Towards relational foundations for spacetime quantum physics

Jos\'e A. Zapata; Pietro Dall'Olio

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Towards relational foundations for spacetime quantum physics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that extending the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics to spacetimes of dimension greater than one forces a Wilsonian scale structure.

desk verdict A serious, clearly written proposal that relational QFT is Wilsonian, but the identification is underdetermined by the stated postulates and partly rests on a measuring-scale formalism imported from the authors' own prior work. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17321 v1 pith:26BT4M64 submitted 2025-06-18 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Pietro Dall'Olio , José A. Zapata This is my paper

classification quant-phgr-qchep-th PACS 03.65.Ta03.70.+k

keywords relationalquantummechanicsWilsonianrenormalizationgroupfieldtheoryfiniteresolutionpostulatemeasuringscalesparseeventontologyalgebraicspacetimefoundations

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

The paper sets out to extend the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics from time-only quantum mechanics to quantum field theory on spacetime. Its starting observation is that in one dimension the initial-data surface is a point, so a finite amount of information can fix a state, while in higher dimensions initial data require infinitely many measurements. To carry the relational postulate that an observer can extract only finite information into that setting, the paper introduces the Finite Resolution Postulate: the relational information contained in a quantum event is finite. From this postulate it argues that relational quantum physics in spacetimes of dimension greater than one is Wilsonian, meaning observers always work with effective theories at a measuring scale and the renormalization group describes how these partial descriptions cohere. If the argument works, scale-dependence is not a calculational artifact but the foundational form of quantum relations in spacetime.

What carries the argument

The central object is the measuring scale, defined as a finitely generated star-algebra of observables associated with a fixed laboratory setup; the family of measuring scales forms a directed partially ordered set whose coarse-graining maps are injective algebra inclusions and whose limit is the continuum limit. The Finite Resolution Postulate — "the relational information contained in a quantum event is finite" — is the bridge: it restricts the observable triggering an event and the value it takes, which forces each scale to be describable by an effective theory with finitely many degrees of freedom. This machinery does two things: it turns Wilsonian renormalizability into a statement about convergence of descriptions as the scale is refined, and it implies that events in higher-dimensional spacetimes have fuzzy locations, determinable only at the resolution of the interaction scale, in contrast with the sharply located events of one-dimensional relational quantum mechanics.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be a relational quantum field theory in a spacetime of dimension greater than one whose predictions for all measurements in a compact region are reproduced exactly by a single finitely generated algebra, with no scale-dependent effective theories and no continuum-limit corrections. Alternatively, showing that relational information in a higher-dimensional experiment can pinpoint the exact spacetime location of a quantum event would falsify the paper's fuzziness consequence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the Wilsonian structure of effective field theory is not an optional tool but the necessary expression of a relational interpretation for spacetime quantum systems. In dimension 1, quantum mechanics, the system is characterized by a finite-dimensional space of initial conditions, and the original postulate of limited information already suffices. In dimension 2 and higher, the space of initial data is infinite dimensional, so an observer cannot specify a state by finitely many measurements. The paper generalizes the limited-information postulate by declaring that the relational information in a single quantum event is finite. Since a field theory region carries infinitely many degrees of freedom, finitely many events cannot exhaust the description at arbitrary resolution; they must be organized by a measuring scale, a finitely generated algebra of observables that is refined by coarse-graining maps, with a continuum limit. The paper concludes that relational quantum physics in dimension greater than one is Wilsonian QFT, in which effective theories at each scale are corrected and a renormalizable theory is one whose corrected descriptions converge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 'finite relational information' must be organized as a hierarchy of finitely generated observable algebras with a continuum limit (a Wilsonian scale structure), rather than, say, one finite algebra per region with no scale dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The renormalization group is a foundational necessity for relational quantum physics in spacetimes of dimension greater than one, not a calculational device.
Quantum events in higher-dimensional relational physics have fuzzy locations: at a given measuring scale the event can only be localized up to the resolution of that scale.
Completely renormalized theories are recovered as continuum limits of finitely generated effective theories, which is how type III algebras of local observables emerge from finite-resolution descriptions.
A renormalizable theory is one whose finite-resolution descriptions converge as the measuring scale is refined; the Wilsonian continuum limit is the correct relational description of the system.

