Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates the irreducibility of the interacting entanglement Hamiltonian in flat space, suggesting important implications for quantum field theory.
Scope label (load-bearing). Genuinely interacting quantum field theory in flat 1+1 Minkowski space. No gravity: not dynamical, not backreacting, not quantum. This is Exit (a) of Proposition 2 — the coupling axis, isolated from the gravity axis. Archived as Phase VII (with its certification Phase VII-b); not merged into the free-field Minkowski corpus of Phases IV–V, nor into the fixed-curved-background Phase VI. Phase VI closed the fixed-background branch with a structural obstruction (Proposition 2): for a free field on a fixed classical background the state is a functional of the background data, hence so is every modular observable, and grade (ii) is the ceiling — a genuine positive is structurally unreachable there. Exactly two exits survive: (a) genuine interaction, and (b) dynamical gravity. This paper attacks Exit (a), the minimal scope extension: still flat space, no gravity, only the coupling switched on. The object is the interval entanglement Hamiltonian K_A = −log ρ_A in the DMRG/MPS ground state of the mixed-field Ising chain — genuinely interacting, non-integrable, gapped, non-conformal — and the reference is the model's own interacting Bisognano–Wichmann family (identity plus a freely weighted local energy density plus first descendants), never the free stress tensor. The same structural logic caps the attainable outcome at a distinction inside grade (ii): REDUCE (the third verdict extends to coupling) versus IRREDUCIBLE (the first crack of the enclosure). Both were preregistered as publishable and hash-frozen before any production run. Phase VII returned a substantive but uncertifiable result: all four target residuals sit 5–30× below the controls, the residual anti-tracks the coupling, and the co-primary spectral reconstruction echoes a correlation-length ordering — yet the frozen multiplicative threshold (θ = 10 × floor = 1.62) exceeded the maximum response of any bounded foil (≈ 0.45), because the free-control floor was dominated by Jordan–Wigner representation mismatch, an instrument bias ~30× the target signals. The teeth precondition failed by arithmetic, not by physics, and the verdict was left with an asterisk. Phase VII-b removes it: an independently frozen rerun in the model's natural variables (the fermionic Jordan–Wigner-bilinear BW family, whose free-control residual is exactly zero at full range — the calibration the earlier instrument lacked), an additive threshold, and satisfiable contrast teeth. Teeth pass; all four targets lie 8–200× below the certified threshold and below every control, in both representations. Verdict: COLLAPSE (Exit (a)), certified. The interacting entanglement Hamiltonian reduces to the local Bisognano–Wichmann energy density; the reduction is representation-independent, and increasing the coupling makes K_A more BW-local, not less. The strong-coupling axis carries no grade-(ii)-irreducible modular orientation. No grade-(i) claim is made or implied (Proposition 2 forbids it for a fixed-Hamiltonian ground state). The genuine positive, if it exists, is pushed onto Exit (b) — dynamical geometry — named and out of scope here. Preregistration and reproducibility. Both investigations were governed by preregistrations frozen and hashed before any production run — Phase VII: SHA-256(§1–§6) = 5c53a0c0…fc09f (frozen 2026-06-30 22:45:34 UTC); Phase VII-b: SHA-256(§1–§6) = c63f8a10…39d46 — with append-only deviation logs (DEV-1…DEV-6 and DEV-1…DEV-4(VII-b)) below the hash boundary, and cautionary records of the two failed instruments preserved rather than discarded. Code, preregistrations, per-claim ledgers, and all emitted CSV/JSON data: https://github.com/PauDD/Simulador-Fase-VII Continues Phase IV (10.5281/zenodo.21261576), Phase V (10.5281/zenodo.21302338) and Phase VI (10.5281/zenodo.21321084) of the programme Rigidez de la Incidencia Geométrica (Geometric Incidence Rigidity).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pablo Domínguez Delmás (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: