https://arxiv.org/api/2hhBTPnSOGY9JMowHCRkSc6dPuk 2026-03-22T23:05:16Z 5537 135 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17024v2 2025-12-22T06:31:55Z

Recent proposals suggest that detecting entanglement between two spatially superposed masses would establish the quantum nature of gravity. However, these gravitationally induced entanglement (GIE) experiments rely on assumptions about subsystem independence. We sharpen the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals by examining them through the lens of algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT), distinguishing distinct operational and algebraic notions of independence. We argue that state and measurement independence of subsystems, essential to the experimental logic, is nontrivial in the presence of gauge constraints and gravitational dressing. Using gravitationally dressed fields, we recall that commutation relations between spacelike separated observables are nontrivial, undermining strict Hilbert space factorization. We further explore the implications for entanglement witnesses, investigating the Tsirelson bound when subsystem algebras fail to commute, and showing that the Tsirelson bound persists for a suitably symmetrized CHSH observable even though the operational status of such "joint" observables becomes delicate when commensurability fails. Our analysis highlights how even within linearized covariant quantum gravity, violations of microcausality may affect both the interpretation, modelling, and design of proposed laboratory tests of quantum gravity, despite remaining negligible for current experimental regimes. Although we consider GIE-style protocols as a concrete case study, the subsystem-independence issues we highlight are generic to low-energy (perturbative) quantum gravity. Finally, we derive estimates for dressing-induced microcausality violations, which suggest a complementary avenue to current proposals: in principle, bounding dressing-induced microcausality violations themselves as a probe of the quantum nature of gravity.

2025-12-18T19:39:19Z Minor revisions and references added. Comments are very welcome! Nicolas Boulle Guilherme Franzmann http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18603v1 2025-12-21T05:27:22Z

Locally covariant algebraic quantum field theory (LCQFT) satisfies Einstein causality through microcausality and operational no-signalling, yet Bell-type correlations persist in entangled field states across spacelike regions. We demonstrate that this apparent tension reflects a fundamental covariance obstruction: no assignment of classical past variables can simultaneously be covariant under spacetime embeddings, screen off quantum correlations, and reproduce AQFT statistics. This obstruction is distinct from dynamical nonlocality or signalling violations. We formalize this as a no-go theorem in the category-theoretic framework of LCQFT, showing that Bell's notion of local causality -- requiring factorization conditioned on a common past -- is structurally incompatible with diffeomorphism covariance. The failure of Bell locality thus reflects not a breakdown of relativistic causality but the impossibility of embedding quantum correlations into a classical causal framework without introducing preferred foliations or non-covariant beables. This clarifies the conceptual status of nonlocality in relativistic quantum theory.

2025-12-21T05:27:22Z 13 Pages, 2 Figures Joseph Samper Finberg http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18257v1 2025-12-20T07:47:53Z

Standard formulations of supervenience typically treat higher level properties as point valued facts strictly fixed by underlying base states. However, in many scientific domains, from statistical mechanics to machine learning, basal structures more naturally determine families of probability measures than single outcomes. This paper develops a general framework for stochastic supervenience, in which the dependence of higher level structures on a physical base is represented by Markov kernels that map base states to distributions over macro level configurations. I formulate axioms that secure law like fixation, nondegeneracy, and directional asymmetry, and show that classical deterministic supervenience appears as a limiting Dirac case within the resulting topological space of dependence relations. To connect these metaphysical claims with empirical practice, the framework incorporates information theoretic diagnostics, including normalized mutual information, divergence based spectra, and measures of tail sensitivity. These indices are used to distinguish genuine structural stochasticity from merely epistemic uncertainty, to articulate degrees of distributional multiple realization, and to identify macro level organizations that are salient for intervention. The overall project offers a conservative extension of physicalist dependence that accommodates pervasive structured uncertainty in the special sciences without abandoning the priority of the base level.

2025-12-20T07:47:53Z Youheng Zhang http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18105v1 2025-12-19T22:22:12Z

We reformulate the CHSH game in terms of indivisible stochastic processes. Using Barandes's stochastic-quantum correspondence and its associated definition of causal locality, we present a novel proof of the Tsirelson bound. In particular, we show that unlike the no-signaling principle alone, the postulates defining causally local, indivisible stochastic processes are precisely strong enough to allow for violations of the Bell inequality up to, but not beyond, the Tsirelson bound.

2025-12-19T22:22:12Z 13 pages, 2 figures Jacob A. Barandes Mahmudul Hasan David Kagan http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18040v1 2025-12-19T20:14:26Z

Why do physicists almost universally take the direction of positive rotation to be counterclockwise, and three-dimensional coordinates to be right-handed? This paper traces the historical development of these chiral conventions, with an emphasis on the physical quantity whose direction became the focal point of this discussion in the mid-1800s, the magnetic field. Though these standards are often reduced to mere mathematical, inconsequential choices, an analysis of the impact of Newton, Maxwell, the London Mathematical Society, and others toward the subject can enhance classroom discussion, not only as a contextual sidebar, but also by emphasizing the influence conventions in physics can have on pedagogy, communication, and scientific advancement.

