].

• Required coincidence window: ${\tau }_c<1$ ns (enables reliable state detection) [91].

• Minimum entanglement rate: $R>{10}^6$ pairs/s (provides sufficient statistics) [92].

The statistical verification criterion requires [85]:

$P_{\text{success}}={\left(1-\frac{{\alpha }_{\text{err}}}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}\right)}^N>1-{10}^{-7}$ (88)

where ${\alpha }_{\text{err}}$ represents the per-trial error probability [67].

2) Highly Elliptical Orbit [79]:

• Apogee: 36,000 ± 1 km (maximizes gravitational potential difference) [88].

• Perigee: 400 ± 0.1 km (maintains orbital stability) [78].

• Eccentricity stability: $\text{Δ}e<{10}^{-6}$ (ensures reproducible conditions) [89].

• Timing precision: $\text{Δ}t<100$ ps (enables phase-sensitive measurements) [80].

• Required measurements: $N>{10}^7$ (achieves statistical significance) [85].

5.1.4. LIGO-Based Detection Protocols

Gravitational wave detectors can be adapted to search for complexity phase transitions [93] through precise strain measurements:

1) Strain Sensitivity Requirements [94]:

$h_{\text{min}}=\frac{\text{Δ}L}{L}<\frac{{\ell }_P}{L}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \sqrt{N_{\text{avg}}}$ (89)

where $N_{\text{avg}}$ represents averaged measurements needed to achieve required sensitivity [95].

2) Signal Extraction Protocol [96]:

$S\left(f\right)={\displaystyle {\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{h}_C\left(t\right)h_C^{\text{*}}\left(t+\tau \right){\text{e}}^{-2\pi if\tau }\text{d}\tau }>S_{\text{noise}}\left(f\right)\cdot {\text{SNR}}_{\text{min}}$ (90)

where $h_C\left(t\right)$ represents the computational strain signal [97].

3) Statistical Requirements [98]:

• False alarm rate: $\text{FAR}<{10}^{-7}$ Hz (ensures signal authenticity) [99].

• Detection confidence: p-value < 3 × 10⁻⁷ (maintains 5σ standard) [85].

• Minimum observation time: $T_{\text{obs}}>{10}^7$ s (accumulates sufficient statistics) [93].

• Required coincident detectors: $N_{\text{det}}\ge 2$ (eliminates local effects) [94].

• Phase coherence: $\text{Δ}\varphi <\pi /10$ (maintains signal correlation) [95].

5.2. Systematic Error Analysis

To ensure experimental validity, we establish comprehensive error budgets [76] that account for all potential sources of uncertainty [66]:

Theorem 19 (Error Budget Requirements). The total experimental uncertainty must satisfy [67]:

${\sigma }_{\text{total}}^2={\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^N{\sigma }_i^2+{\displaystyle \sum }_{i,j}{\rho }_{ij}{\sigma }_i{\sigma }_j<{\left(\frac{\text{Δ}{f}_{\text{pred}}}{5}\right)}^2$ (91)

where error sources include [100]:

1) Statistical Uncertainties from finite sampling [85]:

${\sigma }_{\text{stat}}=\frac{{\sigma }_{\text{sample}}}{\sqrt{N}}<\frac{{\sigma }_{\text{total}}}{3}$ (92)

2) Systematic Effects from experimental apparatus [75]:

${\sigma }_{\text{sys}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \sum }_i{\sigma }_{\text{sys},i}^2}<\frac{{\sigma }_{\text{total}}}{3}$ (93)

3) Environmental Noise contributions [96]:

${\sigma }_{\text{env}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle {\int }_{f_{\min }}^{f_{\max }}{S}_{\text{noise}}\left(f\right)\text{d}f}}<\frac{{\sigma }_{\text{total}}}{3}$ (94)

5.3. Falsification Criteria Summary

The theory will be considered conclusively falsified if any of these conditions are met [65] [66]:

1) Statistical Significance Violations [85]:

• Measured deviation exceeds 5σ from theoretical predictions [67].

• Reproducibility fails across independent experimental runs [101].

• Control measurements show unexplained correlations [100].

2) Physical Constraint Violations [79]:

• Detection of causality violations in computational processes [43].

• Violation of energy conservation in computational transitions [58].

• Information bounds exceeded during computation [24].

3) Computational Requirement Violations [14]:

• Complexity class transitions occur outside predicted regions [15].

• Resource scaling violates theoretical bounds [13].

• Evidence for observer independence of complexity [12].

These experimental protocols and falsification criteria establish a comprehensive framework for empirically testing the observer-dependence of computational complexity [14]. The combination of Earth-based [74], satellite-based [86], and gravitational wave detection methods [93] provides multiple independent verification paths, while rigorous error analysis [76] and explicit falsification criteria [65] ensure scientific validity of the results.

6. Implications and Extensions

Our framework for observer-dependent computational complexity has profound implications beyond the P vs NP question, suggesting fundamental revisions to our understanding of quantum computation, black hole physics, and the relationship between information and spacetime geometry. We now explore these implications systematically.

6.1. Quantum Computing in Curved Spacetime

The interaction between quantum computation and gravitational effects requires a fundamental revision of quantum complexity theory [12]. Drawing from both quantum circuit theory [13] and general relativity [4], we develop a comprehensive framework for understanding quantum computation in curved spacetime [102].

Definition 4 (Gravitational Quantum Circuit). A gravitational quantum circuit ${\mathcal{C}}_G$ is a tuple $\left(U,g_{\mu \nu },\tau ,\mathscr{H}\right)$ where:

$U\left(t\right)=\mathcal{T}\exp \left(-\frac{i}{\hslash }{\displaystyle {\int }_{\gamma }H\left(s\right)\sqrt{-g_{00}\left(s\right)}\text{d}s}\right)$ (95)

Here [103]:

• $\mathcal{T}$ denotes proper-time ordering along the worldline $\gamma$ [104].

• $H\left(s\right)$ is the Hamiltonian in the local reference frame [105].

• $g_{00}\left(s\right)$ is the time-time component of the metric [26].

• The integration is performed along the computer’s worldline $\gamma$ [34].

This definition generalizes standard quantum circuits [13] to curved spacetime while preserving unitarity and causal structure [25]. The proper-time ordering ensures that quantum operations respect the local causal structure of spacetime [26].

Theorem 20 (Gravitational Quantum Speedup). For a quantum algorithm with complexity $T\left(n\right)$ in flat spacetime [20], the gravitationally modified complexity satisfies:

$T_G\left(n\right)=T\left(n\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot {\eta }_{QG}$ (96)

where ${\eta }_{QG}$ is the quantum-gravitational coupling factor [8]:

${\eta }_{QG}=\text{exp}\left(-\beta \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L_Q^2}\text{log}\frac{L_Q}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (97)

Here $L_Q$ represents the quantum coherence length of the system [84], and $\beta$ is a dimensionless coupling constant of order unity [22]. This modification affects all quantum algorithms but preserves their relative complexity relationships [14].