Reading between the lines

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

If the paper is right, effective field theory is the relational definition of a spacetime quantum system, so any proposed fundamental theory that lacks a scale structure is, in this sense, not a relational description.
The finite-resolution postulate implies a concrete information bound: the total relational information in an experiment confined to a compact region is finite, which could constrain proposals that assign exact spacetime points to individual quantum events.
A testable extension is to apply the same postulate to reference systems: relational variables that are invariant under spacetime isometries should themselves carry finite information, so the measuring scale should enter the specification of any reference frame.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper claims that extending Rovelli's relational interpretation to QFT in spacetimes of dimension greater than 1 leads, almost inevitably, to a Wilsonian picture of QFT. The new move is the 'Finite Resolution Postulate' — that the relational information in a single quantum event is finite — offered as a generalization of Rovelli's Postulate of Limited Information. The authors argue that because field-theoretic initial data in higher dimensions are infinite-dimensional, relational information must be organized by a hierarchy of measuring scales, which is exactly the structure of Wilsonian effective theories. That identification is genuinely novel in the foundations literature; I haven't seen anyone put RQM and Wilsonian renormalization together quite this way.

What the paper does well: it is clearly written, honest about its own status, and careful about distinguishing the physical content of RQM from its time-only formulation. The discussion of Fewster–Verch measurement is a useful reading of that framework in relational terms, and the event-location fuzziness point is a nice observation. The paper also gives a fair account of Wilsonian QFT and acknowledges that the central claim is 'tempting' rather than proven.

The soft spots are real. The central inference in Section 3 is underdetermined. From 'a single quantum event contains finite relational information' it does not follow that all observations must be organized into a directed poset of finitely generated algebras with coarse-graining maps and a continuum limit. That structure is imported from the authors' own prior work (Manrique, Oeckl, Weber, and Zapata), and it already contains the conclusion. The paper itself says 'this calls for a notion of measuring scale, which we provide' — but the providing is a modeling choice, not a derivation. A relational model that assigns one finitely generated algebra per compact region, without a refinement hierarchy, would satisfy the Finite Resolution Postulate and not be Wilsonian. So the central claim is conditional on choosing that specific formalization.

There is also no derivation of a distinct observable consequence. For a foundations proposal, that is not disqualifying; the paper is clear that it is presenting an interpretational framework. The circularity is the main issue, and it is not fatal — the paper is best read as a compatibility argument plus a proposed axiom, not a proof that relational QFT must be Wilsonian.

I would send this to a serious referee. A good referee will press the authors to either ground the measuring-scale structure in something more primitive or state explicitly that the Finite Resolution Postulate is a definition of what 'finite relational information' means in a spacetime context. If they can do that, or even if they just make the assumptions completely explicit, the paper would be a useful contribution to the foundations literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'Finite Resolution Postulate' for a relational interpretation of quantum field theory: 'The relational information contained in a quantum event is finite.' Together with the Sparse Event Ontology Postulate, the authors claim that for spacetimes of dimension greater than 1 a relational interpretation of quantum physics is Wilsonian. The central argument is presented in Section 3, where the measuring-scale notion from the authors' earlier work [11] is imported: a directed set of finitely generated observable algebras, coarse-graining maps, and a continuum limit. Section 4 re-reads the Fewster-Verch measurement framework in this relational language, emphasizing that quantum events are fuzzy rather than sharply located and that finite resolution favors effective type I descriptions. The paper is written as a conceptual proposal rather than a derivation, and its own Section 5 hedges the main claim.