2025-12-19T20:14:26Z 18 pages, 4 figures, 1 appendix Am. J. Phys. 94, 191-196 (2026) Tyler McMaken 10.1119/5.0220969 http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.18002v1 2025-12-19T19:01:47Z

For a century, quantum theory has posed a fundamental challenge to philosophical thinking. On its face, it repudiates many of the key features of the mechanical conception of physical reality. However, the challenge of developing a precise, coherent alternative to that conception has yet to be met. Here, I argue that a major hindrance to the project of quantum interpretation is its existing interpretative methodologies, which suffer from a lack of systematicity in their judgements about what aspects of the theory are interpretational relevant. In particular, I argue that current interpretations tend to marginalize the informal part of the theory in favour of its formal part, and place inappropriate emphasis on the natural language component of the formalism over its detailed mathematical structure. To counterbalance these biases, I propose that an interpretation-free zone be constructed around the theory, wherein an interpreter initially adopt a descriptive stance which considers all parts of the theory, and that the results of this deliberation~(and the judgements about what facts are interpretationally relevant) are reported as part of their interpretation. I argue that the interpretation of quantum theory poses special challenges and difficulties which necessitate this interpretation-free zone, and that existing interpretative methodologies are insufficient to address them. Further, I argue that a reconstructive interpretative methodology, which harnesses the recent results of the quantum reconstruction program, provides a powerful means to identify almost all facts that could be interpretationally relevant, and naturally meets these challenges and difficulties. Moreover, I argue that the quantum reconstruction program offers a powerful way to discover new physical principles, and offers a systematic pathway to build a rich, coherent conception of quantum reality.

2025-12-19T19:01:47Z Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 115 (2026) 102100 Philip Goyal 10.1016/j.shpsa.2025.102100 http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06375v4 2025-12-19T09:20:18Z

The quantum mechanics postulate called the Born Rule attributes a probabilistic meaning to a wave function. This paper derives the Born Rule from other quantum principles along with a model of the measurement process. The nondeterministic nature of quantum measurements is hypothesized to arise from an ignorance of the quantum states of a measuring device's microscopic components. Their interactions with a system to be measured are modeled heuristically with any member of a particular class of stochastic processes, each of which generate the Born Rule. One member of the class appears particularly compatible with properties expected of quantum interactions.

2024-08-08T12:10:26Z The previous version of the paper portrayed its failure to identify a specific quantum mechanism with any of the stochastic models as a deficiency of the approach. The revision realizes that this is instead a positive feature, in that the models' lack of specificity to any particular physical measurement mechanism is a property shared with the Born Rule itself. Second revision had typo page 1 Alan Schaum http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12716v5 2025-12-19T08:02:25Z

The Frauchiger-Renner argument aims to show that `quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself': in many-party settings where agents are themselves subject to quantum experiments, agents may make predictions that contradict observations. Here, we introduce a simplified setting using only three agents, that is independent of the initial quantum state, thus eliminating in particular any need for entanglement, and furthermore does not need to invoke any final measurement and resulting collapse. Nevertheless, the predictions and observations made by the agents cannot be integrated into a single, consistent account. We propose that the existence of this sort of \emph{Rashomon effect}, i.e. the impossibility of uniting different perspectives, is due to failing to account for the limits put on the information available about any given system as encapsulated in the notion of an \emph{epistemic horizon}.

2020-11-23T16:49:14Z v5: 36 pages, 8 figures; clarifications, amendments and corrections throughout; main conclusions unchanged. Comments still very welcome! Jochen Szangolies http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17124v1 2025-12-18T23:31:13Z

Dualities in physics have challenged traditional forms of scientific realism by undermining the idea that theories describe a unique underlying ontology. In this paper, we develop a new perspective on scientific realism that responds to this challenge. We argue that while realist commitment remains appropriate at the level of a theory's full formal structure, ontological commitment should be treated as tied to specific empirical contexts rather than to a fixed, real ontology. Our proposal draws inspiration from Dennett's notion of a "compression algorithm" as a defining criterion of a scientific theory. On this basis, we separate realism from ontological commitment. To clarify the stakes of this distinction, we contrast our approach with common core realism, which locates ontology in the invariant structure shared by dual models. Focusing on dualities in quantum mechanics and string theory, we show how our view accommodates ontological pluralism while preserving a robust form of structural realism.

2025-12-18T23:31:13Z Comments and suggestions are very welcome! Richard Dawid Guilherme Franzmann http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17050v1 2025-12-18T20:37:47Z

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". The paper explains the essence of their studies and shows in a historical context the importance of earlier research in superconductivity and quantum physics of macroscopic systems by other physicists, particularly, Ukrainian scientists, including employees of the B. Verkin Institute for Low Temperature Physics and Engineering of the NAS of Ukraine (ILTPE). The role of the Fizyka Nyzkykh Temperatur (FNT) journal issued by ILTPE in Kharkiv and its translation as AIP Low Temperature Physics (LTP) in dissemination of results of the theoretical and experimental studies in the field is emphasized as well.

