Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Searching for a physical description relative to a quantum system

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for three or more particles, no unitary transformation can put every position and momentum variable relative to a chosen quantum reference frame.

desk verdict Clean unitary no-go theorem with an overreaching abstract: doesn't touch constraint-based QRF descriptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04186 v1 pith:FDT6O2CC submitted 2025-09-04 quant-ph

Henrique A. R. Knopki , Renato M. Angelo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumreferenceframesrelationalobservablescanonicalcommutationrelationsno-gotheoremGalileanrelativityunitarytransformationsmany-bodysystemsrelativecoordinates
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 asks what a quantum system looks like when one particle acts as the reference frame, and whether a standard unitary change of variables can deliver that description. For two particles the answer is yes: center-of-mass and relative coordinates give a canonical pair with a relative position and a mass-weighted relative momentum. For three or more particles the paper proves a no-go: no unitary operator can make all position and momentum variables simultaneously relative to the chosen particle. The proof is a commutator obstruction—one particle's relative position and another's relative momentum refuse to have canonical commutation relations because a mass-dependent cross term appears. The authors conclude that genuinely relational many-body descriptions require new tools beyond unitary reference-frame switches, and they propose a direct operator-substitution rule as a way to compute relative observables in the meantime.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the candidate relative momentum operator P′_i = μ_i0(P_i/m_i − P_0/m_0), with reduced mass μ_i0, proposed as the conjugate to the relative position X_i − X_0. The proof computes the mixed commutator [X_i − X_0, P′_j]; the unwanted term iℏ m_j/(m_j + m_0) for i ≠ j is the obstruction. The paper also dissects the standard relational unitary T_R and shows it yields a hybrid canonical structure—relative position paired with a laboratory-frame momentum—rather than a genuine relative pair.

What would settle it

Construct or numerically search for a unitary U on the three-particle Hilbert space satisfying U†X_i U = X_i − X_0 and U†P_i U = μ_i0(P_i/m_i − P_0/m_0) for i = 1,2. The paper's commutator identity forces the left-hand side to give iℏδ_ij while the right-hand side gives iℏ(m_j + m_0δ_ij)/(m_j + m_0); finding any such U with zero error would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a no-go theorem: within one-dimensional Galilean relativity (absolute time, nonrelativistic kinematics), a system of three or more particles admits no unitary transformation T realizing the relative-pair definitions X′_i = X_i − X_0 and P′_i = μ_i0(P_i/m_i − P_0/m_0) for every other particle i—and hence no unitary map to the full set {-X0, -P0, Xr1, Pr1, ...} in which particle 0 is the quantum reference frame. Assuming such a T existed, the transformed operators would have to satisfy the canonical commutator [X′_i, P′_j] = iℏδ_ij. Direct evaluation using the definitions gives [X_i − X_0, μ_j0(P_j/m_j − P_0/m_0)] = iℏ (m_j + m_0 δ_ij)/(m_j + m_0), which equals iℏδ

Load-bearing premise

The no-go result assumes that a genuine particle-relative description must contain, on the full unconstrained Hilbert space, the canonical pairs (X_i − X_0, μ_i0(P_i/m_i − P_0/m_0)) with the ordinary commutator [X,P] = iℏ; if relative observables are instead defined on a constrained physical space, by nonunitary maps, or with a different momentum combination, the obstruction need not arise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For N ≥ 3, unitary perspective switches to a single-particle quantum reference frame are ruled out; a complete relational description must use a different mathematical structure, such as nonunitary maps or constrained-state methods.
  • Existing unitary transformations that produce relative coordinates for many particles are necessarily hybrid: the position is relative to the chosen particle but the conjugate momentum is relative to the laboratory or to the center of mass.
  • The paper's direct-substitution rule ⟨f⟩′ = Tr[f(R′)ρ] still allows relative expectation values to be computed, but without an active picture one loses the usual way of reading coherence and entanglement from a transformed state.
  • The two-particle case remains fully consistent, so the obstruction is genuinely a many-body effect triggered by the presence of a third particle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The no-go depends on requiring the reduced-mass momentum combination on the unconstrained Hilbert space; approaches that define relational observables on a constrained physical space, or allow nonunitary maps, sidestep the obstruction, and the paper does not claim to rule those out.
  • The same commutator logic may extend to relational time: replacing the particle frame by a clock and the momentum generator by a relative Hamiltonian-like quantity could yield an analogous many-body obstruction.
  • A concrete experimental route would be a three-particle analogue of the decay-superposition example: measure an interference term in the relative momentum sector; a hybrid transformation washes it out, while a true relative description preserves it, so the outcome would indicate which canonical completion nature follows.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether, within Galilean quantum mechanics, one can give a 'genuinely relational' description of an N-particle system from the perspective of one chosen particle. The authors define such a description by canonical pairs of relative positions and reduced-mass relative momenta, and they argue that no unitary transformation on the full kinematical Hilbert space can produce these pairs for N>2. They illustrate the difficulty with a two-particle decay paradox, then prove the no-go result in Sec. V by a commutator contradiction, and finally propose a non-unitary prescription for relational expectation values. The central mathematical claim is a no-go theorem for a specific class of unitary QRF transformations.

