MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416534546 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.12925

Physical limits on information metrics and quantum gravity as gravitized quantum theory

2025· preprint· en· W4416534546 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Per Berglund, Andrew Geraci, Tristan Hübsch, David Mattingly, Djordje Minić

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueJulian Schwinger Foundation for Physics ResearchCERNJohn Templeton FoundationGordon and Betty Moore FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyW. M. Keck FoundationAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantum gravityQuantum informationOpen quantum systemCovariant transformationQuantum processQuantum operationGroup field theoryQuantumQuantum probabilityGeneral relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a long history in both general relativity and quantum mechanics of removing fixed background structures, thereby making observed objects and measurement processes dynamical. We continue this evolution by combining central insights from both theories to argue that physical limits on information collection resulting from quantum gravity coupled with general covariance preclude the fixed information geometry still assumed in both information theory and quantum mechanics. As a consequence there must be a gravitized, generally covariant extension of both theories. We also propose a novel experimental test involving intrinsic triple and higher order quantum interferences that would provide evidence for dynamical information metrics and a dynamical Born rule.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207