https://arxiv.org/api/BCRP41oNSbdHsS0WxhhG6rSOrhA 2026-03-22T21:41:34Z 5537 120 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02419v1 2026-01-03T13:11:40Z

This philosophical dialogue explores the idea that the foundational principles of quantum mechanics need not be interpreted as describing a new physics, but may instead arise from the logical necessity of formalising the act of measurement within a coherent algebraic framework. By pushing this perspective to its extreme, the dialogue argues that the core structures of quantum mechanics can be derived independently of any specifically quantum properties of atomic particles, and can be formulated within an otherwise classical theory once limitations of observability and measurement context are taken seriously.

2026-01-03T13:11:40Z Marcello Poletti http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.01930v3 2026-01-03T06:23:38Z

We reframe the EPR argument through an operational lens, replacing the notion of fixed "elements of reality" with context-indexed conditional states - what's often referred to as a measurement assemblage. This move deliberately sidesteps the assumption of context-independent values for incompatible observables. Our updated version of the Reality Criterion works like this: if Alice measures observable x and obtains outcome a, then Bob's system must adopt a conditional state that ensures the corresponding outcome for that specific context. Crucially, we also assume operational completeness - a condition that quantum mechanics satisfies when we're dealing with quantum-reachable assemblages. Now, in any theory where one party cannot signal to the other (so-called one-sided no-signaling theories), perfect predictions do support drawing context-indexed inferences. But - and this is key - they don't legitimize assigning fixed values across all contexts. We rigorously demonstrate this distinction. To ground the argument, we offer examples: the qubit singlet scenario using Pauli settings and CJWR thresholds, a continuous-variable case based on the Reid criteria, and a counterexample in the spirit of the PR box, which highlights the boundaries of what quantum theory can actually reach.

2025-11-02T14:11:20Z 9 pages, 13 references, 1 table. V2: Improved formatting and presentation. Fixed a bunch of typos and added new references Mikołaj Sienicki Krzysztof Sienicki http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.01070v1 2026-01-03T04:55:19Z

Tractatus de Conscientia is a tractatus-style sketch toward a modern, physically operational account of consciousness. It is also a tractatus-style attempt to talk about consciousness in a way that stays close to what we can actually test and build. It pushes back against two common moves: treating consciousness as a mysterious extra "stuff," and treating it as nothing more than outward behavior. The central idea is to keep three things separate: what appears for an agent (the lived "given"), what is accessible (what can shape report, control, memory, or other records), and what structure remains when we change descriptions (the invariants of organization). On this view, a conscious episode isn't a mathematical instant. It has a short duration during which many internal distinctions are pulled together into one perspective and held stable enough to guide action--and sometimes to be reported. Unity is captured as a kind of "whole-over-parts" surplus: the system, over a chosen timescale and partition, carries more integrated predictive power than its pieces considered separately, and that surplus must also be available to access channels (so we don't count integration that never makes a difference to anything the agent can do or say). The self, in turn, is treated less like a hidden entity and more like a dynamical role--a self-index that helps bind episodes over time by stabilizing prediction and control across changing contexts. The tractatus also stresses a hard limit: every piece of evidence about consciousness requires coupling to the system, and coupling changes what we observe. So there is no protocol-free, perfectly private "identifier" of what-it-is-like. Consciousness is something we infer and attribute under explicit measurement setups, conventions, and uncertainty bounds--and we should be willing to say "we can't tell" when identifiability runs out.

2026-01-03T04:55:19Z 32 pages, 1 figure and bibliography. A physically operationalist approach to consciousness Mikołaj Sienicki Krzysztof Sienicki http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00168v1 2026-01-01T02:17:39Z

This paper develops a process-based account of scientific explanation that reconceives grounding in terms of stabilisation. Grounding theories capture hierarchical dependence but lack criteria for when explanations remain adequate under model updates, perturbations, and theory change. Stabilisation is formally defined by a schema \(C \to P(I)\), where explanatory relations are sufficient when they preserve specified relational invariants under admissible transformations. This replaces the search for ultimate foundations with operational adequacy tests indexed to measurable invariance, resolving infinite regress worries while preserving a modest scientific realism. Applications show unifying power: theory change becomes an empirical question about structural continuity; quantum measurement becomes apparatus-dependent pattern selection; the effectiveness of mathematics reflects convergence on transformation-invariant descriptions; and emergence versus reduction reduces to stability of cross-level mappings. The black hole event horizon illustrates how ontologically identical states can diverge in admissible evolution, revealing process as explanatorily fundamental. Companion work develops apparatus-dependent adequacy protocols, including pointer-basis rotation and coupling-spectra methods, turning the framework into a falsifiable research programme across quantum, thermodynamic, and relativistic domains.

2026-01-01T02:17:39Z 14 pages Jonathon Sendall http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24198v1 2025-12-30T12:59:00Z

This note is a friendly technical check of Jeffrey Bub's There is No Quantum World (arXiv:2512.18400v2). I flag one unambiguous mathematical slip (a cardinality identity that implicitly assumes the Continuum Hypothesis) and then point out a few places where the discussion of infinite tensor products, ``sectorization,'' and measurement updates would benefit from sharper wording. Nothing here is meant as a critique of Bub's interpretive goals; the aim is simply to separate what is mathematically forced from what depends on choices of algebra, representation, or philosophical stance. I end with a short remark on Philippe Grangier's reply (arXiv:2512.22965v1).

2025-12-30T12:59:00Z 5 pages, 10 references. Comments on arXiv:2512.18400v2 and rXiv:2512.22965v1 Krzysztof Sienicki http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00849v1 2025-12-29T14:44:37Z

We discuss whether science is in the process of being transformed from a quest for causality to a quest for correlation in light of the recent development in artificial intelligence. We observe that while a blind trust in the most seductive promises of AI is surely to be avoided, a judicious combination of computer simulation based on physical insight and the machine learning ability to explore ultra-dimensional spaces, holds potential for transformative progress in the way science is going to be pursued in the years to come.

2025-12-29T14:44:37Z 8 pages, 1 figure Alex Hansen Sauro Succi http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22965v1 2025-12-28T15:12:59Z

In a recent preprint [1] Jeffrey Bub presents a discussion of neo-Bohrian interpretations of quantum mechanics, and also of von Neumann's work on infinite tensor products [2]. He rightfully writes that this work provides a theoretical framework that deflates the measurement problem and justifies Bohr's insistence on the primacy of classical concepts. But then he rejects these ideas, on the basis that the infinity limit is "never reached for any real system composed of a finite number of elementary systems". In this note we present opposite views on two major points: first, admitting mathematical infinities in a physical theory is not a problem, if properly done; second, the critics of [3,4,5] comes with a major misunderstanding of these papers: they don't ask about "the significance of the transition from classical to quantum mechanics", but they start from a physical ontology where classical and quantum physics need each other from the beginning. This is because they postulate that a microscopic physical object (or degree of freedom) always appears as a quantum system, within a classical context. Here we argue why this (neo-Bohrian) position makes sense.

2025-12-28T15:12:59Z 5 pages, no figures. Comment on arXiv:2512.18400 Philippe Grangier http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22842v1 2025-12-28T08:48:53Z

In this note I sketch the work of Christiaan Huygens to develop a theory of motion and its application to elastic collisions. In this theory he uses the relativity of uniform linear motion to derive the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy (at the time referred to as living force or vis viva). The conservation of living force was used subsequently by Leibniz as a basic general principle of dynamics, an alternative to that of Newton set forth in the Principia Mathematica.

2025-12-28T08:48:53Z 6 pages, no figures Jan-Willem van Holten http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22618v1 2025-12-27T14:59:18Z

Since its inception, quantum theory has been the subject of fierce interpretive controversy, which persists to this day. Disputed topics include the basic ontology and dynamics of the theory, the role (if any) of measurement, the meaning of probability, and the issue of non-locality. But there is yet another problem that has been largely ignored: how the theory makes contact with observational data. The problem is endemic to physics, and was discussed by Einstein in several places. In this essay, I discuss Einstein's general approach, how it applied to some quantum-mechanical phenomena, and why a central aspect of the solution might lead to novel and important new predictions.