Significance. If the result is read as a scoped boundary theorem, it is a clean and elementary contribution: it shows, without free parameters or numerical computation, that the widely used unitary picture of QRF changes cannot simultaneously deliver relative positions and reduced-mass relative momenta for more than one particle. The proof is self-contained and readily verifiable. However, as written, the paper overstates the scope: the no-go applies to unitaries on the unconstrained kinematical Hilbert space under a specific definition of 'relative momentum.' The constraint-based QRF literature, which the paper cites, deliberately works on the physical Hilbert space and does not assume such kinematical unitaries; on the constraint surface a canonical relational description does exist. The paper's claimed significance as a challenge to 'current approaches' therefore needs substantial qualification. The proposed alternative prescription in Sec. VI is also underdeveloped, as the authors themselves concede that it has no active picture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §V, Eq. (18)] The theorem is formulated for a unitary T on the full, unconstrained kinematical Hilbert space, with the specific reduced-mass choice P'_i = μ_i0(P_i/m_i - P_0/m_0). This is a modeling choice, not a physical necessity. The constraint-based QRF framework (Refs. [29], [35], [38]) imposes constraints and defines relational observables on the physical Hilbert space; on the constraint surface P_tot = 0, the operator P_i is canonically conjugate to X_i - X_0, so a canonical relational description is available without any kinematical unitary. Consequently, the abstract's claim that 'current approaches fall short' and the section title 'NO TRANSFORMATION TO A FULL RELATIVE DESCRIPTION' overreach. The no-go should be explicitly scoped to unitary transformations on the kinematical Hilbert space with the reduced-mass relative momentum prescription.
  2. [§V, Eq. (19)] The commutator computation is correct, and the contradiction for i ≠ j is valid. However, the step T†[X_i, P_j]T = iℏδ_ij 1 uses the assumption that T is a unitary on the full Hilbert space. For non-unitary maps, constraint projections, or maps defined only on a reduced physical Hilbert space, this premise fails. The theorem should state this assumption prominently; the current wording in §V and the Discussion ('no transformation') is stronger than what is proved.
  3. [§VI, Eq. (20)] After proving that no unitary T exists, the paper proposes ⟨f⟩' = Tr[f(R')ρ] with R' satisfying Eq. (18). This is a formal operator-algebra recipe, but without a unitary there is no guarantee that it corresponds to a valid physical implementation; the authors concede that no active picture exists. Since this prescription is offered as the way forward, its operational meaning and physical justification need to be developed. As it stands, Eq. (20) is closer to a definition than to a derivation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (13a)] The expectation value of e^{-i(2d)P_1/ℏ} in the state of Eq. (12a) is e^{-iϕ}/2, not e^{iϕ}/2; the real part is (1/2)cosϕ. If the authors intend the modular-momentum real part, they should write (1/2)cosϕ. This affects the illustrative paradox but not the no-go theorem.
  2. [References] Refs. [24] and [41] are the same paper (Giacomini, Castro-Ruiz, Brukner, 'Relativistic quantum reference frames: the operational meaning of spin') and should be consolidated. Please check for other duplicate entries.
  3. [§V, proof statement] The proof is presented for one spatial dimension. The generalization to three dimensions is immediate but should be stated explicitly to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Sec. V no-go is a self-contained reductio from the canonical commutation relations; self-citations are framing only.