Significance. If the proposed identification were established, the paper would provide a valuable conceptual bridge between RQM and Wilsonian QFT, giving the renormalization group an operational, relational meaning. The explicit formulation of the two postulates is a useful contribution, and the engagement with the Fewster-Verch framework is concrete and instructive. The paper is honest about the exploratory character of the argument, especially in Section 5, where it says that the conclusion is 'tempting' and that the presentation provides 'supporting elements' rather than a proof. The contribution is therefore a programmatic proposal whose significance depends on whether the central identification can be made precise and defended against alternative formalizations.

major comments (3)

[Section 3] The inference from infinite-dimensional initial data to the necessity of the measuring-scale structure is not a logical consequence. The paper states that higher-dimensional initial data 'cannot be specified by means of finitely many measurements' and concludes 'This calls for a notion of measuring scale.' However, the Finite Resolution Postulate only asserts that each quantum event carries finite relational information. A model in which each compact region is assigned a single finitely generated algebra, or in which an event stores a finite subset of an infinite-dimensional observable algebra with no refinement relations between subsets, would satisfy the postulate without being Wilsonian in the sense of [11]. The directed poset, coarse-graining maps, and continuum limit are imported from [11] rather than derived from the postulates. The paper should either prove that the Wilsonian structure is forced, or explicitly present the claim as a compatibility result or a conjecture.
[Section 3, paragraph on finite resolution] The move from 'the relational information contained in a quantum event is finite' to the requirement that the algebra of observables is finitely generated is made by stipulation rather than by argument. The paper condenses two properties — finite generation and absence of infinite-energy actions — into the finite-resolution postulate, but these are not obviously equivalent. For example, a finite number of expectation values of a continuous observable could be encoded in finitely many real numbers, yet the underlying algebra need not be finitely generated. Similarly, the 'value' acquired by a variable at an event may be a real number, and specifying it exactly requires infinite information unless a discretization or coarse-graining of the value space is specified. The paper should define more carefully what 'finite information' means information-theoretically and show that finite generation follows.
[Section 5] The paper's own summary undercuts the strength of the abstract's claim. Section 5 says that 'it is tempting to say that the relational point of view of quantum physics leads to the cornerstone of Wilsonian QFT' and that Sections 3 and 4 provide 'supporting elements.' This is honest, but it conflicts with the abstract's unqualified assertion that 'a relational interpretation of quantum physics for spacetimes of dimension greater than 1 is Wilsonian.' The authors should either strengthen the argument to a derivation or revise the abstract and title to present the work as a proposal or compatibility argument rather than an established equivalence.

minor comments (6)

[Acknowledgments] The grant number appears as 'PAPITT-UNAM IN114723'; the correct acronym is 'PAPIIT-UNAM'.
[Section 5] The word 'hypotetical' in the outlook paragraph should be spelled 'hypothetical'.
[Section 4 (ii)] 'typeI algebra' should be formatted as 'type I algebra'.
[Section 3] 'star algebra' should be written as '*-algebra' for precision.
[References] Reference [11] is titled 'Loop quantization as a continuum limit,' but it is used here as the canonical implementation of Wilsonian QFT. The paper should state more explicitly how the continuum limit in [11] relates to the standard Wilsonian effective-field-theory construction, since the connection is not obvious from the title alone.
[Footnote 5] The phrase 'use variation of the AQFT axioms' should be 'use a variation of the AQFT axioms.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central Wilsonian conclusion is carried by the measuring-scale formalism imported from the authors' own prior work [11] and by a Finite Resolution Postulate crafted to encode finitely generated algebras; the stated postulates underdetermine the directed Wilsonian hierarchy.

self citation load bearing [Section 1, pp. 2-3 (notion of measuring scale); Section 3 ('The appropriate generalization is suggested by Wilsonian QFT')]
"We use the notion of measuring scale proposed in [11] which is appropriate in a relational context. In a laboratory situation, the experimentalists set up an array of measuring devices, filters and control elements which determine the algebra of observables accesible to the experimentalist. That algebra can be seen as a subalgebra of the algebra of observables that could in principle be measured. That subalgebra is the measuring scale [11]."

