Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

The Hole Argument for Reference Frames

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that dynamically coupled reference frames close the hole argument, while uncoupled frames reopen it as a new dilemma.

desk verdict New and useful distinctions for the hole argument, but the central CRF/URF classification is borrowed from an unpublished companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19760 v1 pith:VXSNEMEC submitted 2024-12-27 physics.hist-ph gr-qc

Nicola Bamonti , Henrique Gomes This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phgr-qc
keywords holeargumentreferenceframesgeneralrelativitydeterminismgaugeinvariancerelationalobservablescompletediffeomorphism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard hole argument in general relativity is resolved precisely when reference frames are dynamically coupled to gravity, and that the remaining freedom in choosing a frame is benign. Building on a companion classification of reference frames, the authors distinguish coupled frames (CRFs), whose diffeomorphism symmetry acts jointly on metric and frame fields, from uncoupled frames (URFs), which admit independent diffeomorphisms of each. For CRFs, the paper claims, determinism is guaranteed: from fixed initial data the relational metric components $g_{IJ}(\varphi)$ are unique, so the standard hole argument is foreclosed. The residual 'Arbitrariness Problem' (ARB) — whether to use one physical frame or another — is shown to be harmless because any two choices are related by a passive diffeomorphism, an 'external' active diffeomorphism that translates between complete observables. For URFs, the paper identifies a new hole argument (NHA): the indeterminism is physically pernicious if one regards reshuffling-invariant (RI) quantities as physical, but dissolves if one requires gauge-invariant (GI) quantities, a distinction the authors take from their companion paper.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the classification of reference frames into coupled reference frames (CRFs) and uncoupled reference frames (URFs), together with the criterion $(GI) \leftrightarrow [(RI) \wedge (DET)]$ imported from the companion paper. Here (RI) is reshuffling invariance under diffeomorphisms, (DET) is deterministic evolution, and (GI) is full gauge-invariance. The proof that only CRFs guarantee determinism turns on the diagonal action of $\mathrm{Diff}(M)$ on the pair $(g_{ab}, \varphi^{(I)})$: for a coupled frame, diffeomorphisms act on the metric and the frame together, so a generic active diffeomorphism $d$ destroys the coupled field equations. For URFs the symmetry group factorises into $\mathrm{Diff}(M)\times\mathrm{Diff}(M)$, acting separately on $g$ and $\varphi$, which is why both $([d^*g]_{ab}, \varphi)$ and $(g_{ab}, d^*\varphi)$ solve the equations. The resolution of the Arbitrariness Problem is carried by equation (1), the passive coordinate transformation $m$ relating $g_{IJ}(\varphi_r)$ and $g_{IJ}(\varphi_b)$, and its active counterpart $\mathbf{d} := \varphi_r^{-1}\circ m\circ \varphi_r$, called the external diffeomorphism. This $\mathbf{d}$ distinguishes an active diffeomorphism that changes which complete observable one writes down ($\mathbf{d}$-covariance) from the active diffeomorphisms under which each complete observable is invariant ($d$-invariance).