full rationale

The central claim is the theorem in Sec. V: no unitary T on the kinematical Hilbert space can satisfy Eq. (18), because then [X'_i,P'_j] would have to equal i\hbar\delta_{ij}, while direct computation from the assumed expressions gives an extra m_j/(m_j+m_0) term for i≠j. This is an internal mathematical contradiction and does not use any fitted parameter, prediction, or external result. The self-citations (Refs. [5,6,7,12] for the expectation-value prescription Eq. (2) and for the two-particle unitary T_CM,r) supply context and notation, but the reductio goes through for the stated assumption (18) without relying on those papers. The definition of what counts as a 'genuinely relative' description is indeed the load-bearing premise — the paper opts for canonical pairs on the full unconstrained Hilbert space with reduced-mass relative momenta, rather than constraint-based physical-Hilbert-space relational observables — but this is an explicitly stated modeling choice, not a hidden circular identification. The abstract's claim that 'current approaches fall short' is broader than what the theorem establishes (constraint-based QRF frameworks need not be unitaries on the kinematical space), and Sec. VI itself concedes that no active picture exists for its proposed prescription (20). These are scope/correctness concerns, not circularity. Minor self-citation is present but not load-bearing; score 0.

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

The no-go theorem uses no fitted numbers. Masses m_i enter as physical inputs; the example state in Sec. IV uses parameters (d, x, σ_n, ϕ) that are illustrative, not fitted to anything. The reduced mass μ_i0 is a definition, not a fit. The paper posits no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities. The central claim rests on the CCR, unitarity preservation, and the definitional postulate (18); the authors' own prior results enter only through the interpretive prescription (Eq. (2)), which the no-go does not use.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Canonical commutation relations [X_i, P_j] = iℏδ_ij on the N-particle Hilbert space.
    Invoked throughout Sec. V; the contradiction in Eq. (19) is a direct CCR computation.
  • standard math A unitary T preserves all commutators: T†[A,B]T = [T†AT, T†BT].
    This is the mechanism of the reductio: the target operators must satisfy [X'_i, P'_j] = iℏδ_ij, which they fail to do.
  • domain assumption The genuinely relative momentum of particle i with respect to particle 0 is μ_i0(P_i/m_i - P_0/m_0), so a 'fully relative' description must use canonical pairs {X_i - X_0, μ_i0(P_i/m_i - P_0/m_0)}.
    Eq. (18). This is the load-bearing modeling postulate; constraint-based QRF approaches regard other momentum choices as legitimate on the physical Hilbert space, so the no-go depends on this definition.
  • domain assumption The correct expectation-value prescription for QRF physics is ⟨O⟩' = ⟨ψ|T†OT|ψ⟩ (Eq. (2)), not the relabeling prescription of Eq. (1).
    Adopted in Sec. II from the authors' prior work (Refs [7], [12]); motivates the paradox reading but is not needed for the Sec. V no-go.
  • domain assumption Galilean relativity with absolute time, fixed spatial coordinates, and kinematic relationality of positions.
    The no-go is explicitly restricted to this regime (abstract, Sec. VI); relativistic and time-reparameterization-invariant QRF settings are outside the theorem's scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for a physical description relative to a quantum system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FDT6O2CC

@misc{pith2026250904186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for a physical description relative to a quantum system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FDT6O2CC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04186}
}
read the original abstract

Physics is a model of nature able to both describe and predict the results of measurements made with respect to reference systems. These reference systems, in turn, are themselves physical and thus subject to the laws of physics. The situation is no different when the model in use is quantum mechanics: states and observables are relative entities, and reference frames are not exempt from exhibiting quantum behavior. In recent years, the scientific community has shown renewed interest in quantum reference frames, particularly in connection with the covariance of physical laws and quantum resources. However, current approaches fall short of providing a complete prescription for predicting observables associated solely with degrees of freedom accessible from the quantum reference frame. In pursuit of such a description, we show that while this is fully feasible for two-particle systems, there are irreducible difficulties that arise in many-body systems. In particular, within the framework of Galilean relativity, with absolute time, we demonstrate that a canonical and relational description with respect to a particle in the system cannot be achieved through any unitary transformation. Our findings call for new strategies to address the problem of quantum reference frames.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Classically, the decay can occur with particle 0 occupying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What can we do in a symmetry-constrained perspective? The importance of the total charge's status in quantum reference frame frameworks