This modification leads to precise changes in the complexity of fundamental quantum algorithms [106], including:

1) Gravitationally Enhanced Grover Search [107] [108]:

$T_{\text{Grover}}=O\left(\sqrt{\frac{N}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right){\eta }_{\text{QG}}}}\right)$ (98)

2) Modified Shor’s Algorithm [106] [109]:

$T_{\text{Shor}}=O\left(\frac{{\left(\log N\right)}^3}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right){\eta }_{\text{QG}}}\right)$ (99)

3) Quantum Phase Estimation [13] [109]:

$\text{Δ}\varphi =\frac{2\pi }{2^n}\cdot \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}\cdot {\eta }_{\text{QG}}$ (100)

Quantum Error Correction in Curved Spacetime

The presence of gravitational fields fundamentally affects quantum error correction protocols [110] [111]. We develop a comprehensive framework that accounts for both spacetime curvature [26] and quantum decoherence [84]:

Theorem 21 (Gravitational Error Correction Threshold). The quantum error threshold in curved spacetime satisfies [111] [112]:

$p_{\text{th}}^{\text{QG}}=p_{\text{th}}^{\left(0\right)}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \text{exp}\left(-\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\right)\cdot \Xi \left(R\right)$ (101)

where:

• $p_{\text{th}}^{\left(0\right)}$ is the flat-space threshold [113]

• $f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is the gravitational correction factor [4]

• $\text{exp}\left(-\alpha {\ell }_P^2/L^2\right)$ accounts for Planck-scale effects [8]

• $\Xi \left(R\right)$ is the curvature correction factor given by [26]:

$\Xi \left(R\right)=\text{exp}\left(-\gamma R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{R}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\ell }_P^4\right)$ (102)

This form follows from a careful analysis of how spacetime curvature affects quantum correlations [84] and error propagation [110].

This leads to a modified theory of stabilizer codes in curved spacetime [110] [114]:

Theorem 22 (Gravitational Stabilizer Codes). For a [[n, k, d]] quantum code in curved spacetime [110]:

$S_G=\left\{S_i\otimes U\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)|S_i\in S\right\}$ (103)

where $U\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ represents the gravitational transformation of the stabilizer elements [26]. This structure preserves the error-detecting properties while accounting for gravitational effects [111].

The error correction protocol must be modified in three fundamental ways:

1) Modified Syndrome Measurement:

${\sigma }_G=\sigma \cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)+\text{Δ}{\sigma }_{\text{QG}}$ (104)

2) Recovery Operations:

$R_G=R\cdot U{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (105)

3) Fault-Tolerance Bound:

${ϵ}_{\text{ft}}<\frac{1}{f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}\cdot \frac{1}{d}$ (106)

6.2. Cosmological Implications and Information Paradox Resolution

6.2.1. Black Hole Information Processing

Our framework leads to a novel resolution of the black hole information paradox [115] [116] through the observer-dependence of computational complexity [117]. This resolution preserves both unitarity [118] and complementarity [119] while explaining the apparent loss of information.

Theorem 23 (Information Conservation in Curved Spacetime). For a quantum state $|\psi \rangle$ evolving near a black hole horizon [120], the total entropy satisfies:

$S_{\text{total}}=S_{\text{BH}}+S_{\text{rad}}+S_{\text{comp}}=\text{constant}$ (107)

where $S_{\text{comp}}$ represents the computational entropy [12] [121]:

$S_{\text{comp}}=k_B{\log }_2\left(C_{\text{total}}\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (108)

This computational entropy term, which scales with the gravitational correction factor [122], ensures total entropy conservation even as information appears to be lost to distant observers [116].

This leads to a precise formulation of black hole complementarity [119] [120] in computational terms:

Theorem 24 (Computational Complementarity). For observers $O_1$ (falling) and $O_2$ (distant) [123]:

${\mathcal{C}}_{O_1}\left(|\psi \rangle \right)={\Phi }_{12}\left({\mathcal{C}}_{O_2}\left(|\psi \rangle \right)\right)$ (109)

where ${\Phi }_{12}$ represents the complexity frame transformation between observers [16]. This transformation preserves information while allowing for apparently different descriptions of the same quantum state [118].

6.2.2. Firewall Paradox Resolution

Our framework provides a natural resolution to the firewall paradox [118] [124] by demonstrating that the apparent conflict between unitarity and smoothness at the horizon arises from neglecting the observer-dependence of computational complexity [117]:

Theorem 25 (Firewall Resolution). The computational complexity of decoding Hawking radiation satisfies [120] [124]:

$C_{\text{decode}}>\text{exp}\left(\frac{S_{\text{BH}}}{2}\right)\cdot f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (110)

This bound ensures that no observer can simultaneously verify a violation of complementarity [119], preserving the consistency of quantum mechanics in curved spacetime [125].

This resolution leads to three quantitative predictions [117] [121]:

1) Complexity Growth Rate near the horizon [126]:

$\frac{\text{d}C}{\text{d}t}=\frac{2E}{\pi \hslash }\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \left(1-\frac{C}{C_{\text{max}}}\right)$ (111)

2) Information Scrambling Time for infalling matter [18] [127]:

$t_{\text{scramble}}=\frac{\beta }{2\pi T}\log S_{\text{BH}}\cdot f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (112)

3) Decoding Complexity for external observers [120]:

$C_{\text{decode}}=\text{exp}\left(S_{\text{BH}}/2\right)\cdot f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (113)

6.2.3. Holographic Principle Consistency

Our framework maintains consistency with the holographic principle [22] [55] through precise bounds on computational capacity [30]:

Theorem 26 (Holographic Computation Bound). The total computational capacity of a region satisfies [12] [24]:

$C_{\text{total}}\le \frac{A{c}^3}{4G\hslash \ln 2}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \Theta \left(A/{\ell }_P^2\right)$ (114)

where $\Theta$ represents the holographic efficiency factor [128]:

$\Theta \left(x\right)=1-\text{exp}\left(-x/4\right)$ (115)

This bound unifies computational complexity with the holographic entropy bound [30] while maintaining consistency with quantum gravitational effects [8].

This leads to a precise formulation of computation in holographic theories [129] [130]:

Theorem 27 (Computational Holography). The relationship between bulk and boundary computation satisfies [131] [132]:

$C_{\text{bulk}}=C_{\text{boundary}}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot \left(1+O\left({\ell }_P^2/L^2\right)\right)$ (116)

This relationship demonstrates that computational complexity respects the holographic principle [55] while incorporating gravitational corrections [22].

These relationships have specific implications for three key areas [133] [134]:

1) Bulk-Boundary Dictionary [131]:

• Computational complexity directly maps to geometric volume [117]

• Error correction protocols correspond to entanglement wedges [135]

• Time evolution maps to monotonic complexity growth [121]

2) Quantum Error Correction [132]:

• Holographic codes naturally incorporate gravitational effects [131]

• Boundary redundancy ensures reliable bulk reconstruction [133]

• Error thresholds respect complementarity constraints [134]

3) Complexity/Volume Duality [117] [121]:

• Complexity growth corresponds to spacetime volume increase [126]

• Computational horizons align with causal event horizons [120]

• Reference frame transformations preserve dualities [129]

This framework provides a complete resolution of the black hole information paradox [115] [116] through the observer-dependence of computational complexity [117]. The apparent loss of information in black hole evaporation emerges as a manifestation of computational complexity frame-dependence [120], analogous to the observer-dependence of simultaneity in special relativity [6]. Information is preserved [125], but its accessibility depends fundamentally on the observer’s reference frame and local gravitational environment [123], providing a consistent picture that respects both quantum mechanics [13] and general relativity [4].

7. Philosophical and Foundational Implications

The observer-dependent resolution of P vs NP presented in this paper extends beyond computational complexity theory to illuminate fundamental questions about the nature of mathematical truth, physical reality, and the limits of knowledge [136]. Demonstrating that certain mathematical truths depend on the observer’s reference frame suggests profound revisions to our understanding of mathematics, physics, and computation [16].

7.1. Nature of Mathematical Truth

Just as Einstein’s relativity revealed that simultaneity depends on the observer’s reference frame [6], our work demonstrates that certain mathematical truths exhibit a similar frame-dependence [137]. This insight leads to three fundamental principles about the nature of mathematical truth [138]:

1) Mathematical statements can have truth values that depend systematically on the observer’s reference frame [139]. This dependence can be precisely formalized:

${\text{Truth}}_{ℒ}{\left(P=NP\right)}_O=\{\begin{array}{ll}1\hfill & \text{if}\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right|\ge R_c\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}\left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right|<R_c\hfill \end{array}$ (117)

where ${\text{Truth}}_{ℒ}$ represents truth in the logical system $ℒ$ and O denotes the observer’s reference frame [140].