What would settle it

Find a dynamically coupled scalar-field frame $\varphi^I$ such that both $(g_{ab}, \varphi^I)$ and $(g_{ab}, d^*\varphi^I)$ solve the coupled Einstein–Klein–Gordon equations for some diffeomorphism $d$ that is the identity on a Cauchy surface but non-trivial inside the hole; the existence of such a solution would falsify the claim that CRFs guarantee determinism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reference frames, not just coordinates, change the status of the hole argument. The paper states that only when the fields $\varphi^I$ constitute a CRF is determinism guaranteed, thus foreclosing the standard hole argument. More precisely, for a coupled frame the pair $(g_{ab}, \varphi^{(I)})$ being a solution rules out $([d^*g]_{ab}, \varphi^{(I)})$ for generic diffeomorphisms $d$, so the relational metric $g_{IJ}(\varphi) := ((\varphi^{(I)})^{-1})^*g_{ab}$ is a unique, deterministic, (GI) complete observable. For uncoupled frames, both $([d^*g]_{ab}, \varphi^{(I)})$ and $(g_{ab}, d^*\varphi^{(I)})$ are solutions for any $d$ because the dynamical symmetry group expands to $\mathrm{Diff}(M)\times\mathrm{Diff}(M)$; hence $g_{IJ}(\varphi)$ satisfies reshuffling invariance (RI) but not deterministic evolution (DET), and does not qualify as a (GI) complete observable. The paper introduces the Arbitrariness Problem (ARB) to capture the residual freedom of choosing which physical system acts as the frame, and resolves it with equation (1): two complete observables $g_{IJ}(\varphi_r)$ and $g_{IJ}(\varphi_b)$ built from two GPS-like frames are related by a purely passive diffeomorphism $m$, whose active counterpart is the external diffeomorphism $\mathbf{d}$; observables are $d$-invariant but $\mathbf{d}$-covariant. For URFs the paper formulates a New Hole Argument (NHA) dilemma: if 'physical' means (GI), the redundancy is not physically pernicious; if 'physical' means (RI), the URFs case yields genuine indeterminism and a relational variety of haecceitism, and it also provides a counterexample to the Unobservability Thesis because (RI) quantities can be empirically distinguished.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results depend on the companion-paper classification that a dynamically coupled reference frame has diffeomorphism symmetry acting diagonally on the metric and the frame, while an uncoupled frame has an independent copy of $\mathrm{Diff}(M)$ for each field; this classification is cited rather than proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the standard hole argument is resolved without invoking anti-haecceitism or sophisticated substantivalism: a dynamically coupled frame provides a unique relational representation of the metric from given initial data.
  • The choice of a reference frame does not break the covariance of general relativity; it is a passive change of coordinates, so reference-frame-dependent descriptions remain fully gauge-invariant.
  • Uncoupled reference frames cannot be used to define complete (GI) observables; they only yield (RI) quantities, whose physical status depends on whether one adopts a GI or an RI notion of physicality.
  • The New Hole Argument offers a relational way to revive haecceitist indeterminism: treat instantiated but dynamically uncoupled fields as physically real, and diffeomorphism-related URFs represent distinct physical states.
  • The Unobservability Thesis fails for (RI) quantities in URFs, because these quantities are relational and empirically accessible, so a symmetry-variant quantity can be empirically distinguished from its diffeomorphic image.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the Arbitrariness Problem resolution generalises beyond GPS frames: any pair of CRFs with overlapping domains should be related by an external diffeomorphism, so the dictionary between frame choices is always a passive coordinate change and the ambiguity never rises to underdetermination.
  • I infer that the $d$-invariance versus $\mathbf{d}$-covariance distinction may carry over to quantum reference frames: if two CRF observables are related by a passive diffeomorphism, a superposition of reference frames would correspond to a superposition of passive coordinate charts, suggesting a purely formal, non-dynamical notion of quantum frame change.
  • I infer that the New Hole Argument provides a selection principle for quantum gravity: only (GI) quantities, satisfying both reshuffling invariance and deterministic evolution, should serve as observables, which would rule out the use of uncoupled dust or scalar clocks as fundamental observables.
  • I infer that the counterexample to the Unobservability Thesis could be tested in a laboratory analogue: a relational quantity built from two dynamically coupled degrees of freedom in a symmetry-variant theory should be empirically distinguishable from its symmetry image, unlike quantities written in fixed coordinates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies a distinction, due to Bamonti and Gomes (2024), between reference frames dynamically coupled to gravity (CRFs) and uncoupled frames (URFs). It argues that CRFs resolve the standard hole argument because a diffeomorphism acts diagonally on the coupled fields (g, φ), so at most one isomorphic copy of g is compatible with a given φ; URFs, by contrast, do not yield deterministic evolution of the relational metric g_IJ(φ). The paper then introduces the Arbitrariness Problem (ARB): two different CRFs give different relational observables g_IJ(φ_r) and g_IJ(φ_b), but these are claimed to be related by a passive coordinate transformation m (Eq. 1) and hence by an 'external' active diffeomorphism d, so the choice of frame is benign. Finally, the paper formulates a New Hole Argument (NHA) for URFs, distinguishing a non-pernicious (GI-based) reading from a pernicious (RI-based) reading, and claims a counterexample to Wallace's Unobservability Thesis.