2025-12-18T20:37:47Z 3 pages, 1 figure, accepted manuscript before minor correction (see the published paper) Low Temp. Phys. 51, 1522-1524 (2025) O. G. Turutanov 10.1063/10.0039961 http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23721v1 2025-12-18T10:04:14Z

We read Karen Crowther's \emph{Another 100 Years of Quantum Interpretation?} with two practical goals. First, we spell out what she means by interpretation'': an attempt to provide understanding (not just predictions), which may be representationalist or non-representationalist, and which she contrasts with deeper \emph{reductive} (inter-theoretic) explanation -- especially in the quantum-gravity setting. Second, we list twelve points where the paper's physics-facing wording could be sharpened. In our view, several claims are directionally well-motivated but stated more strongly than the underlying physics supports, or they run together distinct notions (e.g.\ degrees of freedom,'' singularity,'' and different senses of locality'') that need careful separation. We end by suggesting that the philosophical question is genuinely worthwhile, but the physics should be phrased more cautiously so that heuristic motivation is not mistaken for strict implication.

2025-12-18T10:04:14Z 13 pages, many references, notes on arXiv:2512.14315 Mikołaj Sienicki Krzysztof Sienicki http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03184v3 2025-12-17T15:41:28Z

We revisit the status of quantum probabilities in light of Kolmogorovian Censorship (KC) and the Contexts, Systems and Modalities (CSM) framework, and we compare KC-based frameworks with alternatives such as superdeterminism, supermeasurements, and predictive incompleteness. After briefly recalling the technical content of KC and its scope, we show that KC correctly identifies that probabilities are classical within a fixed measurement context but does not by itself remove the conceptual tension that motivates nonlocal or conspiratorial explanations of Bell-inequality violations. We argue that predictive incompleteness - the view that the quantum state is operationally incomplete until the measurement context is specified - provides a simple, minimal, and explanatory framework that preserves relativistic locality while matching experimental practice. Finally we clarify logical relations among these positions, highlight the assumptions behind them, and justify the move from Kolmogorov's to Gleason's framework for quantum probabilities.

2024-05-06T06:20:54Z 7 pages, no figure. In v2 some clarifications and discussions have been added. In v3 the paper has been refurbished and expanded Philippe Grangier http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.08715v2 2025-12-17T15:35:45Z

We argue that special and general theories of relativity implicitly assume spacetime events correspond to quantum measurement outcomes. This leads to a change in how one should view the equivalence of spacetime and gravity. We describe a Bell test using time-like measurements that indicates a non classical causal structure that does not violate no-signaling. From this perspective, the violation of the Bell inequalities are already evidence for the non classical structure of flat spacetime as seen by an agent embedded in it. We argue that spacetime geometry can be learned by an embedded agent with internal actuators and sensors making internal measurements.

2025-03-10T12:03:13Z To appear in the proceedings of "Quantum Gravity and Computation", Routledge Series on Philosophy of Physics and Mathematics. Revised version G. J. Milburn http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09567v6 2025-12-16T18:42:05Z

What is information, physically, and why does it so reliably emerge in living, cultural, and technological systems? Existing theories quantify uncertainty, cost, or compressibility, but do not identify which physical structures count as information or how informational entities arise from dynamics. Here we introduce a causal-physical framework that defines information as a heritable causal role played by persistent (metastable) structures in a dynamical system. We represent long-lived structures as almost-invariant sets and assemble them into causal structure sets that encode how such structures generate, transform, and maintain one another. Within this representation, informational entities are singled out by three generative motifs: replication, heritable variation, and translation under shared templates, which together define when a collection of structures constitutes an information family. We demonstrate the full pipeline by mapping a concrete cultural episode (fruit-salad recipe sharing and modification) into a causal structure set, and show how the motifs and information families can then be identified algorithmically. The framework yields computable quantities, including informational fitness and informational entropy, directly from causal structure, enabling informational variants to be detected, compared, and tracked across biological, cultural, engineered, and digital domains. Finally, motivated by analogies to random directed graphs and catalytic networks, we propose testable conditions under which hereditary informational motifs become statistically generic in sufficiently large causal-physical systems.

2024-07-06T16:37:01Z - Wouter van der Wijngaart http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14315v1 2025-12-16T11:32:39Z

Interpretation is not the only way to explain a theory's success, form and features, and nor is it the only way to solve problems we see with a theory. This can also be done by giving a reductive explanation of the theory, by reference to a newer, more accurate, and/or more fundamental theory. We are seeking a theory of quantum gravity, a more fundamental theory than both quantum mechanics and general relativity, yet, while this theory is supposed to explain general relativity, it's not typically been thought to be necessary, or able, to explain quantum mechanics -- a task instead assigned to interpretation. Here, I question why this is. I also present a new way of assessing the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, in terms of their heuristic and unificatory potential in helping us find a more fundamental theory.

2025-12-16T11:32:39Z An edited version is to appear in: How to Understand Quantum Mechanics - 100 Years of Ongoing Interpretation, edited by Lars-Göran Johansson and Jan Faye Karen Crowther