May 2026
A major newspaper prompted a journal to retract an article stating consciousness is fundamental, yet the article remains in demand by readers.
In November 2025, scientific journal AIP Advances published an article by Swedish materials science professor Maria Strømme presenting a bold theory at the intersection of natural science and spirituality. The hypothesis is based on mathematics and quantum physics and posits that consciousness is fundamental, meaning that it gives rise to space, time and matter, and survives physical death.
The FJN covered that publication, lauding it as a shift to openness for post-materialist evidence. It is noteworthy that Strømme is a physicist and that AIP Advances mainly deals with physics.
Seven months later, on May 7, the journal retracted the article following critical coverage and questions asked by leading Swedish daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN), which is taking credit for the take-down: “After DN’s review, the journal AIP Advances now chooses to retract the article,” the newspaper writes.
Shortly after Strømme’s article was published, the newspaper ran a piece in which a few physicists harshly critical of the study were interviewed. “This is pseudoscience,” said theoretical physicist Sören Holst to the paper. He thought the theory was “terribly embarrassing” for the physics community. There was a glaring bias in this report as no scientist supporting the hypothesis was interviewed.
That newspaper story led to a public statement by the department of physics and astronomy at Uppsala university – where Strømme has tenure – saying the department distanced itself from her study. The newspaper’s questions to the journal led to the latter investigating Strømme’s article.
The retraction notice reads: “AIP Publishing and the Editors have retracted the referenced article due to concerns about its scientific validity. The operator T [“thought”], which is central to the theory introduced in the paper, has no associated measurable quantity and cannot be verified or falsified through empirical tests. The theory’s predictions are therefore not empirically verifiable. As the theory is postulated and cannot be falsified, it does not meet the standard for scientific validity.”
According to Strømme, the issue of verifiability was raised already when the article was submitted, but it was accepted after a few edits.
The operator “T” represents thought. The hypothesis also includes operators for consciousness and mind, whose “associated measurable quantities” are not mentioned in the retraction notice.
Interestingly, a new study published in AIP Advances on 22 April – only days before the retraction – refers to and partly builds on Strømme’s hypothesis. Her article is still live on the website and available for citation. The only change is a two-line note at the top with a minor headline reading “Connected Content”, informing that a retraction has been added. Her article is still the most read on the site, which visitors can easily and clearly see, and it is still listed as a “featured” article.
Strømme is a recognized researcher in her field with many publications on nanotechnology. She has received several awards and is also a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
The FJN asked AIP Advances the following questions to clarify the basis for the retraction:
- Did you decide to add the retraction notice only after the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter (DN) drew your attention to criticism published in that newspaper? Articles in DN give the impression that this is the case.
- Wasn’t the issue of falsifiability –the formal reason for the retraction – discussed with the author before publishing the scientific article? As far as we understand, it was.
- Considering the requirement you put forward in the retraction notice, can any theory that posits consciousness as fundamental to reality be regarded as scientifically acceptable?
After a couple of weeks, AIP responded:
“AIP Publishing retracted the article following an editorial review which was initiated in accordance with AIP Advances’ journal policies. We were approached through multiple channels, as the scientific community is often the first to spot concerns with the literature and we rely on them to do so. As stated in the published retraction notice, the article was retracted because the theory presented does not offer specific, scientifically verifiable tests or predictions, a foundational requirement for publication in AIP Advances regardless of the subject matter.
As a matter of policy, AIP Publishing does not comment on the details of peer review or author communications beyond what is included in the published retraction notice.”
Editorial Comment
Strømme’s theory has received a lot of attention since it was published. The latest example is an excellent and balanced piece in Popular Mechanics just a few weeks ago. One reason for the interest, the FJN presumes, is that it is launched within a field that is more embedded in scientific materialism than many others. Most probably, the same reason lies behind the unusually fierce criticism from peers. Perhaps many are not aware that physicist giants like David Bohm, Erwin Schrödinger and Max Planck have proposed similar ideas about reality.
Consciousness theories can still trigger hostile reactions in academia, especially those that challenge the physicalist view. Three years ago, a so-called consciousness war erupted when 124 scholars wrote an open letter to protest against one particular and popular theory, IIT (Integrated Information Theory). The group demanded it be labeled as pseudoscience.
Written by Anders Bolling
Edited by Liza Horan
