https://arxiv.org/api/oeflv7Wcqh2n5UtcKug9HTmWwO0 2026-06-14T10:41:52Z 5610 390 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23527v1 2025-07-31T13:12:20Z

This paper introduces the physics and philosophy of strange metals, which are characterized by unusual electrical and thermal properties that deviate from conventional metallic behaviour. The anomalous strange-metal behaviour discussed here appears in the normal state of a copper-oxide high-temperature superconductor, and it cannot be described using standard condensed-matter physics. Currently, it can only be described through a holographic dual, viz.~a four-dimensional black hole in anti-de Sitter spacetime. This paper first introduces the theory of, and specific experiments carried out on, strange metals. Then it discusses a number of philosophical questions that strange metals open up regarding the experimental evidence for holography and its realist interpretation. Strange metals invert the explanatory arrows, in that usual holographic arguments are seen as giving explanations of the bulk quantum-gravity theory from the boundary. By contrast, the aim here is, by using holography, to explain the experimentally discovered and anomalous properties of strange metals.

2025-07-31T13:12:20Z We dedicate this paper to the memory of Umut Gürsoy, who tragically passed away on 24 April 2025, during the last stages of the paper's completion Enrico Cinti Sebastian De Haro Mark Golden Umut Gürsoy Henk T. C. Stoof http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00034v1 2025-07-30T15:42:39Z

The Schwarzschild solution was the first exact solution to Einstein's 1915 field equations, found by Karl Schwarzschild as early as 1916. And yet, physicists, mathematicians and philosophers have struggled for decades with the interpretation of the Schwarzschild solution and the two singularities appearing in it when it is written in polar coordinates. This article distinguishes between eight different ways in which the two singularities have been interpreted between 1916 and the late 1960s, when Penrose's first singularity theorem shed new and lasting light on the interpretation of the Schwarzschild solution.

2025-07-30T15:42:39Z 29 pages including references Dennis Lehmkuhl http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22747v1 2025-07-30T15:03:41Z

In randomized experiments, the assumption of potential outcomes is usually accompanied by the \emph{joint exogeneity} assumption. Although joint exogeneity has faced criticism as a counterfactual assumption since its proposal, no evidence has yet demonstrated its violation in randomized experiments. In this paper, we reveal such a violation in a quantum experiment, thereby falsifying this assumption, at least in regimes where classical physics cannot provide a complete description. We further discuss its implications for potential outcome modelling, from both practial and philosophical perspectives.

2025-07-30T15:03:41Z This is a preliminary draft in accordance to the presentations of YW at the 2025 Pacific Causal Inference Conference and 2025 Chinese Causal Inference Conference. This draft is being circulated to collect further feedback. A formal version will be publicly available in due course Yuhao Wang Xingjian Zhang http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10778v3 2025-07-30T04:34:14Z

This paper argues that every quantum system can be understood as a sufficiently general kind of stochastic process unfolding in an old-fashioned configuration space according to ordinary notions of probability. This argument is based on an exact correspondence between the class of `indivisible' stochastic processes and quantum theory. This new stochastic-quantum correspondence demotes the wave function from a primary ontological ingredient to a secondary mathematical tool, and yields a deflationary account of exotic quantum phenomena, such as interference, decoherence, entanglement, noncommutative observables, and wave-function collapse. At a more practical level, the stochastic-quantum correspondence leads to a novel reconstruction of quantum theory, alongside the Hilbert-space, path-integral, and quasiprobability representations, and also provides a framework for using Hilbert-space methods to formulate highly generic, non-Markovian types of stochastic dynamics, with potential applications throughout the sciences.

2023-02-20T04:11:05Z 38 pages, no figures, accepted version for publication, with some material moved into arxiv:2507.21192 Philosophy of Physics 3(1): 8 (2025) Jacob A. Barandes 10.31389/pop.186 http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21695v1 2025-07-29T11:19:00Z

We introduce a benchmark framework developed by and for the scientific community to evaluate, monitor and steer large language model development in fundamental physics. Building on philosophical concepts of scientific understanding and creativity, we develop a scoring system in which each question is scored by an expert for its correctness, difficulty, and surprise. The questions are of three forms: (i) multiple-choice questions for conceptual understanding, (ii) analytical problems requiring mathematical derivation, and (iii) openended tasks requiring complex problem solving. Our current dataset contains diverse set of examples, including a machine learning challenge to classify high-energy physics events, such as the four top quark signal. To ensure continued relevance, we propose a living benchmark, where physicists contribute questions, for instance alongside new publications. We invite contributions via: http://www.physicsbenchmarks.org/. We hope that this benchmark will enable a targeted AI development that can make a meaningful contribution to fundamental physics research.