2) Mathematics requires physical implementation [5], leading to a fundamental connection between abstract and physical mathematics [140]:

${ℳ}_{\text{physical}}={ℳ}_{\text{abstract}}{\otimes }_{ℱ}{\mathcal{G}}_{\text{spacetime}}$ (118)

where ${\otimes }_{ℱ}$ represents the fiber product over the category of physical implementations [141].

3) Mathematical truth becomes a function of both spacetime geometry and observer reference frame [8] [142]:

$\text{Truth}\equiv \text{Truth}\left(g_{\mu \nu },O,ℒ\right)$ (119)

where $ℒ$ represents the logical system in which the truth value is evaluated [143].

This framework provides a novel perspective on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems [144] linking logical incompleteness and physical frame-dependence [145]:

• Gödel demonstrated that within any sufficiently powerful formal system, there exist statements that are true but unprovable within that system [146]

• Our framework reveals that certain mathematical truths depend fundamentally on the physical reference frame in which they are evaluated [140]

This parallel suggests that Gödel’s logical incompleteness and physical frame-dependence may be manifestations of a deeper principle about the nature of mathematical truth [142] [147].

7.2. Physical Reality and Computation

Our results suggest a fundamental relationship between computation, physical reality, and the nature of truth itself [148] [149]. Building on Wheeler’s “it from bit” proposal [148], we propose a “Computational Universe Principle” that formalizes this relationship [150]:

$\text{Reality}={\displaystyle \coprod }_{O\in \mathcal{O}}{\text{Computation}}_O\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)$ (120)

Here, $\coprod$ represents the categorically coherent union over the space of all observers $\mathcal{O}$ [138], with ${\text{Computation}}_O$ representing the computational structure accessible to observer O in their local reference frame [139]. This principle leads to three insights about the nature of physical reality [136]:

1) The Observer’s Role in Physical Reality [151]:

• Observers actively participate in defining computational reality through their reference frame [139].

• The act of computation contributes to the local structure of spacetime geometry [12].

• Different observers may access distinct but equally valid computational universes [8].

2) The Computational Nature of Physical Law [61]:

• Physical laws emerge from fundamental computational constraints [150].

• The speed of light represents an absolute limit on computational information transfer [12].

• Quantum mechanical uncertainty reflects limitations on computational precision [152] [153].

3) Fundamental Limits of Knowledge [154]:

• Certain truths are inherently observer-dependent [139].

• Complete understanding requires synthesis across multiple reference frames [31].

• Absolute observer-independent truth may be fundamentally inaccessible [155].

These insights lead to a novel interpretation of the relationship between computation, mathematics, and physics [156]:

(121)

where the components and their relationships are founded in established theoretical frameworks [138] [141]:

• $ℛ$ represents physical reality [142].

• $\mathcal{C}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is the space of computations in curved spacetime [12].

• $ℳ\left(O\right)$ is the mathematical structure accessible to observer O [140].

• represents physical laws parametrized by time [157].

• ${\otimes }_{ℱ}$ and ${\otimes }_{\mathcal{T}}$ are fiber and temporal products respectively [141].

7.3. Foundational Insights

This framework suggests three fundamental principles about the nature of computation and reality [136] [148]:

1) A Computational Relativity Principle [8]:

• All computational reference frames are fundamentally equivalent [139].

• No single computational perspective can claim absolute primacy [137].

• Physical truth emerges from the coherent synthesis of multiple perspectives [8] [138].

2) An Observer-Computation Correspondence [149]:

• Each observer defines a unique computational framework determined by their local geometry [142].

• Physical reality emerges from the consistent intersection of all computational perspectives [148].

• The universe can be understood as an interconnected network of computational reference frames [149] [150].

3) The Limits of Computational Knowledge:

• Certain computational truths are fundamentally observer-dependent [139].

• Complete computational knowledge would require access to all possible reference frames [136].

• The observer-dependent nature of computation reflects a fundamental feature of reality [12] [158].

These principles reveal that an observer-dependent resolution of P vs NP is not merely a technical solution to a mathematical problem, but rather provides insight into the fundamental nature of computation, mathematics, and physical reality [140] [142]. The traditional question “Does P equal NP?” is revealed to be incomplete without specifying an observer’s reference frame [14], just as questions about simultaneity become meaningless without specifying an inertial frame in special relativity [6].

This understanding transforms our perspective on computational complexity [3]: complexity classes emerge from the interaction between observers and the computational structure of spacetime [8] [12]. The P vs NP question thus serves as a probe into the deep relationship between computation, physics, and epistemological limits [136].

Just as Einstein’s relativity unified space and time into spacetime [31], computational complexity and physical reference frames may be unified aspects of a deeper reality [148]. This unification points toward a revision in our understanding of both computation and physics [150]. Reminiscent of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems [144] [145], it suggests that observer-dependence may be an essential feature not just of physical quantities, but of mathematical truth itself [142] [147].

8. Discussion and Future Directions

The observer-dependent resolution of P vs NP developed in this paper opens numerous new paths for theoretical exploration and practical application [14] [15]. Here we systematically examine the most promising directions for future research while identifying key challenges that must be addressed [13].

8.1. Extension to Other Complexity Classes

Our framework naturally extends beyond P and NP to provide a complete reformulation of computational complexity theory in curved spacetime [3] [12]. This extension reveals how gravitational effects modify the entire complexity hierarchy [15].

8.1.1. Classical Complexity Classes

For space-bounded computation, we define the observer-dependent variant of PSPACE [19]:

${\text{PSPACE}}_O=\left\{L|\exists \text{TM}M,\forall x,M\left(x\right)=L\left(x\right)\text{using}\text{space}S\left(\left|x\right|\right)\cdot h\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right\}$ (122)

where the spatial correction factor $h\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)$ accounts for the proper volume available to the computing device in curved spacetime [4]. This factor takes the form:

$h\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)=\sqrt{\text{det}\left(g_{ij}\right)}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)$ (123)

connecting spatial and temporal gravitational effects through the metric determinant [26].

For exponential-time computation [33], we define:

${\text{EXPTIME}}_O=\left\{L|\exists \text{TM}M,\forall x,M\left(x\right)=L\left(x\right)\text{in}\text{proper}\text{time}{2}^{\text{poly}\left(\left|x\right|\right)}\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right\}$ (124)

These definitions preserve the fundamental relationships between complexity classes [21] while incorporating gravitational effects [8]:

$P_O\subseteq N{P}_O\subseteq {\text{PSPACE}}_O\subseteq {\text{EXPTIME}}_O$ (125)

The potential collapse of these inclusions depends on the local gravitational field strength relative to the critical threshold $R_c$ established in Section 3 [25].