Significance. If the CRF/URF distinction and the associated determinism claim can be established, the paper offers a clean relational dissolution of the standard hole argument and identifies a genuinely new issue, the Arbitrariness Problem, that deserves attention. The formal pullback identity in Section 1.2.1 is correct, and the GPS example is a useful concrete test case. The paper also draws a thought-provoking contrast between relational invariance (RI) and gauge-invariance (GI). However, the central technical premises are imported from an unpublished companion paper by the same authors, and the ARB resolution is admittedly conditional on a global-overlap assumption that is unrealistic for genuine GPS frames. These gaps make the present version of the paper not fully self-contained and leave its main conclusions conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [1.2.1] The central determinism claim for CRFs is asserted rather than demonstrated. The passage 'It is easy to show that only in the case in which the set of {φ^I} constitutes a CRF, determinism is guaranteed, thus foreclosing the hole argument' is followed by a symmetry-group assertion ('for CRFs, when the pair (g_ab, φ^(I)) is a possible solution, then ([d^*g]_ab, φ^(I)) is not, for a generic d') that is delegated to the unpublished Bamonti and Gomes (2024) in footnotes 3 and 4. No proof is given that the coupled Einstein–Klein-Gordon (or GPS) system has a unique solution given initial data and the frame fields, nor is a well-posedness theorem cited. Since the SHA resolution and the later NHA both rest on this dichotomy, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either provide a self-contained proof of the CRF/URF symmetry-group dichotomy and the associated uniqueness, or explicitly state the dichotomy and its provenance as an assumption.
  2. [2.1, Eq. (1), footnote 12] The proposed resolution of the Arbitrariness Problem is conditional on an assumption the authors themselves call 'a clearly unrealistic supposition': that the two reference frames overlap on the entire manifold M. If the red and blue frames are only locally defined, the passive map m in Eq. (1) does not exist globally, and the active counterpart d = φ_r^{-1} ∘ m ∘ φ_r need not be a diffeomorphism of M. Thus the ARB is resolved only in a special global-overlap case; for realistic GPS frames covering only a region U, the paper leaves open whether the 'dictionary' between frame choices can be constructed. This is load-bearing because ARB is the paper's new contribution.
  3. [2.2, footnote 4] The New Hole Argument dilemma is built on the status of URFs as physically instantiated but dynamically uncoupled fields. However, the claim that for URFs both (g_ab, d^*φ^(I)) and ([d^*g]_ab, φ^(I)) are solutions is again imported from Bamonti and Gomes (2024) in footnote 4; without that premise, the dichotomy between case (i) and case (ii) does not follow. In addition, the counterexample to Wallace's Unobservability Thesis presupposes that empirical access to g_IJ(φ) is available for an uncoupled frame; the paper does not explain how a field that is dynamically uncoupled from gravity and from measuring devices can be read out. These points should be addressed before the NHA is presented as a result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor infelicities: 'constitues' in Section 1.2.1, 'sometisimes' and 'diffeomoprhisms' in footnote 1, 'accompained' in Section 2.1, and 'indeterminsm' in Section 2.2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section 1.1] The formula (GI) ↔ [(RI) ∧ (DET)] is introduced without a precise statement of the domains of these properties. The reader needs a definition of (DET) and a specification of which models or quantities the equivalence is supposed to hold for; otherwise the formula is difficult to evaluate.
  3. [Section 2.1, footnote 11] The argument that restricting to diffeomorphisms preserving initial data involves no loss of generality is compressed. The 'quick way' sentence deserves expansion, since it is the only justification for a key restriction used in the analysis of CRFs.
  4. [References] The companion paper Bamonti and Gomes (2024) is listed as 'forthcoming' without a venue or a stable identifier. If it is available as a preprint, a DOI or arXiv number should be provided so that readers can verify the load-bearing symmetry-group claims.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The paper's resolution of the hole argument is not self-contained: its load-bearing CRF/URF symmetry classification and the (GI) criterion are imported from an unpublished companion paper by the same authors.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1.2.1, footnote 4]
    "See Bamonti and Gomes (2024) for an in-depth study of the dynamical symmetry group for such uncoupled fields. In particular, the authors show that([d∗g]ab, φ (I)) and (gab,d∗φ (I)) are possible solutions ∀d ∈ Di f f(M ) ×Di f f(M ). Therefore, the group of dynamical symmetries must be expanded with respect to the case of coupled fields, where the dynamical symmetries are d ∈ Di f f(M )."

    The paper's central determinism claim is that only CRFs foreclose the hole argument because, for CRFs, ([d∗g], φ) is not a solution for generic d, whereas for URFs both ([d∗g], φ) and (g, d∗φ) are solutions. That dichotomy is exactly the content of the cited footnote; it is not derived from the Einstein or Klein-Gordon equations anywhere in this paper. The cited work is by the same authors and unpublished ('forthcoming'), so the load-bearing premise of the hole-argument resolution is a self-citation rather than an independently established result. If the companion paper's symmetry-group computation were wrong, the uniqueness claim 'at most one of all of the isomorphic copies of gab is compatible with each φ(I)' would fail, and the CRF-based resolution of the SHA would collapse.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 1.1, p.5]
    "The authors summarise such implications with the following formula (ivi, p.18): (GI) ↔ [(RI) ∧ (DET)]."