The claim that 'a relational interpretation of quantum physics for spacetimes of dimension greater than 1 is Wilsonian' is obtained by adopting the measuring scale notion from [11], a paper co-authored by Zapata, which already contains the full Wilsonian structure: a directed poset of finitely generated subalgebras, coarse-graining morphisms, and a continuum limit. The Finite Resolution Postulate only states that the relational information in a single quantum event is finite; it does not force all observations to be organized into this directed hierarchy, since a single finitely generated algebra per compact region with no refinement relations would satisfy it. The paper concedes that the generalization is 'suggested by Wilsonian QFT,' i.e., imported from the target conclusion.
self definitional [Section 3, Finite Resolution Postulate discussion (p. 7); consequence drawn in Section 4(ii)]
"The physical situation demands two important properties in an acceptable algebra gS-S′(U, λ): (i) It needs to be finitely generated. (ii) Its elements need to reflect the fact that the experimentalist resources are finite; S′ does not act on S with infinite energy or, equivalently, S′ cannot act on S sharply measuring properties at points. We propose to condense both required properties into one saying that 'the relational information contained in a quantum event is finite'."

The paper designs the Finite Resolution Postulate so that it implies the finitely generated property ('condense both required properties into one'), and Section 4(ii) then presents the finite generation of the interaction scale A-B(K, λ) as a consequence of the postulates. This is unpacking the definition rather than a derived result: the Wilsonian building block (a finitely generated observable algebra) is an input encoded into the postulate's interpretation of 'finite relational information.' The identification of 'finite information' with 'finitely generated algebra' is asserted, not argued, so the Wilsonian structure is presupposed by the postulate instead of following from it.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: RQM's Postulate of Limited Information, the observation that higher-dimensional field theories have infinite-dimensional phase spaces, the step 'This calls for a notion of measuring scale,' the adoption of the measuring scale structure of [11] (a directed family of finitely generated algebras with coarse-graining maps and a continuum limit), the Finite Resolution Postulate, and finally the conclusion that RQP is Wilsonian. The load-bearing step is the importation of the measuring scale notion from [11], co-authored by Zapata, because that notion already encodes the Wilsonian conclusion, and the Finite Resolution Postulate is formulated in terms of that structure (finitely generated algebras with finite evaluations). The conclusion therefore follows from the chosen formalism rather than from the postulates alone. This is partial, not total, circularity: the paper is an explicitly hedged proposal ('it is tempting to say that the relational point of view of quantum physics leads to the cornerstone of Wilsonian QFT. Our presentation in Sections 3 and 4 provides supporting elements'), the background physics that interacting QFT in dimension greater than 1 requires renormalization is external and well established, and the compatibility analysis with Fewster-Verch plus the discussion of fuzzy event locations are independent content. No data are fitted and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. Nevertheless, alternative relational models, such as a single finitely generated algebra per compact region or finite subsets of an infinite-dimensional observable algebra without refinement relations between subsets, would satisfy the Finite Resolution Postulate without being Wilsonian, and the paper does not exclude them. The central claim thus reduces, at the crucial step, to the authors' own prior formalization of measuring scale, yielding a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on imported postulates from RQM (limited information, sparse events), the AQFT framework, the Fewster-Verch measurement setting, and crucially the measuring-scale formalism from the authors' own [11], which already contains the Wilsonian structure. The paper's own addition is the inference from infinite-dimensional field state spaces to the need for a scale hierarchy, plus the Finite Resolution Postulate. There are no free parameters or invented entities because the paper is purely conceptual.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption The Postulate of Limited Information: an observer can extract only finite relevant information from a system (RQM).
Imported from Rovelli [1,2]; it is the starting motivation and is not proved in this paper. Section 2.
domain assumption The Sparse Event Ontology: quantum events form a discrete set.
Adopted from Rovelli [2] and restated as a postulate in Section 3; underpins the counting of finite events in a compact region.
domain assumption The AQFT axioms: local observable algebras form a causally local net of observables (Haag [17]).
Used in Section 3 to give mathematical form to the relational observables; no derivation given.
domain assumption The measuring scale formalism of [11]: observables available to an observer form a directed partially ordered set of finitely generated subalgebras with a continuum limit.
Imported from the authors' own prior paper [11]; this already contains the Wilsonian structure that the paper concludes is the relational structure. Section 3.
standard math In d=1 the Cauchy surface is a point with finite-dimensional state space; in d>1 it has infinite cardinality and infinite-dimensional state space.
Topological fact used in Sections 1 and 5 to distinguish QM from QFT; uncontroversial Cauchy-surface analysis.
ad hoc to paper Finitely many measurements cannot fix infinite-dimensional initial data; hence the observer needs a scale.
The inference from infinite dimensionality to the necessity of a measuring-scale hierarchy is the paper's own leap, stated as 'This calls for a notion of measuring scale.' It is not a theorem; alternative structures are conceivable.
domain assumption Fewster-Verch framework: interactions confined to compact regions are described by a coupled system and a hypothetical uncoupled system with a scattering/update rule.
Used in Section 4 to phrase measurement in relational terms; imported from [12].
domain assumption The continuum limit of effective theories converges for renormalizable theories, defining completely corrected theories.
Standard Wilsonian renormalization; assumed as background in Section 3 when identifying AQFT algebras with renormalized theories.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards relational foundations for spacetime quantum physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26BT4M64