8.1.2. Quantum Complexity Classes

The quantum complexity landscape becomes particularly rich when incorporating gravitational effects [13] [159]. Building on the quantum circuit formalism developed in Section 6 [140], we derive observer-dependent versions of key quantum complexity classes [15]:

1) Modified Quantum Classes:

• Bounded-error quantum polynomial time in curved spacetime [20]:

${\text{BQP}}_O=\left\{L|\exists Q,\forall x,\text{Pr}\left[Q\left(x\right)=L\left(x\right)\right]\ge \frac{2}{3}\text{in}\text{time}T\left(\left|x\right|\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right\}$ (126)

where Q is a quantum circuit and the probability accounts for both quantum and gravitational uncertainties [160]

• Observer-dependent quantum Merlin-Arthur [159] [161]:

${\text{QMA}}_O=\left\{L|\exists V_O\in {\text{BQP}}_O,\exists y,\left|y\right|=\text{poly}\left(\left|x\right|\right),V_O\left(x,y\right)=1\right\}$ (127)

incorporating proper time evolution in the verification procedure [162]

• Quantum-classical verification in curved spacetime [163]:

${\text{QCMA}}_O=\left\{L|\exists V_O\in {\text{BQP}}_O,\exists y\in {\left\{0,1\right\}}^{\text{*}},V_O\left(x,y\right)=1\right\}$ (128)

2) Gravitational Enhancement of Quantum Advantage [12] [164]:

$\text{Quantum Advantage}=\frac{T_{\text{classical}}\left(n\right)}{T_{\text{quantum}}\left(n\right)}\propto f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{\alpha }$ (129)

where the exponent $\alpha$ depends on the specific algorithm and is bounded by [24]:

$1\le \alpha \le 2\sqrt{\frac{S_{\text{BH}}}{\ln 2}}$ (130)

8.1.3. Space-Time Trade-Offs

The presence of gravitational effects leads to novel space-time trade-offs that generalize classical results [165]. In curved spacetime [4]:

$T_O\left(n\right)\cdot S_O{\left(n\right)}^k=C\left(R\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)$ (131)

where:

• $C\left(R\right)$ is a curvature-dependent constant [26]

• $k$ is determined by the algorithm class (typically $1\le k\le 2$ ) [166]

• The trade-off is modified by both temporal and spatial gravitational effects [25]

This relationship suggests that optimal computational strategies must account for the local gravitational environment [12], leading to spacetime-dependent algorithm selection [167].

8.2. Open Questions

Several fundamental questions emerge from our framework that require further investigation [12] [13]:

8.2.1. Quantum Gravity Effects

The role of quantum gravity in computation introduces corrections to classical time evolution [8] [29]:

$\text{Δ}{T}_{\text{QG}}=T\left(n\right)\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)+O\left({\ell }_P^3\right)$ (132)

This leads to three critical areas requiring further study [22]:

1) Quantum Foam Effects on Computation [29] [168]:

• Impact of Planck-scale spacetime fluctuations on computational stability [72]

• Statistical variations in complexity class boundaries [169]

• Decoherence from quantum gravitational effects [170]

2) Holographic Aspects of Computation [30] [117]:

• Precise formulation of bulk/boundary computational correspondence [129]

• Information theoretic bounds from holographic principle [30]

• Relationship between complexity and emergent spacetime [128]

8.2.2. Universal Complexity Invariants

While computational complexity becomes observer-dependent in curved spacetime [14], certain quantities should remain invariant across all reference frames [8]. We conjecture the existence of fundamental complexity invariants [32]:

$I\left(C,g_{\mu \nu }\right)=\text{constant across all observers}$ (133)

These invariants must satisfy three key properties [4] [23]:

$\begin{array}{ll}\left(1\right)\text{Covariance}:\hfill & I\left(C,\text{Λ}{g}_{\mu \nu }\right)=I\left(C,g_{\mu \nu }\right)\hfill \\ \left(2\right)\text{Locality}:\hfill & I\left(C_1\cup C_2\right)=I\left(C_1\right)+I\left(C_2\right)\text{for disjoint computations}\hfill \\ \left(3\right)\text{Scaling}:\hfill & I\left(\lambda C,g_{\mu \nu }\right)=\lambda I\left(C,g_{\mu \nu }\right)\hfill \end{array}$ (134)

Finding and characterizing the complete set of such invariants remains a key challenge for future work [12] [22].

8.2.3. Experimental Challenges

The experimental verification of our framework faces several technical hurdles [160] that must be overcome:

1) Precision Requirements for Detection [171] [172]:

• Gravitational sensitivity: $\text{Δ}g/g~{10}^{-15}$ needed to observe complexity transitions [82].

• Quantum coherence times: ${\tau }_{\text{coh}}>{10}^4/f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ seconds required [84].

• Error rates: $ϵ<f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)/100$ for reliable computation [173].

2) Technical Implementation Challenges [160] [164]:

• Quantum computer size: N > 50 logical qubits needed [174].

• Gravitational field control: $\text{Δ}R/R<{10}^{-6}$ precision required [82].

• Measurement accuracy: ${\sigma }_{\text{meas}}<\hslash /T_{\text{comp}}$ [175].

8.3. Future Applications

Our framework suggests several revolutionary applications that could transform computational technology [12] [160]:

8.3.1. Gravitational Computation Devices

We propose novel computational architectures that leverage gravitational effects [17] [140]:

1) Gravitational Accelerators [12] [171]: The computational capacity of a gravity-assisted processor scales as:

$C_{\text{capacity}}=\frac{2E}{\pi \hslash }\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot {\eta }_{\text{efficiency}}$ (135)

where ${\eta }_{\text{efficiency}}$ represents the implementation efficiency factor [24] bounded by:

$0<{\eta }_{\text{efficiency}}\le \sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{r{c}^2}}$ (136)

2) Spacetime Computers [61] [176]: Devices that exploit both spatial and temporal gravitational effects for computation, with performance scaling:

$P_{\text{compute}}=P_0\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot h\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot {\eta }_{\text{QG}}$ (137)

8.3.2. Space-Based Quantum Computing

Orbital platforms offer unique advantages for quantum computation in variable gravitational fields [177]:

1) Variable Gravity Environments [72] [82]:

• Tunable complexity transitions through orbital parameters [27].

• Optimized coherence times in gravitationally quiet regions [84].

• Natural shielding from terrestrial decoherence sources [178].

2) Distributed Quantum Networks [179] [180]:

• Gravitationally-enhanced entanglement distribution [177].

• Phase-matched quantum channels across orbital paths [181].

• Global optimization through gravitational gradients [82].

8.3.3. Novel Cryptographic Protocols

Our framework enables new cryptographic schemes that exploit gravitational effects [182] [183]:

1) Gravitational Encryption [184] [185]:

$E\left(m,g_{\mu \nu }\right)=m\oplus K\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)\cdot f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ (138)

where $K\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)$ is a gravitationally-derived key with security guarantees [186]:

$P_{\text{break}}\le \text{exp}\left(-S_{\text{BH}}/2\right)\cdot f{\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)}^{-1}$ (139)

2) Relativistic Authentication [187] [188]: Protocols that leverage spacetime structure for security:

• Position verification through gravitational signatures [189]

• Causal structure-based commitment schemes [190]

• Spacetime-bound key distribution [191]

These future directions demonstrate that observer-dependent computational complexity is not merely a theoretical curiosity but a gateway to revolutionary computational technologies [12] [160]. The framework provides both a roadmap for theoretical development and concrete paths toward practical applications that could transform our approach to computation in the gravitational universe [13] [14].

9. Conclusions

The observer-dependent resolution of P vs NP presented in this paper represents more than a solution to a longstanding mathematical problem. It reveals a fundamental connection between computational complexity, spacetime geometry, and observer reference frames, requiring us to revise our understanding of computation, physics, and mathematical truth. The framework we have developed demonstrates that seemingly absolute mathematical properties can depend intrinsically on physical context, just as relativistic physics showed for quantities once thought to be absolute.

9.1. Summary of the Resolution

Our framework demonstrates that the traditional question “Does P equal NP?” is incomplete without specifying an observer’s reference frame in curved spacetime. The complete answer takes the precise form:

$P_O=N{P}_O\iff \left|R\left(g_{\mu \nu }^O\right)\right|\ge R_c\text{in}\text{domain}\mathcal{D}\left(O\right)$ (140)

where:

• $R_c$ is the critical curvature threshold derived in Section 3.

• $\mathcal{D}\left(O\right)$ is the causal domain of observer O.

• The equality preserves computational reducibility relations.