2025-07-29T11:19:00Z Kristian G. Barman Sascha Caron Faegheh Hasibi Eugene Shalugin Yoris Marcet Johannes Otte Henk W. de Regt Merijn Moody http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22950v1 2025-07-29T10:03:45Z

General relativity treats spacetime as dynamical and exhibits its breakdown at singularities. This failure is interpreted as evidence that quantum gravity is not a theory formulated within spacetime; instead, it must explain the very emergence of spacetime from deeper quantum degrees of freedom, thereby resolving singularities. Quantum gravity is therefore envisaged as an axiomatic structure, and algorithmic calculations acting on these axioms are expected to generate spacetime. However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Tarski's undefinability theorem, and Chaitin's information-theoretic incompleteness establish intrinsic limits on any such algorithmic programme. Together, these results imply that a wholly algorithmic "Theory of Everything" is impossible: certain facets of reality will remain computationally undecidable and can be accessed only through non-algorithmic understanding. We formalize this by constructing a "Meta-Theory of Everything" grounded in non-algorithmic understanding, showing how it can account for undecidable phenomena and demonstrating that the breakdown of computational descriptions of nature does not entail a breakdown of science. Because any putative simulation of the universe would itself be algorithmic, this framework also implies that the universe cannot be a simulation.

2025-07-29T10:03:45Z 13 pages Journal of Holography Applications in Physics 5 (2), 10-21 (2025) Mir Faizal Lawrence M. Krauss Arshid Shabir Francesco Marino 10.22128/jhap.2025.1024.1118 http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21615v1 2025-07-29T09:15:46Z

Scientific realism is the philosophical stance that science tracks truth, in particular in its depiction of the world's ontology. Ontologically, this involves a commitment to the existence of entities posited by our best scientific theories; metaontologically, it includes the claim that the theoretical framework itself is true. In this article, we examine wave function realism as a case study within this broader methodological debate. Wave function realism holds that the wave function, as described by quantum mechanics, corresponds to a real physical entity. We focus on a recent formulation of this view that commits to the ontology of the wave function while deliberately avoiding the metaontological question of the framework's truth. Instead, the view is defended on pragmatic, non-truth-conductive grounds. This, we argue, raises tensions for the purported realism of wave function realism and its compatibility with scientific realism more broadly.

2025-07-29T09:15:46Z Forthcoming in Foundations of Physics Raoni Arroyo Jonas R. Becker Arenhart http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21192v1 2025-07-27T22:08:28Z

According to the stochastic-quantum correspondence, a quantum system can be understood as a stochastic process unfolding in an old-fashioned configuration space based on ordinary notions of probability and `indivisible' stochastic laws, which are a non-Markovian generalization of the laws that describe a textbook stochastic process. The Hilbert spaces of quantum theory and their ingredients, including wave functions, can then be relegated to secondary roles as convenient mathematical appurtenances. In addition to providing an arguably more transparent way to understand and modify quantum theory, this indivisible-stochastic formulation may lead to new possible applications of the theory. This paper initiates a deeper investigation into the conceptual foundations and structure of the stochastic-quantum correspondence, with a particular focus on novel forms of gauge invariance, dynamical symmetries, and Hilbert-space dilations.

2025-07-27T22:08:28Z 35 pages, no figures, contains material removed from arXiv:2302.10778 (Version 1) Jacob A. Barandes http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20313v1 2025-07-27T15:10:30Z

In this article, I argue that modern spacetime physics causes problems for a number of traditional accounts of modality, but also offers important new ideas about the connection between modal and non-modal features of reality. I suggest that recent work on relational observables in general relativity and quantum gravity can help us understand how non-modal features of reality could arise from modal features of reality within some form of modal ontic structural realism. In particular, I argue that the notion of an `internal view,' as employed in the partial/complete observables formalism and the quantum reference frame formalism, is an important conceptual insight which can help address outstanding problems in the philosophy of lawhood and modality.

2025-07-27T15:10:30Z Forthcoming in Synthese Emily Adlam http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19834v1 2025-07-26T07:09:46Z

Motivated by a generalization of Hempel's dilemma, I introduce a novel notion of empirical structure, as well as theory supervenience as a new reductive relationship between theories. One theory supervenes on another theory if the empirical structure of the latter theory refines the empirical structure of the former theory. I then argue that (1) empirical structure physicalism, the thesis that the current special sciences supervene both on current and on future physics, avoids both horns of Hempel's dilemma; (2) in particular, mental theories remain empirically dispensable in the future; (3) empirical structure realism, the thesis that earlier theories of physics supervene on later theories of physics, is supported by an optimistic meta-induction; (4) this optimistic meta-induction can coexist with the well-known pessimistic meta-induction; (5) empirical structure physicalism is appropriately labeled as a type of physicalism; and (6) empirical structure physicalism is compatible with multiple realization. To illustrate the plausibility of empirical structure physicalism, I also briefly address the so-called knowledge argument.