@misc{pith2026250617321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards relational foundations for spacetime quantum physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26BT4M64}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17321}
}

read the original abstract

Rovelli's relational interpretation of quantum mechanics tells us that the description of a system in the formalism of quantum mechanics is not an absolute, but it is relative to the observer itself. The interpretation goes further and proposes a set of axioms. In standard non relational language, one of them states that an observer can only retrieve finite amount information from a system by means of measurement. Our contribution starts with the observation that quantum mechanics, i.e. quantum field theory (QFT) in dimension 1, radically differs from QFT in higher dimensions. In higher dimensions boundary data (or initial data) cannot be specified by means of finitely many measurements. This calls for a notion of measuring scale, which we provide. At a given measuring scale the observer has partial information about the system. Our notion of measuring scale generalizes the one implicitly used in Wilsonian QFT, where at each measuring scale there are effective theories, which may be corrected, and if the theory turns out to be renormalizable the mentioned corrections converge to determine a completely corrected (or renormalized) theory at the given measuring scale. The notion of a measuring scale is the cornerstone of Wilsonian QFT. This notion tells us that we are not describing a system from an absolute perspective. An effective theory at that scale describes the system with respect to the observer, which may retrieve information from the system by means of measurement in a specific way determined by our notion of measuring scale. We claim that a relational interpretation of quantum physics for spacetimes of dimension greater than 1 is Wilsonian.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[11]

Loop quantization as a continuum limit

Elisa Manrique, Robert Oeckl, Axel Weber, and Jos´ e A Zapata. Loop quantization as a continuum limit. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 23(10):3393–3403, April 2006

work page 2006
[1]

Relational quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8):1637–1678, August 1996

work page 1996
[2]

Relational Quantum Mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational Quantum Mechanics. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2025 edition, 2025. 13

work page 2025
[3]

Kenneth G. Wilson. Renormalization group and critical phenomena. i. renormalization group and the kadanoff scaling picture. Phys. Rev. B , 4:3174–3183, Nov 1971

1971
[4]

Kenneth G. Wilson. Renormalization group and critical phenomena. 2. Phase space cell analysis of critical behavior. Phys. Rev. B , 4:3184–3205, 1971

work page 1971
[5]

E. C. G. Stueckelberg and A. Petermann. La normalisation des constantes dans la th´ eorie des quanta.Helv. Phys. Acta , 26:499–520, 1953

work page 1953
[6]

Gell-Mann and F

M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low. Quantum electrodynamics at small distances. Phys. Rev., 95:1300–1312, Sep 1954

work page 1954
[7]

High-energy behavior in quantum field theory

Steven Weinberg. High-energy behavior in quantum field theory. Phys. Rev., 118:838–849, May 1960

work page 1960

Show all 26 references

[8]

Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory

C G Callan, Jr. Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory. Phys. Rev., D 2: 1541-7(15 Oct 1970). , 01 1970

1970
[9]

Wilson and J

Kenneth G. Wilson and J. Kogut. The renormalization group and the epsilon expansion. Physics Reports, 12(2):75–199, 1974

1974
[10]

Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians

Joseph Polchinski. Renormalization and Effective Lagrangians. Nucl. Phys. B, 231:269–295, 1984

1984
[12]