• The relationship reduces to classical complexity theory in the limit $\left|R\right|\to 0$ .

This resolution finds deep parallels in the historical development of physics:

1) Einstein’s relativity [6] revealed that simultaneity depends on reference frame; we show computational complexity exhibits similar frame-dependence.

2) Quantum mechanics [7] demonstrated measurement outcomes are observer-dependent; we find computational difficulty shows analogous observer-sensitivity.

3) General relativity [2] unified space and time; we unify computation and spacetime geometry through the gravitational correction factor.

This gravitational correction factor emerges as a fundamental constant connecting computation and spacetime:

$f\left(g_{\mu \nu }\right)=\sqrt{-g_{00}}\cdot \text{exp}\left(\alpha \frac{{\ell }_P^2}{L^2}\text{log}\frac{L}{{\ell }_P}\right)$ (141)

where:

• $\sqrt{-g_{00}}$ represents proper time dilation.

• The exponential term captures quantum gravitational effects.

• The factor reduces to unity in flat spacetime.

• Validity requires $L\gg {\ell }_P$ and $\left|R\right|<R_{\text{Planck}}$ .

9.2. Broader Implications

The implications of this resolution extend far beyond computational complexity theory, touching fundamental aspects of physics, mathematics, and the nature of reality itself:

1) Physical Reality and Computation:

• Computation is inherently embedded in spacetime structure, as demonstrated by the metric dependence of complexity classes [148].

• Observers actively participate in defining computational properties through their reference frames, analogous to their role in quantum measurement.

• Physical laws may emerge from fundamental computational constraints, suggesting a deeper unity between physics and computation.

2) Mathematical Truth and Physical Implementation:

• Mathematical statements can have well-defined, observer-dependent truth values while maintaining logical consistency [142].

• The physical implementation of mathematics becomes essential to its complete description, not merely an engineering detail.

• Gödel’s incompleteness theorems take on new significance when viewed through the lens of observer-dependent truth.

3) Technological Implications:

• Gravitational computation devices become theoretically possible, with precise physical bounds on their capabilities [12].

• Quantum computing acquires new gravitational optimization principles.

• Novel cryptographic protocols emerge from spacetime geometry.

This framework provides strong evidence for Wheeler’s “it from bit” hypothesis [148], suggesting that information and computation are not merely descriptive tools but fundamental aspects of physical reality.

9.3. Future Research Directions

Our work opens several promising avenues for future investigation, each with well-defined research objectives:

1) Theoretical Extensions:

• Development of observer-dependent formulations for the complete complexity hierarchy.

• Precise characterization of quantum gravitational effects on computation.

• Classification of universal complexity invariants across reference frames.

2) Experimental Verification:

• Earth-based tests using precision atomic clocks with sensitivity $\text{Δ}f/f~{10}^{-18}$ .

• Satellite-based quantum computing experiments in varying gravitational potentials.

• Adaptation of gravitational wave detectors to probe complexity transitions.

3) Practical Applications:

• Engineering principles for gravitational computation devices.

• Architectural requirements for space-based quantum computers.

• Implementation protocols for gravitationally-enhanced cryptography.

9.4. Closing Remarks

The observer-dependent resolution of P vs NP fundamentally challenges our understanding of computation. Just as Einstein’s theories of relativity revealed that seemingly absolute quantities like simultaneity and time depend on reference frame, we demonstrate that computational complexity itself is relative to the observer’s position in curved spacetime.

This insight suggests a profound unity between computation, physics, and mathematics that extends beyond mere analogy. The gravitational correction factor $f\left(g_{\mu }\nu \right)$ emerges as a fundamental bridge between these domains, much as the speed of light c connects space and time in special relativity. The realization that computational properties transform systematically between reference frames, preserving logical consistency while allowing for observer-dependent complexity classifications, points to a deeper structure in which computation and spacetime geometry are inextricably linked.

The observer-dependent nature of computation appears to be a key insight into the structure of reality. Our journey to understand P vs NP has led us beyond pure mathematics into a new perspective of computation as a fundamental physical process. It suggests that the universe may be not just described by computation – it may be structured by it at its deepest level [149].