2025-07-26T07:09:46Z ePDF: https://rdcu.be/exUuE Synthese (2025) 206, 76 Balazs Gyenis 10.1007/s11229-025-05160-x http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19563v1 2025-07-25T15:16:13Z

In his Comment on our recent paper ``The laws of physics do not prohibit counterfactual communication'', \textit{npj Quantum Information} (2022) 8:60, Popescu argues that the claims of the paper are invalid. Here, we refute his argument, showing that it is based on ignoring the specifics of what we set out to prove (that counterfactual communication is possible \emph{for post-selected particles}, and more specifically in these cases is not prohibited by the weak trace or consistent histories criteria for particle path), followed by an unwarranted simplification of the protocol. Moreover, the Comment's excursion into interpretation is misplaced. Our communication protocol is a precisely defined one that allows two remote parties, albeit rarely, to communicate an arbitrarily long binary message, with arbitrarily high accuracy. This is not a matter of interpretation -- as the concrete example given in our paper in question illustrates. As for our overarching claim that no particles are exchanged in the course of this communication, we have already demonstrated this both theoretically and experimentally, in the postselected case we consider, as per the weak trace and consistent histories criteria for path of a quantum particle.

2025-07-25T15:16:13Z 8 pages, no figures. Reply to Popescu's Comment doi:10.1038/s41534-025-00975-5 on our article doi:10.1038/s41534-022-00564-w (arXiv:1806.01257). Published in npj Quantum Information, matches published version npj Quantum Inf 11, 100 (2025) Hatim Salih Jonte R. Hance Will McCutcheon John Rarity 10.1038/s41534-025-01043-8 http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.02826v2 2025-07-24T19:44:27Z

I argue for an approach to the Foundations of Physics that puts the question in the title center stage, rather than asking "what is the case in the world?". This approach, algorithmic idealism, attempts to give a mathematically rigorous in-principle-answer to this question both in the usual empirical regime of physics and in some more exotic regimes within cosmology, philosophy, and science fiction (but soon perhaps real) technology. I begin by arguing that quantum theory, in its actual practice and in some interpretations, should be understood as telling an agent what they should expect to observe next (rather than what is the case), and that the difficulty of answering this former question from the usual "external" perspective is at the heart of persistent enigmas such as the Boltzmann brain problem, extended Wigner's friend scenarios, Parfit's teletransportation paradox, or our understanding of the simulation hypothesis. Algorithmic idealism is a conceptual framework, based on two postulates that admit several possible mathematical formalizations, cast in the language of algorithmic information theory. Here I give a non-technical description of this view and show how it dissolves the aforementioned enigmas: for example, it claims that you should never bet on being a Boltzmann brain regardless of how many there are, that shutting down computer simulations does not generally terminate its inhabitants, and it predicts the apparent embedding into an objective external world as an approximate description.

2024-12-03T20:44:32Z 32 pages, 2 figures. V2: several clarifications and minor corrections Found. Phys. 56, 11 (2026) Markus P. Mueller 10.1007/s10701-026-00913-1 http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.14672v2 2025-07-24T09:11:36Z

The Wigner's Friend thought experiment stands as one of the most intellectually provocative and challenging conceptual puzzles in quantum mechanics. It compels us to confront profound questions concerning the fundamental nature of reality, the very act of observation, and the possible role that consciousness might play within the quantum measurement process. This article gives a general presentation, beginning with Eugene Wigner's seminal proposal of the original thought experiment. In this paper, we explore its initial implications, which shook the foundations of classical physics, and then progress to an examination of the recent theoretical advancements and the ingenious extended versions of the experiment. The recent versions seem to imply that it is no more possible to consider events as absolute.

2025-07-19T15:56:40Z Herve Zwirn http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16928v2 2025-07-24T05:48:50Z

On October 22, 1934, in a famous experiment, Enrico Fermi and his colleagues discovered that a significant increase in induced radioactivity can be obtained when neutrons are slowed down by means of hydrogen atoms. This discovery and its explanation earned him the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics. One year later, on October 1935, Fermi held a public speech in Palermo, Italy, presenting his findings at the 24th congress of the Italian Society for the Progress of Sciences. The transcription of his speech, entitled "Recenti risultati della radioattività artificiale" (Recent Results in Artificial Radioactivity), was soon published in Italy. The published text is one of the very first articles in which Fermi describes the success of the Via Panisperna boys and how he came to discover that hydrogen atoms slowed the neutrons. Unfortunately, the content of the original Italian speech has never been republished since and was forgotten. Similarly, a translation published internally by the US Atomic Energy Commission is not publicly available and is probably lost. In this work, we include the transcription of the original article in Italian, and we also propose an English translation to make the text available worldwide to a broader public.

2025-07-22T18:09:18Z Comments: typos corrected Emanuele Goldoni Ledo Stefanini http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17212v1 2025-07-23T05:11:22Z

I review the works of Gärdenfors (1990) and Scorzato (2013) and show that their combination provides an elegant solution of Goodman's new riddle of induction. The solution is based on two main ideas: (1) clarifying what is expected from a solution: understanding that philosophy of science is a science itself, with the same limitations and strengths as other scientific disciplines; (2) understanding that the concept of complexity of a model's assumptions and the concept of direct measurements must be characterized together. Although both measurements and complexity have been the subject of a vast literature, within the philosophy of science, essentially no other attempt has been made to combine them. The widespread expectation, among modern philosophers, that Goodman's new riddle cannot be solved is not defensible without a serious exploration of such a natural approach. A clarification of this riddle has always been very important, but it has become even more crucial in the age of AI.

2025-07-23T05:11:22Z Luigi Scorzato