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-observer Z2 toy model is used to argue that internal observers can access the total charge, favoring weak over strong symmetry in quantum reference frame frameworks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework, Quantum 4 (2020) 225. 7 doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225 . URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225

    doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225 2020

  2. [35]

    Krumm, P

    M. Krumm, P. A. Hoehn, M. P. Mueller, Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle, Quantum 5 (2021) 530. doi:10.22331/q- 2021-09-27-530

    doi:10.22331/q- 2021

  3. [38]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, Switching quan- tum reference frames in the n-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives, Quantum 7 (2023) 1088. doi: 10.22331/q-2023-03-28-1088

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-28-1088 2023

  4. [1]

    Aharonov, T

    Y . Aharonov, T. Kaufherr, Quantum frames of ref- erence, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 368–385. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.30.368. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 30.368

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.368 1984

  5. [2]

    Aharonov, L

    Y . Aharonov, L. Susskind, Charge superselection rule, Physical Review 155 (1967) 1428.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1428

    doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1428 1967

  6. [3]

    Kitaev, D

    A. Kitaev, D. Mayers, J. Preskill, Superselection rules and quantum protocols, Physical Review A 69 (2004) 052326.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.052326

    doi:10.1103/physreva.69.052326 2004

  7. [4]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, Dialogue concern- ing two views on quantum coherence: factist and fictionist, In- ternational Journal of Quantum Information 4 (2006) 17–43. doi:10.1142/S0219749906001591. 6

    doi:10.1142/s0219749906001591 2006

  8. [5]

    R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, P. Skrzypczyk, Physics within a quantum reference frame, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44 (14) (2011) 145304. doi:10.1088/ 1751-8113/44/14/145304. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/14/ 145304

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/14/ 2011

Show all 60 references
  1. [6]

    R. M. Angelo, A. D. Ribeiro, Kinematics and dynamics in non- inertial quantum frames of reference, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45 (46) (2012) 465306. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/45/46/ 465306. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/45/46/ 465306

    2012 doi

  2. [7]

    S. T. Pereira, R. M. Angelo, Galilei covariance and einstein’s equivalence principle in quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 022107. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.022107. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 91.022107

    2015 doi

  3. [8]

    Loveridge, P

    L. Loveridge, P. Busch, T. Miyadera, Relativity of quantum states and observables, Europhys. Lett. 117 (4) (2017) 40004. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/117/40004. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/117/ 40004

    2017 doi

  4. [9]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, ˇC. Brukner, Quantum mechan- ics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames, Nature Commun. 10 (1) (2019) 494. doi:10.1038/ s41467-018-08155-0 . URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08155-0

    2019 doi

  5. [10]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, Refer- ence frames, superselection rules, and quantum in- formation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 79 (2007) 555–609. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.79.555. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.79.555

    2007 doi

  6. [11]

    M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, S. D. Bartlett, Changing quan- tum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 89 (2014) 052121. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.052121. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 89.052121

    2014 doi

  7. [12]

    M. F. Savi, R. M. Angelo, Quantum resource co- variance, Phys. Rev. A 103 (2021) 022220. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.022220. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 103.022220

    2021 doi

  8. [13]

    Cepollaro, A

    C. Cepollaro, A. Akil, P. Cie ´sli´nski, A.-C. de la Hamette, ˇCaslav Brukner, The sum of entanglement and subsystem co- herence is invariant under quantum reference frame transfor- mations (2024). arXiv:2406.19448. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19448

    2024

  9. [14]

    Massar, S

    S. Massar, S. Popescu, Optimal extraction of information from finite quantum ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 1259–1263. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1259. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.74.1259

    1995 doi

  10. [15]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, Classical and quan- tum communication without a shared reference frame, Phys- ical Review Letters 91 (2) (2003) 027901. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.91.027901