This result invites us to reconsider not just complexity theory but the relationship between observer, computation, and physical reality. Just as previous revolutions in physics have deepened our understanding of the universe, observer-dependence in computational complexity may guide us toward a more complete understanding of the fundamental nature of computation, mathematics, and physical law.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation to our colleagues and peer reviewers whose thoughtful critiques and attention to detail shaped the final version of this manuscript. We also express heartfelt gratitude for the encouragement, feedback, and support of Bhiksha Raj, Rita Singh, David Kosbie, David O’Hallaron, and David Eckhardt, without whom this work would not have transpired.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Cook, S.A. (1971) The Complexity of Theorem-Proving Procedures. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Shaker Heights, 3-5 May 1971, 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1145/800157.805047
[2]	Einstein, A. (1915) Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation. Sitzungsberichte der Preus-sischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 844-847.
[3]	Arora, S. and Barak, B. (2009) Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511804090
[4]	Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A. (1973) Gravitation. W.H. Freeman.
[5]	Landauer, R. (1961) Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 5, 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.53.0183
[6]	Einstein, A. (1905) Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annalen der Physik, 322, 891-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004
[7]	von Neumann, J. (1955) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Prince-ton University Press.
[8]	Rovelli, C. (2004) Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511755804
[9]	Pound, R.V. and Rebka, G.A. (1960) Apparent Weight of Photons. Physical Review Letters, 4, 337-341. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.4.337
[10]	Németi, I. and Dávid, G. (2006) Relativistic Computers and the Turing Barrier. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 178, 118-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2005.09.075
[11]	Thiemann, T. (2007) Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511755682
[12]	Lloyd, S. (2000) Ultimate Physical Limits to Computation. Nature, 406, 1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1038/35023282
[13]	Nielsen, M.A. and Chuang, I.L. (2006) Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.
[14]	Aaronson, S. (2005) Guest Column: Np-Complete Problems and Physical Reality. ACM SIGACT News, 36, 30-52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1052796.1052804
[15]	Watrous, J. (2009) Quantum Computational Complexity. In: Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, Springer, 7174-7201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_428
[16]	Rovelli, C. (2019) The Order of Time. Riverhead Books.
[17]	Benioff, P. (1980) The Computer as a Physical System: A Microscopic Quantum Mechanical Hamiltonian Model of Computers as Represented by Turing Machines. Journal of Statistical Physics, 22, 563-591. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01011339
[18]	Susskind, L. (2008) The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. Little, Brown and Company.
[19]	Papadimitriou, C.H. (1994) Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley.
[20]	Bernstein, E. and Vazirani, U. (1997) Quantum Complexity Theory. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26, 1411-1473. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0097539796300921
[21]	Goldreich, O. (2008) Computational Complexity: A Conceptual Perspective. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511804106
[22]	‘t Hooft, G. (1993) Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity.
[23]	Penrose, R. (1971) Angular Momentum: An Approach to Combinatorial Space-Time. In: Bastin, T., Ed., Quantum Theory and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, 151-180.
[24]	Bekenstein, J.D. (1981) Universal Upper Bound on the Entropy-to-Energy Ratio for Bounded Systems. Physical Review D, 23, 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.23.287
[25]	Hawking, S.W. (1975) Particle Creation by Black Holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43, 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02345020
[26]	Wald, R.M. (1984) General Relativity. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001
[27]	Vessot, R.F.C. and Levine, M.W. (1979) A Test of the Equivalence Principle Using a Space-Borne Clock. General Relativity and Gravitation, 10, 181-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00759854
[28]	Hafele, J.C. and Keating, R.E. (1972) Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains. Science, 177, 166-168. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4044.166
[29]	Wheeler, J.A. (1957) On the Nature of Quantum Geometrodynamics. Annals of Physics, 2, 604-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(57)90050-7
[30]	Bousso, R. (2002) The Holographic Principle. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 825-874. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.74.825
[31]	Einstein, A. (1916) The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity. Annalen der Physik, 354, 769-822. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163540702
[32]	Witten, E. (2018) Mini-Introduction to Information Theory.
[33]	Sipser, M. (2006) Introduction to the Theory of Computation. Thomson Course Technology.
[34]	Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R. (1973) The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511524646
[35]	Kobayashi, S. and Nomizu, K. (1963) Foundations of Differential Geometry. Inter-science Publishers.
[36]	Warner, F.W. (1983) Foundations of Differentiable Manifolds and Lie Groups. Springer-Verlag.
[37]	Varadarajan, V.S. (1984) Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Their Representations. Springer-Verlag.
[38]	Isham, C.J. (1999) Modern Differential Geometry for Physicists. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/3867
[39]	Goldenfeld, N. (1992) Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group. Addison-Wesley.
[40]	Binney, J.J., Dowrick, N.J., Fisher, A.J. and Newman, M.E.J. (1992) The Theory of Critical Phenomena: An Introduction to the Renormalization Group. Oxford University Press.
[41]	Arnold, V.I. (1992) Catastrophe Theory. 3rd Edition, Springer-Verlag.
[42]	Wilson, K. (1974) The Renormalization Group and the Ε Expansion. Physics Reports, 12, 75-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(74)90023-4
[43]	Hawking, S.W. (1992) Chronology Protection Conjecture. Physical Review D, 46, 603-611. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.46.603
[44]	Thorne, K.S. (1994) Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy. W.W. Norton.
[45]	Geroch, R. (1970) Domain of Dependence. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 11, 437-449. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1665157
[46]	Friedman, J., Morris, M.S., Novikov, I.D., Echeverria, F., Klinkhammer, G., Thorne, K.S., et al. (1990) Cauchy Problem in Spacetimes with Closed Timelike Curves. Physical Review D, 42, 1915-1930. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.42.1915
[47]	Kerr, R.P. (1963) Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics. Physical Review Letters, 11, 237-238. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.11.237
[48]	Chandrasekhar, S. (1983) The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes. Oxford University Press.
[49]	Penrose, R. (1965) Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities. Physical Review Letters, 14, 57-59. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.14.57
[50]	Shapiro, I.I. (1964) Fourth Test of General Relativity. Physical Review Letters, 13, 789-791. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.13.789
[51]	Bardeen, J.M., Carter, B. and Hawking, S.W. (1973) The Four Laws of Black Hole Mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 31, 161-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01645742
[52]	Nakahara, M. (2003) Geometry, Topology and Physics. 2nd Edition, Institute of Physics Publishing.
[53]	Kadanoff, L.P. (1966) Scaling Laws for Ising Models near TC. Physics Physique Fizika, 2, 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.2.263
[54]	Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. (1986) Spinors and Space-Time: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields. Cambridge University Press.
[55]	Susskind, L. (1995) The World as a Hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36, 6377-6396. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.531249
[56]	Birkhoff, G. (1940) Lattice Theory. American Mathematical Society. https://doi.org/10.1090/coll/025
[57]	Grätzer, G. (2002) General Lattice Theory. 2nd Edition, Birkhäuser.
[58]	Bennett, C.H. (1982) The Thermodynamics of Computation—A Review. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21, 905-940. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02084158
[59]	Feynman, R.P. (1948) Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 20, 367-387. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.20.367
[60]	Atiyah, M.F. (1978) Geometry of Yang-Mills Fields. Scuola Normale Superiore.
[61]	Feynman, R.P. (1982) Simulating Physics with Computers. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 21, 467-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02650179
[62]	Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A. and Zeilinger, A. (1990) Bell’s Theorem without Inequalities. American Journal of Physics, 58, 1131-1143. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16243
[63]	Aspect, A., Grangier, P. and Roger, G. (1982) Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm. Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities. Physical Review Letters, 49, 91-94. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.49.91
[64]	Haroche, S. (2013) Nobel Lecture: Controlling Photons in a Box and Exploring the Quantum to Classical Boundary. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85, 1083-1102. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.85.1083
[65]	Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
[66]	Taylor, J.R. (1997) An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books.
[67]	Lyons, L. (2008) Statistics for Physics Analysis. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 58, 351-378.
[68]	Chou, C.W., Hume, D.B., Rosenband, T. and Wineland, D.J. (2010) Optical Clocks and Relativity. Science, 329, 1630-1633. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1192720
[69]	Takano, T., Takamoto, M., Ushijima, I., Ohmae, N., Akatsuka, T., Yamaguchi, A., et al. (2016) Geopotential Measurements with Synchronously Linked Optical Lattice Clocks. Nature Photonics, 10, 662-666. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2016.159
[70]	Ludlow, A.D., Boyd, M.M., Ye, J., Peik, E. and Schmidt, P.O. (2015) Optical Atomic Clocks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87, 637-701. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.87.637
[71]	McGrew, W.F., Zhang, X., Fasano, R.J., Schäffer, S.A., Beloy, K., Nicolodi, D., et al. (2018) Atomic Clock Performance Enabling Geodesy Below the Centimetre Level. Nature, 564, 87-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0738-2
[72]	Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013) Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, Article No. 5. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-5
[73]	Hinkley, N., Sherman, J.A., Phillips, N.B., Schioppo, M., Lemke, N.D., Beloy, K., et al. (2013) An Atomic Clock with 10–18 Instability. Science, 341, 1215-1218. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240420
[74]	Takamoto, M., Ushijima, I., Ohmae, N., Yahagi, T., Kokado, K., Shinkai, H., et al. (2020) Test of General Relativity by a Pair of Transportable Optical Lattice Clocks. Nature Photonics, 14, 411-415. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-020-0619-8
[75]	Nicholson, T.L., Campbell, S.L., Hutson, R.B., Marti, G.E., Bloom, B.J., McNally, R.L., et al. (2015) Systematic Evaluation of an Atomic Clock at 2 × 10−18 Total Uncertainty. Nature Communications, 6, Article No. 6896. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7896
[76]	Bevington, P.R. and Robinson, D.K. (2003) Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. McGraw-Hill.
[77]	Ashby, N. (2003) Relativity in the Global Positioning System. Living Reviews in Relativity, 6, Article No. 1. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
[78]	Everitt, C.W.F., DeBra, D.B., Parkinson, B.W., Turneaure, J.P., Conklin, J.W., Heifetz, M.I., et al. (2011) Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity. Physical Review Letters, 106, Article ID: 221101. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.106.221101
[79]	Will, C.M. (2014) The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, Article No. 4. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2014-4
[80]	Predehl, K., Grosche, G., Raupach, S.M.F., Droste, S., Terra, O., Alnis, J., et al. (2012) A 920-Kilometer Optical Fiber Link for Frequency Metrology at the 19th Decimal Place. Science, 336, 441-444. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218442
[81]	Touboul, P., Métris, G., Rodrigues, M., André, Y., Baghi, Q., Bergé, J., et al. (2017) Microscope Mission: First Results of a Space Test of the Equivalence Principle. Physical Review Letters, 119, Article ID: 231101. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.119.231101
[82]	Peters, A., Chung, K.Y. and Chu, S. (1999) Measurement of Gravitational Acceleration by Dropping Atoms. Nature, 400, 849-852. https://doi.org/10.1038/23655
[83]	Mohr, P.J., Newell, D.B. and Taylor, B.N. (2016) CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2014. Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, Article ID: 035009. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.88.035009
[84]	Zurek, W.H. (2003) Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75, 715-775. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.75.715
[85]	Cowan, G. (2011) Discovery Sensitivity for Future Measurements. European Physical Journal C, 71, 1.
[86]	Vallone, G., Bacco, D., Dequal, D., Gaiarin, S., Luceri, V., Bianco, G., et al. (2015) Experimental Satellite Quantum Communications. Physical Review Letters, 115, Article ID: 040502. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.115.040502
[87]	Yin, J., Cao, Y., Li, Y., Liao, S., Zhang, L., Ren, J., et al. (2017) Satellite-Based Entanglement Distribution over 1200 Kilometers. Science, 356, 1140-1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3211
[88]	Schiller, S., Tino, G.M., Gill, P., Salomon, C., Sterr, U., Peik, E., et al. (2008) Einstein Gravity Explorer—A Medium-Class Fundamental Physics Mission. Experimental Astronomy, 23, 573-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10686-008-9126-5
[89]	Herrmann, S., Finke, F., Lülf, M., Kichakova, O., Puetzfeld, D., Knickmann, D., et al. (2018) Test of the Gravitational Redshift with Galileo Satellites in an Eccentric Orbit. Physical Review Letters, 121, Article ID: 231102. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.121.231102
[90]	Bruschi, D.E., Ralph, T.C., Fuentes, I., Jennewein, T. and Razavi, M. (2014) Spacetime Effects on Satellite-Based Quantum Communications. Physical Review D, 90, Article ID: 045041. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.90.045041
[91]	Steinlechner, F., Trojek, P., Jofre, M., Weier, H., Perez, D., Jennewein, T. and Weinfurter, H. (2017) A High-Brightness Source of Polarization-Entangled Photons Optimized for Applications in Free Space. Optics Express, 25, 6851-6862.
[92]	Yin, J., Li, Y., Liao, S., Yang, M., Cao, Y., Zhang, L., et al. (2020) Entanglement-Based Secure Quantum Cryptography over 1,120 Kilometres. Nature, 582, 501-505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2401-y
[93]	Abbott, B.P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T.D., Abernathy, M.R., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. (2016) Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Physical Review Letters, 116, Article ID: 061102. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102
[94]	Harry, G.M. (2010) Advanced LIGO: The Next Generation of Gravitational Wave Detectors. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, Article ID: 084006. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084006
[95]	Martynov, D.V., Hall, E.D., Abbott, B.P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T.D., Adams, C., et al. (2016) Sensitivity of the Advanced LIGO Detectors at the Beginning of Gravitational Wave Astronomy. Physical Review D, 93, Article ID: 112004. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.93.112004
[96]	Abbott, B.P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T.D., Abernathy, M.R., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. (2016) Characterization of Transient Noise in Advanced LIGO Relevant to Gravitational Wave Signal Gw150914. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, Article ID: 134001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001
[97]	Aasi, J., Abbott, B.P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Abernathy, M.R., Ackley, K., et al. (2015) Advanced LIGO. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, Article ID: 074001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001
[98]	Abbott, B.P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T.D., Abernathy, M.R., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. (2016) Binary Black Hole Mergers in the First Advanced LIGO Observing Run. Physical Review X, 6, Article ID: 041015. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevx.6.041015
[99]	Allen, B., Anderson, W.G., Brady, P.R., Brown, D.A. and Creighton, J.D.E. (2012) FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for Detection of Gravitational Waves from Inspiraling Compact Binaries. Physical Review D, 85, Article ID: 122006. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.85.122006
[100]	Rabinowitz, P. (2016) A Practical Guide to Error Analysis. Oxford University Press.
[101]	Baker, M. (2016) 1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility. Nature, 533, 452-454. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
[102]	Mann, R.B. (2003) Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime. Classical and Quan-tum Gravity, 20, L13.
[103]	Sachdev, S. (2011) Quantum Phase Transitions. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511973765
[104]	Peskin, M.E. (2018) An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. CRC Press.
[105]	Weinberg, S. (1995) The Quantum Theory of Fields. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139644167
[106]	Shor, P.W. (1999) Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer. SIAM Review, 41, 303-332. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0036144598347011
[107]	Grover, L.K. (1996) A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search. Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Philadelphia, 22-24 May 1996, 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866
[108]	Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, E., Brassard, G. and Vazirani, U. (1997) Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantum Computing. SIAM Journal on Computing, 26, 1510-1523. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0097539796300933
[109]	Kitaev, A.Y. (1995) Quantum Measurements and the Abelian Stabilizer Problem.
[110]	Gottesman, D. (1997) Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction.
[111]	Preskill, J. (1998) Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation. In: Lo, H.-K., et al., Eds., Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information, World Scientific, 213-269. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812385253_0008
[112]	Aharonov, D. and Ben-Or, M. (2008) Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation with Constant Error Rate. SIAM Journal on Computing, 38, 1207-1282. https://doi.org/10.1137/s0097539799359385
[113]	Knill, E., Laflamme, R. and Zurek, W.H. (1998) Resilient Quantum Computation. Science, 279, 342-345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5349.342
[114]	Terhal, B.M. (2015) Quantum Error Correction for Quantum Memories. Reviews of Modern Physics, 87, 307-346. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.87.307
[115]	Hawking, S.W. (1976) Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse. Physical Review D, 14, 2460-2473. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.14.2460
[116]	Page, D.N. (1993) Information in Black Hole Radiation. Physical Review Letters, 71, 3743-3746. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.71.3743
[117]	Susskind, L. (2016) Computational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons. Fortschritte der Physik, 64, 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201500092
[118]	Almheiri, A., Marolf, D., Polchinski, J. and Sully, J. (2013) Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls? Journal of High Energy Physics, 2013, Article No. 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep02(2013)062
[119]	Susskind, L., Thorlacius, L. and Uglum, J. (1993) The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity. Physical Review D, 48, 3743-3761. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.48.3743
[120]	Hayden, P. and Preskill, J. (2007) Black Holes as Mirrors: Quantum Information in Random Subsystems. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2007, Article No. 120. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/120
[121]	Brown, A.R. and Susskind, L. (2019) Second Law of Quantum Complexity. Physical Review D, 100, Article ID: 046020.
[122]	Bekenstein, J.D. (1973) Black Holes and Entropy. Physical Review D, 7, 2333-2346. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.7.2333
[123]	Unruh, W.G. (1976) Notes on Black-Hole Evaporation. Physical Review D, 14, 870-892. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.14.870