Fewster and Rainer Verch

Christopher J. Fewster and Rainer Verch. Quantum fields and local mea- surements, 2020. arXiv: 1810.06512

2020 arXiv
[13]

Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics

Emily Adlam and Carlo Rovelli. Information is Physical: Cross-Perspective Links in Relational Quantum Mechanics. 3 2022. arXiv: 2203.13342

2022 arXiv
[14]

Galley, Philipp A

Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Thomas D. Galley, Philipp A. Hoehn, Leon Loveridge, and Markus P. Mueller. Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups. 10 2021. arXiv: 2110.13824

2021 arXiv
[15]

incerto tempore, incertisque loci

Carlo Rovelli. “incerto tempore, incertisque loci”: Can we compute the exact time at which a quantum measurement happens?, 1998. quant- ph/9802020

1998
[16]

Why Gauge? Found

Carlo Rovelli. Why Gauge? Found. Phys., 44(1):91–104, 2014

2014
[17]

Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras

Rudolf Haag. Local quantum physics: Fields, particles, algebras . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 14

2012
[18]

Algebraic quantum field theory, 2006

Hans Halvorson and Michael Mueger. Algebraic quantum field theory, 2006. math-ph/0602036

2006 arXiv
[19]

Renormalization and effective field theory

Kevin Costello. Renormalization and effective field theory . Number 170. American Mathematical Soc., 2011

2011
[20]

Quarks, gluons and lattices

Michael Creutz. Quarks, gluons and lattices . Cambridge University Press, 1983

1983
[21]

Why gauge? Foundations of Physics , 44:91–104, 2014

Carlo Rovelli. Why gauge? Foundations of Physics , 44:91–104, 2014

2014
[22]

General boundary quantum field theory: Foundations and probability interpretation

Robert Oeckl. General boundary quantum field theory: Foundations and probability interpretation. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 12(2):319–352, 2008

2008
[23]

A local and operational framework for the foundations of physics

Robert Oeckl. A local and operational framework for the foundations of physics. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. , 23(2):437–592, 2019

2019
[24]

Towards local and compositional measurements in quantum field theory

Robert Oeckl and Adamantia Zampeli. Towards local and compositional measurements in quantum field theory. 5 2025. arXiv: 2505.10968

2025 arXiv
[25]

Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems

Esteban Castro-Ruiz, Flaminia Giacomini, Alessio Belenchia, and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems. Nature Commun. , 11(1):2672, 2020

2020
[26]

Observer-dependent locality of quantum events

Philippe Allard Gu´ erin and ˇCaslav Brukner. Observer-dependent locality of quantum events. New J. Phys. , 20(10):103031, 2018. 15

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Loop quantization as a continuum limit

Elisa Manrique, Robert Oeckl, Axel Weber, and Jos´ e A Zapata. Loop quantization as a continuum limit. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 23(10):3393–3403, April 2006

work page 2006

[2] [1]

Relational quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8):1637–1678, August 1996

work page 1996

[3] [2]

Relational Quantum Mechanics

Carlo Rovelli. Relational Quantum Mechanics. In Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Spring 2025 edition, 2025. 13

work page 2025

[4] [3]

Kenneth G. Wilson. Renormalization group and critical phenomena. i. renormalization group and the kadanoff scaling picture. Phys. Rev. B , 4:3174–3183, Nov 1971

1971

[5] [4]

Kenneth G. Wilson. Renormalization group and critical phenomena. 2. Phase space cell analysis of critical behavior. Phys. Rev. B , 4:3184–3205, 1971

work page 1971

[6] [5]

E. C. G. Stueckelberg and A. Petermann. La normalisation des constantes dans la th´ eorie des quanta.Helv. Phys. Acta , 26:499–520, 1953

work page 1953

[7] [6]

Gell-Mann and F

M. Gell-Mann and F. E. Low. Quantum electrodynamics at small distances. Phys. Rev., 95:1300–1312, Sep 1954

work page 1954

[8] [7]

High-energy behavior in quantum field theory

Steven Weinberg. High-energy behavior in quantum field theory. Phys. Rev., 118:838–849, May 1960

work page 1960