    2003

  11. [16]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, P. S. Turner, Quantum communication using a bounded-size quantum reference frame, New J. Phys. 11 (6) (2009) 063013. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/063013. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/6/ 063013

    2009 doi

  12. [17]

    Costa, N

    F. Costa, N. Harrigan, T. Rudolph, ˇCaslav Brukner, Entangle- ment detection with bounded reference frames, New J. Phys. 11 (12) (2009) 123007. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/ 123007. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/12/ 123007

    2009 doi

  13. [18]

    Liang, N

    Y .-C. Liang, N. Harrigan, S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, Nonclassical correlations from randomly chosen lo- cal measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 050401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.050401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.104.050401

    2010 doi

  14. [19]

    G. Gour, R. W. Spekkens, The resource theory of quan- tum reference frames: manipulations and monotones, New J. Phys. 10 (3) (2008) 033023. doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/10/3/033023. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/3/ 033023

    2008 doi

  15. [20]

    Popescu, A

    S. Popescu, A. B. Sainz, A. J. Short, A. Winter, Quantum ref- erence frames and their applications to thermodynamics, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376 (2018) 20180111. doi:https://doi. org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0111. URL https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0111

    2018

  16. [21]

    Peres, P

    A. Peres, P. F. Scudo, D. R. Terno, Quantum entropy and special relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 230402. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.230402. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.88.230402

    2002 doi

  17. [22]

    R. M. Gingrich, C. Adami, Quantum entanglement of moving bodies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 270402. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.270402. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.89.270402

    2002 doi

  18. [23]

    Peres, D

    A. Peres, D. R. Terno, Quantum information and rel- ativity theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2004) 93–123. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.93. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.76.93

    2004 doi

  19. [24]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, i. c. v. Brukner, Rel- ativistic quantum reference frames: The operational meaning of spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 090404. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.090404. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.123.090404

    2019 doi

  20. [25]

    Rovelli, What is observable in classical and quan- tum gravity?, Class

    C. Rovelli, What is observable in classical and quan- tum gravity?, Class. Quantum Grav. 8 (2) (1991) 297. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/011. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/ 011

    1991 doi

  21. [26]

    Rovelli, Quantum reference systems, Class

    C. Rovelli, Quantum reference systems, Class. Quantum Grav. 8 (2) (1991) 317. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/012. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/ 012

    1991 doi

  22. [27]

    Dittrich, Partial and complete observables for canonical gen- eral relativity, Class

    B. Dittrich, Partial and complete observables for canonical gen- eral relativity, Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (22) (2006) 6155. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/006. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/22/ 006

    2006 doi

  23. [28]

    P. A. H ¨ohn, Switching internal times and a new perspective on the ‘wave function of the universe’, Universe 5 (5) (2019). URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/5/5/116

    2019

  24. [30]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, ˇC. Brukner, Quan- tum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the pres- ence of gravitating quantum systems, Nat. Commun. 11 (2020)

    2020

  25. [31]

    L. J. Henderson, A. Belenchia, E. Castro-Ruiz, C. Budroni, M. Zych, ˇC. Brukner, R. B. Mann, Quantum temporal superpo- sition: The case of quantum field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 131602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.131602. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRe...

    2020 doi

  26. [32]

    L. C. Barbado, E. Castro-Ruiz, L. Apadula, ˇC. Brukner, Unruh e ffect for detectors in superposition of accel- erations, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 045002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.045002. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 102.045002

    2020 doi

  27. [33]

    Merriam, Quantum relativity: physical laws must be invari- ant over quantum systems, arXiv preprint quant-ph /0506228 (2005)

    P. Merriam, Quantum relativity: physical laws must be invari- ant over quantum systems, arXiv preprint quant-ph /0506228 (2005). arXiv:quant-ph/0506228

    2005 arXiv

  28. [34]

    A. C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups, Quantum 4 (2020) 367. doi: 10.22331/q-2020-11-30-367

    2020 doi

  29. [36]

    P. A. Hoehn, M. Krumm, M. P. Mueller, Internal quantum refer- ence frames for finite abelian groups, Journal of Mathematical Physics 63 (11) (2022) 112203. doi:10.1063/5.0070642

    2022 doi

  30. [37]