2025-12-27T14:59:18Z Forthcoming in How to Understand Quantum Mechanics? 100 Years of Ongoing Interpretation, Eds. J. Faye and L. Johansson, Springer. 33 pages Tim Maudlin http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17948v2 2025-12-27T05:34:59Z

This volume, \textbf{Physicists Are Still Joking}, serves as a definitive almanac of scientific humor spanning sixty years. It traces the evolution of professional folklore across geopolitical divides and technological eras. \textbf{Part I} restores the classic 1966 anthology \textbf{Physicists Joke}, which originally served as a window for Soviet scientists into the best traditions of Western scientific humor; it consists primarily of articles translated from English, here meticulously restored to their original wording. \textbf{Part II} presents the 1992 sequel, \textbf{Physicists Keep Joking}, which captures the shift toward an original, introspective Russian scientific folklore born during the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. \textbf{Part III: Still Joking} explores the modern digital age, compiling contemporary science humor from physics, astronomy, biology, computer science and AI research. While the tools of science have evolved from slide rules to neural networks, the tradition of skeptical, self-referential wit remains a constant. Spanning from the "Golden Age" of vacuum tubes to the era of AI and Large Language Models, this collection documents the enduring ability of scientists to laugh at the universe and themselves.

2025-12-16T04:38:06Z 156 pages Igor Halperin http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06018v3 2025-12-26T14:22:27Z

It would be reasonable to recall some critical issues in physical cosmology development. GR was created by A. Einstein in 1915. In 1917 Einstein proposed the first (static) cosmological model. Soon after the A. Eddington proved that the model is unstable therefore it can not be realizable in nature. In 1922 and 1924 A. A. Friedmann found non-stationary solutions for cosmological equations written in the framework of GR. In 1927 G. Lemaitre obtained very similar results and, in addition, he derived the Hubble law (E. Hubble obtained this law from observations). Unfortunately, G. Lemaitre published his paper in not very popular Belgium journal. In 1931 Lemaitre proposed the first version of hot Universe model (he called it hypothesis of the primeval atom). In his book Lemaitre predicted even a background radiation as a signature of his model. One of the important property of the Lemaitre -- Gamow model was a prediction of CMB radiation with a temperature around a few K. It was recalled that the discovery of CMB radiation was done by T. Shmaonov in 1956 and his paper was published in 1957 (several years before Penzias and Wilson). In 1965, 1970 E. B. Gliner proposed vacuum like equation of matter which could correspond to exponential explosion of the Universe which was later called inflation. For decades in USSR, Friedmann's cosmological non-stationary models were treated as purely mathematical results without cosmologocal applications. On September 16, 1925 passed away untimely and it would be reasonable to remind today his great contribution in physical cosmology since the authors of book on Friedmann wrote that "similarly to Copernicus who forced the Earth to move Friedmann forced the Universe to expand".

2025-11-08T14:10:03Z presented as a plenary talk at The XXVIth International Baldin Seminar on High Energy Physics Problems "Relativistic Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chromodynamics" (JINR, Dubna), minor misprints are corrected, references were added, accepted in Physics of Elementary Particles and Atomic Nuclei, 23 pages, 3 figures Alexander F. Zakharov http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21858v1 2025-12-26T04:48:47Z