    The equivalence (GI) ↔ [(RI) ∧ (DET)] is imported from Bamonti and Gomes (2024) and is used as the criterion for what counts as a bona-fide complete observable. Throughout the paper, the conclusion that URFs yield (RI) but not (DET), and hence are not (GI), depends on this formula. Since the formula is not proved here and is attributed to the same authors' companion paper, the NHA and the 'second-tier unphysical status' verdict stand or fall with that self-citation. This is a second load-bearing import, though the pullback proof of (RI) itself is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its dependence: the abstract says 'We exploit the results of Bamonti and Gomes (2024)'. The pullback proof of (RI) in Section 1.2.1 is original and correct as far as it goes, and the ARB resolution via the passive/active map m ↔ d in Section 2.1 is a self-contained coordinate-change argument. But the decisive step—that only CRFs guarantee determinism and hence shut the standard hole argument—does not follow from any calculation in this text; it is the CRF/URF symmetry-group classification cited to Bamonti and Gomes (2024) in footnote 4. Similarly, the (GI) ↔ [(RI) ∧ (DET)] criterion that drives the URF/NHA analysis is cited to the same unpublished companion paper. These are load-bearing self-citations: they are not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or derived from stated assumptions within the paper, and the central claim reduces to them. Accordingly, the paper is not fully self-contained, though it does contain independent conceptual contributions (ARB, external diffeomorphism, NHA as an application), so the score is moderate rather than maximal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. Its load-bearing assumptions are a mix of standard GR background, the authors' prior conceptual framework, and an admittedly unrealistic overlap condition. The central distinction comes from unpublished work by the same authors.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The gauge group of GR is the group of diffeomorphisms Diff(M); only boundary-trivial diffeomorphisms are gauge in asymptotically flat cases.
    Section 1.1, footnote 1; needed to identify gauge-invariant observables.
  • domain assumption (GI) ↔ [(RI) ∧ (DET)]: gauge-invariant complete observables are exactly relational observables with deterministic dynamics.
    From Bamonti and Gomes (2024), cited in Section 1.1; the paper's analysis of CRFs vs URFs rests on it.
  • domain assumption Reference frames are modeled as four scalar fields {φ^(I)} satisfying Klein-Gordon equations and physically instantiated.
    Section 1.2.1; used to define the relational observables g_IJ(φ).
  • domain assumption For CRFs the dynamical symmetry group is Diff(M) acting diagonally; for URFs it is Diff(M) × Diff(M).
    Footnotes 3 and 4, attributed to Bamonti and Gomes (2024). The NHA and Wallace counterexample depend on this.
  • ad hoc to paper The two chosen reference frames overlap on the entire manifold M to define the passive map m.
    Section 2.1, ARB resolution; the authors call this 'a clearly unrealistic supposition' but use it to argue the map is a coordinate change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Hole Argument for Reference Frames." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXSNEMEC

@misc{pith2026241219760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Hole Argument for Reference Frames},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXSNEMEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19760}
}
read the original abstract

We exploit the results of Bamonti and Gomes (2024) concerning the dynamical (un)coupling of reference frames to gravity to analyse the role of reference frames in the Hole Argument. We introduce a new possible threat to determinism, which we call Arbitrariness Problem (ARB), resulting from the inherent freedom in selecting a reference frame.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19760 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Action of diffeomorphism d. Note that d acts on both the coupled fields (φb,gab). the quantity gIJ(φ) is a relational (i.e. (RI)) observable, but not a (GI), relational observable. It is easy to show that only in the case in which the set of {φ I} constitues a CRF, deter￾minism is guaranteed, thus foreclosing the hole argument.3 In fact, notice that, for CRFs, when the pair (gab,φ (I) ) is a possible solution, then … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1-1 correspondence between the passive map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In the figure at the top, we show the case of GPS observables of section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson, J. L. (1967, May). Principles of relativity physics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    (2023, January)

    Bamonti, N. (2023, January). What is a reference frame in general relativity?

