When quantum field theory kicks in: the relation between matter, gravity and energy

Antonio Ferreiro; Andrea Cavallaro

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.10588

When quantum field theory kicks in: the relation between matter, gravity and energy

Antonio Ferreiro·Andrea Cavallaro

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The existence of energy is the main criterion for (i) providing a common core to the materiality of all types of classical matter and (ii) denying that the gravitational field of General Relativity is a type of matter. Extending this criterion to quantum field theory, though formally straightforward, carries new conceptual consequences for the interpretation of gravity. Renormalization of the quantum matter stress-energy tensor forces a local, purely geometric term, built from the metric alone, into the conserved stress-energy, and this has two faces. It grants the metric a material significance alongside its spatio-temporal one (the egalitarian view); and it binds gravitational to non-gravitational energy so tightly that the two cannot be split apart without a choice of vacuum that a generic spacetime does not supply (the unificationist view). The latter poses a dilemma: either gravitational energy is meaningless, but then so is the energy of the non-gravitational quantum fields, and only classical fields remain matter; or both are meaningful, and the metric thereby acquires the material significance of a matter field. On neither horn does the classical divide between matter and spacetime survive quantization.

Explore related subjects

physics.hist-ph gr-qc

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Antonio Ferreiro, Andrea Cavallaro. 2026-10-06. When quantum field theory kicks in: the relation between matter, gravity and energy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10588

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Determinism and Indeterminism as Model Artefacts: Toward a Model-Invariant Ontology of Physics

This paper argues that the traditional opposition between determinism and indeterminism in physics is representational rather than ontological. Deterministic-stochastic dualities are available in principle, and arise in a non-contrived way in many scientifically important models. When dynamical systems admit mathematically equivalent deterministic and stochastic formulations, their observable predictions depend only on the induced structure of correlations between preparations and measurement outcomes. I use this model-equivalence to motivate a model-invariance criterion for ontological commitment, according to which only structural features that remain stable across empirically equivalent representations, and whose physical effects are invariant under such reformulations, are candidates for realism. This yields a fallibilist form of structural realism grounded in modal robustness rather than in the specifics of any given mathematical representation. Features such as conservation laws, symmetries, and causal or metric structure satisfy this criterion and can be encoded in observable relations in mathematically intelligible ways. By contrast, the localisation of modal selection -- whether in initial conditions, stochastic outcomes, or informational collapse mechanisms -- is not invariant under empirically equivalent reformulations and is therefore best understood as a gauge choice rather than an ontological feature. The resulting framework explains how certain long-standing problems in the foundations of physics, including the measurement problem and the perceived conflict between physical determinism and free agency, arise from the reification of representational artefacts. By distinguishing model-invariant structure from modelling conventions, I offer a realist ontology for modern physics that combines empirical openness with resistance to metaphysical overreach.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

The contribution of Soviet scientists to the emergence of high-energy neutrino astrophysics: from the Cherenkov effect to underwater and in-ice telescopes

The 2026 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Francis Halzen @for decisive contributions to the IceCube Neutrino Observatory and the discovery of high-energy neutrinos of astrophysical origin.@ This article examines the Soviet contribution to the broader historical development of high-energy neutrino astrophysics. Four interconnected strands are distinguished: the physics of Cherenkov radiation and its application to cosmic rays; early proposals for large-scale neutrino detection underground and in natural water; the theory of atmospheric, cosmogenic, and astrophysical neutrinos; and the development of underground, underwater, radio, and in-ice detection techniques. The article shows that M. A. Markov s 1960 proposal was concerned primarily with atmospheric neutrinos and with detecting charged secondary particles through Cherenkov radiation in water, whereas the use of Antarctic ice was initially developed in the Soviet Union in the radio domain. The optical concept of a detector in deep polar ice was formulated by F. Halzen and J. G. Learned in 1988. The Pamir cosmic-ray school, the theoretical work of G. T. Zatsepin, V. A. Kuzmin, and V. S. Berezinsky, the Baksan Neutrino Observatory, Soviet participation in DUMAND, and the formation of the Lake Baikal neutrino program are considered separately. The Pamir material is included as historical and methodological context; it does not imply a direct experimental lineage from Pamir installations to IceCube. The historical links of these strands to IceCube are therefore different in character: conceptual and citation-based in some cases, methodological or institutional in others. This distinction helps separate documented continuity of ideas from the broader scientific context in which modern high-energy neutrino astronomy emerged.

physics.hist-ph↗

arXiv2026

Historical Debates over the Physical Reality of the Wave Function

This paper provides a detailed and unified historical account of early debates over wave-function realism, the modern term for the view that the wave function of quantum theory is physically real. As this paper will show, the idea of physical waves associated with particles had its roots in work by Einstein and de Broglie, who both originally thought of these waves as propagating in three-dimensional physical space. De Broglie quickly turned this wave--particle duality into an early pilot-wave theory, on which a particle's associated ``phase wave'' piloted or guided the particle along its trajectory. Schrödinger built on de Broglie's phase-wave hypothesis to provide a comprehensive account of the nascent quantum theory. However, Schrödinger's new ``undulatory mechanics'' came at the cost of replacing de Broglie's phase waves propagating in physical space with a wave function propagating in a system's abstract configuration space. The present work will argue that this move from three-dimensional physical space to a many-dimensional configuration space was a decisive reason why the founders of quantum theory uniformly abandoned the physical reality of the wave function. This paper will further clarify that de Broglie introduced two distinct pilot-wave theories, and will then argue that it was Bohm's rediscovery of the second of these two pilot-wave theories over two decades later, as well as Bohm's vociferous defense of wave-function realism, that were responsible for resurrecting the idea of an ontological wave function. Finally, this paper will describe how the influence of Schrödinger and Bohmended up playing a central role in Everett's development of the ``many worlds'' interpretation.

physics.hist-ph↗