In 1954, following a five-year research period in the U.S., Professor Hideki Yukawa returned to Japan and visited Kochi on March 21 to attend the unveiling ceremony for the first statue of him ever built in Japan, a project initiated by the PTA of Yasu Elementary School in Yasu Town, Kochi Prefecture. By a coincidence of history, just three weeks prior on March 1, the U.S. had conducted a hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Many Japanese fishing boats were operating there at the time and had not been informed in advance. As a result, numerous boats, including the Daigo Fukuryu Maru, were exposed to radiation. Upon his arrival at Kochi Station on the evening of March 21, Yukawa was relentlessly questioned by reporters about the Bikini hydrogen bomb. This was a source of deep anguish for Yukawa, a Japanese physicist who had won the Nobel Prize for his work on "atomic physics." He firmly refused to answer, stating that the topic was "outside the scope of my research." The next evening, at a public lecture in Kochi City on March 22, he again refused to speak about the Bikini hydrogen bomb or nuclear power, stating that he was an amateur in nuclear research and that there were many other experts. However, just four days later, on March 28, after returning to Kyoto, Yukawa drafted his famous essay, "The Turning Point for Humanity and Atomic Power," which was published in a newspaper on March 30. From that point on, he was drawn into the tumultuous issue of the Bikini hydrogen bomb and nuclear power. When did a tormented Yukawa make his decision? This article meticulously reveals, based on historical documents, what led the anguished Yukawa to make such a rapid decision within a single day and what caused the immense change in his mindset overnight.

2025-12-26T04:48:47Z 64 pages, in Japanese language Soryushiron Kenkyu (Kyoto) 2025 Shigeo Ohkubo http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20416v1 2025-12-23T15:00:11Z

For most of its history, cosmology was a qualitatively constrained discourse on the universe, shaped by limited observational access and the absence of global dynamical laws. This situation has changed decisively in recent decades. Modern cosmology is now driven by an unprecedented flow of high-precision data from a wide range of independent probes, including the cosmic microwave background, large-scale structure, supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, gravitational lensing, cosmic chronometers, redshift-space distortions, gravitational-wave standard sirens, and emerging 21-cm observations, among others. This observational wealth is matched by a concrete theoretical and mathematical framework, based on general relativity, which provides the dynamical equations governing the evolution of spacetime and matter at cosmic scales. Combined with explicit background and perturbative equations, this framework enables quantitative, predictive, and falsifiable descriptions of cosmic evolution. Thus, cosmology operates today as a nomological natural science of the observable universe, characterized by general laws, predictive power, and systematic empirical testing. We argue that this epistemic transformation motivates a corresponding conceptual shift, directly analogous to the historical transition from astrology to astronomy. In this sense, the transition from cosmology to \emph{cosmonomy} should begin to be discussed among cosmologists, or, more precisely, among cosmonomers.

2025-12-23T15:00:11Z Conceptual and epistemological analysis of modern precision cosmology as a data-driven, law-based science (termed "cosmonomy''), addressed to the cosmology community and historians/philosophers of science Emmanuel N. Saridakis http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19956v1 2025-12-23T01:04:50Z

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2025 has been awarded to John Clarke, John Martinis, and Michel Devoret for "the discovery of macroscopic quantum mechanical tunnelling and energy quantisation in an electric circuit". Their achievements open up possibilities for developing the next generation of quantum technologies, including quantum cryptography, quantum computers, and quantum sensors. This article explains physical grounds of these discoveries and describes the role of earlier studies of weak superconductivity and macroscopic quantum systems by other scientists, highlighting the contribution of researchers from the B.I. Verkin Institute for Low Temperature Physics and Engineering of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, who obtained pioneering results in this field. The paper includes short biographies of the Nobel laureates.

2025-12-23T01:04:50Z 10 pages, 4 photos, English translation of the paper published in Ukrainian in Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, see https://nasu-periodicals.org.ua/index.php/visnyk/article/view/25424/21677 Visn. Nac. Akad. Nauk Ukr. 2025(12) 20-30 O. G. Turutanov 10.15407/visn2025.12.020 http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19790v1 2025-12-22T19:00:01Z

We find a necessary condition for subsystems to become entangled after a quantum reference frame transformation. By distinguishing between quantum systems suitable to act as reference frames and physical systems described relative to these frames, we define passive quantum reference frames and show that transformations between these cannot produce entanglement between physical systems. Our results also apply to the study of entanglement between subsystems in the perspectival framework even when there is no distinction between physical and reference systems.

2025-12-22T19:00:01Z 5 pages + appendices T. Rick Perche Natália Salomé Móller Guilherme Franzmann