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Bamonti, N. and H. Gomes (2024). What reference frames teach us about symmetry principles and observability. forthcoming

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bamonti, N. and K. P. Y . Th´ebault (2024). In search of cosmic time: Complete observables and the clock hypothesis

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    (2017, April)

    Belot, G. (2017, April). Fifty million elvis fans can’t be wrong. Noˆus 52(4), 946–981

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Brown, H. R. (2005, December). Physical Relativity. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Brown, H. R. and D. Lehmkuhl (2013). Einstein, the reality of space, and the action-reaction principle

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Brown, J. D. and K. V . Kuchaˇr (1995, May). Dust as a standard of space and time in canonical quantum gravity. Physical Review D 51(10), 5600–5629

    work page 1995

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1950). Generalized hamiltonian dynamics. Canadian journal of mathematics 2 , 129–148

    1950

  2. [10]

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1958). Generalized hamiltonian dynamics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 246, 333–3343

    1958

  3. [11]

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1964). Lectures on quantum mechanics. Dover Publications

    1964

  4. [12]

    (2006, October)

    Dittrich, B. (2006, October). Partial and complete observables for canonical general relativity. Classical and Quantum Gravity 23(22), 6155–6184

    2006

  5. [13]

    (2007, August)

    Dittrich, B. (2007, August). Partial and complete observables for hamiltonian constrained systems. General Relativity and Gravitation 39(11), 1891–1927

    2007

  6. [14]

    (1992, April)

    Earman, J. (1992, April). World enough and space-time. World Enough and Space-Time. London, England: MIT Press. 21

    1992

  7. [15]

    Earman, J. and J. Norton (1987). What price spacetime substantivalism? the hole story. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38(4), 515–525

    1987

  8. [16]

    Fletcher, S. C. (2020). On representational capacities, with an application to general relativity. Foundations of Physics 50(4), 228–249

    2020

  9. [17]

    Giacomini, F. et al. (2019, January). Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames. Nature Communications 10(1)

    2019

  10. [18]

    (2021, May)

    Giovanelli, M. (2021, May). Nothing but coincidences: the point-coincidence and einstein’s struggle with the meaning of coordinates in physics. European Journal for Philosophy of Sci- ence 11(2)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gomes, H. (2023). Same-diff? conceptual similarities between gauge transformations and diffeo- morphisms. forthcoming

    2023

  12. [20]

    Gomes, H. (2024). Representational conventions and invariant structure

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gomes, H., B. W. Roberts, and J. Butterfield (2022). The Gauge Argument: A Noether Reason , pp. 354–376. Cambridge University Press

    2022

  14. [22]

    Gryb, S. and K. P. Y . Th´ebault (2016, October). Regarding the ‘hole argument’ and the ‘problem of time’. Philosophy of Science 83(4), 563–584. James Read (2023, November). Background independence in classical and quantum gravity. Lon- don, England: Oxford University Press

    2016

  15. [23]

    de la Hamette, L

    Kabel, V ., A.-C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield, and C. Brukner (2024). Identification is pointless: Quantum reference frames, localisation of events, and the quantum hole argument. 22

    2024

  16. [24]

    (1958, Aug)

    Komar, A. (1958, Aug). Construction of a complete set of independent observables in the general theory of relativity. Phys. Rev. 111, 1182–1187

    1958

  17. [25]

    Lee, J. and R. M. Wald (1990, March). Local symmetries and constraints.Journal of Mathematical Physics 31(3), 725–743

    1990

  18. [26]

    (1989, October)

    Norton, J. (1989, October). Coordinates and covariance: Einstein's view of space-time and the modern view. Foundations of Physics 19(10), 1215–1263

    1989

  19. [27]

    Pooley, O. and J. A. M. Read (2021). On the mathematics and metaphysics of the hole argument. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 0(ja), null

    2021

  20. [28]

    Stachel, J. (1989). Einstein’s search for general covariance, 1912–1915. In D. Howard and J. Stachel (Eds.), Einstein and the History of General Relativity, pp. 1–63. Birkh¨auser

    1989

  21. [29]

    (2012, March)

    Tambornino, J. (2012, March). Relational observables in gravity: a review.Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications

    2012

  22. [30]

    Thiemann, T. (2006). Solving the problem of time in general relativity and cosmology with phan- toms and k – essence

    2006

  23. [31]

    Wallace, D. (2003). Time-dependent symmetries: the link between gauge symmetries and indeter- minism, pp. 163–173. Cambridge University Press

    2003

  24. [32]

    Wallace, D. (2024). Gauge invariance through gauge fixing

    2024

  25. [33]

    Weatherall, J. O. (2018). Regarding the hole argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69(2), 329–350. 24

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.