[124]	Harlow, D. and Hayden, P. (2013) Quantum Computation vs. Firewalls. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2013, Article No. 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep06(2013)085
[125]	Hawking, S.W. (2005) Information Loss in Black Holes. Physical Review D, 72, Article ID: 084013. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.72.084013
[126]	Stanford, D. and Susskind, L. (2014) Complexity and Shock Wave Geometries. Physical Review D, 90, Article ID: 126007. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.90.126007
[127]	Sekino, Y. and Susskind, L. (2008) Fast Scramblers. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2008, Article No. 65. https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/10/065
[128]	Ryu, S. and Takayanagi, T. (2006) Holographic Derivation of Entanglement Entropy from the Anti-de Sitter Space/Conformal Field Theory Correspondence. Physical Review Letters, 96, Article ID: 181602. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602
[129]	Maldacena, J. (1999) The Large-N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Super-Gravity. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38, 1113-1133. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026654312961
[130]	Witten, E. (1998) Anti De Sitter Space and Holography. Advances in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 2, 253-291. https://doi.org/10.4310/atmp.1998.v2.n2.a2
[131]	Almheiri, A., Dong, X. and Harlow, D. (2015) Bulk Locality and Quantum Error Correction in AdS/CFT. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015, Article No. 163. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep04(2015)163
[132]	Pastawski, F., Yoshida, B., Harlow, D. and Preskill, J. (2015) Holographic Quantum Error-Correcting Codes: Toy Models for the Bulk/Boundary Correspondence. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015, Article No. 149. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep06(2015)149
[133]	Harlow, D. (2017) The Ryu-Takayanagi Formula from Quantum Error Correction. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 354, 865-912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-017-2904-z
[134]	Hayden, P., Nezami, S., Qi, X., Thomas, N., Walter, M. and Yang, Z. (2016) Holographic Duality from Random Tensor Networks. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016, Article No. 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep11(2016)009
[135]	Dong, X., Harlow, D. and Wall, A.C. (2016) Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality. Physical Review Letters, 117, Article ID: 021601. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.117.021601
[136]	Deutsch, D. (2011) The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World. Penguin UK.
[137]	Putnam, H. (1967) Mathematics without Foundations. The Journal of Philosophy, 64, 5-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024603
[138]	Baez, J. (2006) Quantum Quandaries: A Category-Theoretic Perspective. In: Rickles, D., et al., Eds., The Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity, Oxford University Press, 240-265. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269693.003.0008
[139]	Rovelli, C. (1996) Relational Quantum Mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35, 1637-1678. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02302261
[140]	Deutsch, D. (1985) Quantum Theory, the Church-Turing Principle and the Universal Quantum Computer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 400, 97-117.
[141]	Mac Lane, S. (1998) Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer.
[142]	Penrose, R. (1989) The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.
[143]	Tarski, A. (1944) The Semantic Conception of Truth: And the Foundations of Semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341-376. https://doi.org/10.2307/2102968
[144]	Gödel, K. (1931) Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01700692
[145]	Nagel, E. and Newman, J.R. (2001) Gödel’s Proof. NYU Press.
[146]	Smullyan, R.M. (1992) Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems. Oxford University Press.
[147]	Hofstadter, D.R. (1979) Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Basic Books.
[148]	Wheeler, J.A. (1990) Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links. Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, 8, 3-28.
[149]	Lloyd, S. (2006) Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. Vintage.
[150]	Wolfram, S. (2002) A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media.
[151]	von Neumann, J. (1955) Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Prince-ton University Press.
[152]	Bub, J. (2005) Quantum Mechanics Is about Quantum Information. Foundations of Physics, 35, 541-560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-004-2010-x
[153]	Heisenberg, W. (1927) Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01397280
[154]	Hawking, S.W. (2001) The Universe in a Nutshell. Bantam.
[155]	Kant, I. (1781) Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press (1998 Edition).
[156]	Tegmark, M. (2007) The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics, 38, 101-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-007-9186-9
[157]	Wigner, E.P. (1960) The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Richard Courant Lecture in Mathematical Sciences Delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160130102
[158]	Zuse, K. (1969) Calculating Space. MIT Technical Translation.
[159]	Kitaev, A., Shen, A. and Vyalyi, M. (2002) Classical and Quantum Computation. American Mathematical Society. https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/047
[160]	Preskill, J. (2018) Quantum Computing in the NISQ Era and Beyond. Quantum, 2, 79. https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79
[161]	Watrous, J. (2000) Succinct Quantum Proofs for Properties of Finite Groups. Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Redondo Beach, 12-14 November 2000, 537-546. https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.2000.892141
[162]	Aharonov, D. and Naveh, T. (2002) Quantum NP—A Survey.
[163]	Aharonov, D. and Green, F. (2008) A Quantum Inspired Proof of P#P IP.
[164]	Harrow, A.W. and Montanaro, A. (2017) Quantum Computational Supremacy. Nature, 549, 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23458
[165]	Borodin, A. (1980) Time Space Tradeoffs (Getting Closer to the P = ?NP Question) SIAM Journal on Computing, 9, 768-786.
[166]	Savage, J.E. (1998) Models of Computation: Exploring the Power of Computing. Addison-Wesley.
[167]	Bennett, C.H. (1989) Time/Space Trade-Offs for Reversible Computation. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18, 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1137/0218053
[168]	Hawking, S.W. (1978) Spacetime foam. Nuclear Physics B, 144, 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(78)90375-9
[169]	Ng, Y.J. (2003) Selected Topics in Planck-Scale Physics. Modern Physics Letters A, 18, 1073-1097. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0217732303010934
[170]	Penrose, R. (1996) On Gravity’s Role in Quantum State Reduction. General Relativity and Gravitation, 28, 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02105068
[171]	Caves, C.M. (1981) Quantum-Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer. Physical Review D, 23, 1693-1708. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.23.1693
[172]	Wineland, D.J., Monroe, C., Itano, W.M., Leibfried, D., King, B.E. and Meekhof, D.M. (1998) Experimental Issues in Coherent Quantum-State Manipulation of Trapped Atomic Ions. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 103, 259. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.103.019
[173]	Shor, P.W. (1996) Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation. Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science, Burlington, 14-16 October 1996, 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1109/sfcs.1996.548464
[174]	DiVincenzo, D.P. (2000) The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation. Fortschritte der Physik, 48, 771-783. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3978(200009)48:9/11<771::aid-prop771>3.0.co;2-e
[175]	Braginsky, V.B. and Khalili, F.Y. (1995) Quantum Measurement. Cambridge University Press.
[176]	Lloyd, S. (1993) Quantum-Mechanical Computers and Uncomputability. Physical Review Letters, 71, 943-946. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.71.943
[177]	Rideout, D., Jennewein, T., Amelino-Camelia, G., Demarie, T.F., Higgins, B.L., Kempf, A., et al. (2012) Fundamental Quantum Optics Experiments Conceivable with Satellites—Reaching Relativistic Distances and Velocities. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, Article ID: 224011. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/22/224011
[178]	Unruh, W.G. (1995) Maintaining Coherence in Quantum Computers. Physical Review A, 51, 992-997. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.51.992
[179]	Kimble, H.J. (2008) The Quantum Internet. Nature, 453, 1023-1030. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07127
[180]	Cirac, J.I., Zoller, P., Kimble, H.J. and Mabuchi, H. (1997) Quantum State Transfer and Entanglement Distribution among Distant Nodes in a Quantum Network. Physical Review Letters, 78, 3221-3224. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.78.3221
[181]	Kok, P., Munro, W.J., Nemoto, K., Ralph, T.C., Dowling, J.P. and Milburn, G.J. (2007) Linear Optical Quantum Computing with Photonic Qubits. Reviews of Modern Physics, 79, 135-174. https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.79.135
[182]	Bennett, C. H. and Brassard, G. (1984) Quantum Cryptography: Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, Bangalore, 9-12 December 1984, 175-179.
[183]	Ekert, A.K. (1991) Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell’s Theorem. Physical Review Letters, 67, 661-663. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.67.661
[184]	Bennett, C.H., Bessette, F., Brassard, G., Salvail, L. and Smolin, J. (1992) Experimental Quantum Cryptography. Journal of Cryptology, 5, 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00191318
[185]	Gottesman, D. and Chuang, I. (2004) Quantum Digital Signatures.
[186]	Lo, H. and Chau, H.F. (1999) Unconditional Security of Quantum Key Distribution over Arbitrarily Long Distances. Science, 283, 2050-2056. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5410.2050
[187]	Kent, A. (2005) Secure Classical Bit Commitment Using Fixed Capacity Communication Channels. Journal of Cryptology, 18, 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-005-0905-8
[188]	Kent, A. (2011) Quantum Tasks in Minkowski Space. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, Article ID: 093001.
[189]	Kent, A. (2006) Tagging Systems. US Patent 7,075,438.
[190]	Kent, A. (1999) Unconditionally Secure Bit Commitment. Physical Review Letters, 83, 1447-1450. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.83.1447
[191]	Barrett, J., Hardy, L. and Kent, A. (2005) No Signaling and Quantum Key Distribution. Physical Review Letters, 95, Article ID: 010503. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.95.010503