    P. A. Hoehn, Switching internal times and a new perspective on the ‘wave function of the universe’, Universe 5 (6) (2019) 116. doi:10.3390/universe5060116

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. Vanrietvelde, How to switch between relational quantum clocks, New Journal of Physics 22 (2020) 123048. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abd305

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith, M. P. E. Lock, Equivalence of approaches to relational quantum dynamics in relativistic set- tings, Frontiers in Physics 9 (2021) 587083. doi:10.3389/ fphy.2021.587083

    2021

  33. [41]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, ˇC. Brukner, Relativistic quan- tum reference frames: the operational meaning of spin, Phys- ical Review Letters 123 (2019) 090404. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.123.090404

    2019

  34. [42]

    Streiter, F

    L. Streiter, F. Giacomini, ˇC. Brukner, Relativistic Bell test within quantum reference frames, Physical Review Letters 126 (23) (2021) 230403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126. 230403

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Ballesteros, F

    A. Ballesteros, F. Giacomini, G. Gubitosi, The group struc- ture of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames, Quantum 5 (2021) 470. doi:10.22331/q-2021-07- 06-470

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Giacomini, Spacetime quantum reference frames and su- perpositions of proper times, Quantum 5 (2021) 508

    F. Giacomini, Spacetime quantum reference frames and su- perpositions of proper times, Quantum 5 (2021) 508. doi: 10.22331/q-2021-08-30-508

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    A. R. H. Smith, M. Ahmadi, Quantum clocks observe classical and quantum time dilation, Nature Communications 11 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Mikusch, L

    M. Mikusch, L. C. Barbado, ˇC. Brukner, Transformation of spin in quantum reference frames, Physical Review Research 3 (4) (2021) 043138. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3. 043138

    2021 doi

  39. [47]

    P. A. Hoehn, M. P. Lock, S. A. Ahmad, A. R. H. Smith, T. D. Galley, Quantum relativity of subsystems, Physical Review Let- ters 128 (17) (2022) 170401. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.170401

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, ˇC. Brukner, Quan- tum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the pres- ence of gravitating quantum systems, Nature Communications 11 (2020) 2672. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16013-1

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith, M. P. E. Lock, Trinity of relational quantum dynamics, Physical Review D 104 (6) (2021) 066001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066001

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    M. J. Lake, M. Miller, Quantum reference frames, revisited (2023). arXiv:2312.03811. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03811

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Castro-Ruiz, O

    E. Castro-Ruiz, O. Oreshkov, Relative subsystems and quan- tum reference frame transformations, Communications Physics 8 (2025) 187. doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02036-x

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    Carette, J

    T. Carette, J. Glowacki, L. Loveridge, Operational quantum reference frame transformations, Quantum 9 (2025) 1680. doi:10.22331/q-2025-03-06-1680 . URL https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2025- 03-06-1680/

    2025 doi

  45. [53]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden- variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 880–884. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.23.880

    1969 doi

  46. [54]

    L. F. Streiter, F. Giacomini, ˇC. Brukner, Relativistic Bell test within quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 230403. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.230403. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.230403

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    W. T. Kim, E. J. Son, Lorentz-invariant Bell’s in- equality, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 014102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.014102. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 71.014102

    2005 doi

  48. [56]

    A. G. S. Landulfo, G. E. A. Matsas, Influence of detector motion in Bell inequalities with entangled fermions, Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009) 044103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.79.044103. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 79.044103

    2009 doi

  49. [57]

    Moradpour, S

    H. Moradpour, S. Maghool, S. A. Moosavi, Three-particle Bell- like inequalities under lorentz transformations, Quantum Infor- mation Processing 14 (10) (2015) 3913–3931. doi:10.1007/ s11128-015-1064-3 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11128-015-1064-3

    2015 doi

  50. [58]

    Ahn, H.-j

    D. Ahn, H.-j. Lee, Y . H. Moon, S. W. Hwang, Relativistic entanglement and Bell’s inequality, Phys. Rev. A 67 (2003) 012103. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.012103. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 67.012103

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

    Aharonov, D

    Y . Aharonov, D. Rohrlich, Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum The- ory for the Perplexed, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005

    2005

  52. [5360]

    doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19154-2

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.