From Symmetry and Reduction to Physically Meaningful Relational Observables in Many-Body Quantum Theory
Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:17 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Physically meaningful observables in many-body quantum mechanics must depend on multiple particles due to invariance under symmetries and Galilean boosts.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
We consider symmetries and reduction in non-relativistic many-body quantum mechanics to identify physically meaningful observables in systems such as molecules and crystalline solids. We propose a unified framework based on two additional postulates. For stable systems, the physically relevant states are normalizable stationary states, while physically meaningful observables are required to be invariant under a selected subgroup of the symmetry group and under Galilean boosts. In addition, we postulate the existence of a map from the set of all observables allowed by quantum mechanics to the corresponding invariant physically meaningful observables. An important consequence of the postulates
What carries the argument
The map from quantum observables to those invariant under a selected symmetry subgroup and Galilean boosts, which produces relational observables.
If this is right
- Every physically meaningful observable depends on more than one non-invariant observable associated with single-particle degrees of freedom.
- The resulting theories align with existing literature on symmetry reduction for molecules and solids.
- The framework is consistent with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics where descriptions are relative to other systems.
- Galilean boost invariance excludes quantities that depend on the choice of inertial frame.
- Superselection rules and quantum reference frames become part of the process for obtaining the relational description.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- This could provide a systematic way to derive effective descriptions in molecular physics by enforcing the map without ad hoc reductions.
- Experiments measuring molecular spectra could test whether observables match the predicted relational form depending on multiple particles.
- Similar invariance requirements might apply in other areas of quantum theory involving reference frames.
Load-bearing premise
The existence of a well-defined map from the set of all quantum observables to the corresponding set of invariant physically meaningful observables that does not require additional arbitrary choices.
What would settle it
Finding a physically meaningful observable in a many-body system, such as the internuclear distance in a diatomic molecule, that can be defined using only a single particle's degrees of freedom while satisfying the invariance conditions under the symmetry subgroup and Galilean boosts.
read the original abstract
We consider symmetries and reduction in non-relativistic many-body quantum mechanics, with the aim of identifying physically meaningful observables in systems such as molecules and crystalline solids. To this end, we propose a unified framework based on two additional postulates supplementing the standard quantum-mechanical formalism. For stable systems, the physically relevant states are normalizable stationary states, while physically meaningful observables are required to be invariant under a selected subgroup of the symmetry group and under Galilean boosts. In addition, we postulate the existence of a map from the set of all observables allowed by quantum mechanics to the corresponding invariant physically meaningful observables. The originality of the present work does not lie in specific reductions, but in the unified framework that connects symmetry reduction and relational many-body quantum theory. We interpret entities like superselection rules and quantum reference frames as important parts of the postulated process of obtaining the physically meaningful relational description. In particular, the requirement of Galilean-boost invariance added strengthens the criterion for physical observability by excluding quantities that depend on the choice of inertial frame. An important consequence of the postulates is that in the considered cases every physically meaningful observable necessarily depends on more than one non-invariant observable, the latter being typically associated with degrees of freedom assigned to a single particle. The postulates thus lead to theories that are well aligned with the literature on reduction and the description of molecules, while at the same time being consistent with the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which the complete physical description of a system is defined only relative to other systems.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a unified framework supplementing standard non-relativistic many-body quantum mechanics with two postulates to identify physically meaningful relational observables in systems such as molecules and crystalline solids. The first postulate restricts attention to normalizable stationary states for stable systems and requires observables to be invariant under a selected subgroup of the symmetry group together with Galilean boosts. The second postulate asserts the existence of a map from the full set of quantum-mechanical observables to this invariant subset. The authors interpret superselection rules and quantum reference frames as components of this reduction process and conclude that every physically meaningful observable must depend on more than one non-invariant (particle-assigned) observable, yielding a description aligned with both the reduction literature and the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Significance. If the postulated map can be made explicit and shown to be canonical for the systems of interest, the framework would offer a systematic bridge between symmetry reduction techniques, Galilean invariance, and relational quantum mechanics, potentially clarifying how superselection rules emerge in many-body contexts. The emphasis on Galilean-boost invariance as an additional physicality criterion is a constructive addition to existing discussions of quantum reference frames. However, the current presentation leaves the map as an existence assumption without construction, limiting immediate applicability to concrete calculations.
major comments (2)
- [Abstract and postulates section] The second postulate (existence of a map from all QM observables to the Galilean- and subgroup-invariant subset) is stated in the abstract and used to derive the central consequence that every physically meaningful observable depends on multiple non-invariant observables. No explicit definition, construction, or uniqueness argument for this map is supplied for the molecules or solids under consideration; without it the procedure for selecting relational observables remains non-systematic and the claimed consequence is not demonstrated.
- [Abstract] The claim that the postulates are 'well aligned with the literature on reduction and the description of molecules' and 'consistent with the relational interpretation' is asserted but not supported by a direct comparison or example showing how the map reproduces known reduced observables (e.g., relative coordinates or center-of-mass invariants) in a specific many-body Hamiltonian.
minor comments (2)
- The notation for the symmetry subgroup and the precise meaning of 'selected subgroup' should be defined more explicitly when first introduced, to avoid ambiguity with the full Galilean group.
- A brief discussion of how the framework relates to or differs from existing constructions of relational observables via quantum reference frames (e.g., specific citations to works on internal reference frames) would improve context.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. The comments correctly identify areas where the presentation of the framework can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: The second postulate (existence of a map from all QM observables to the Galilean- and subgroup-invariant subset) is stated in the abstract and used to derive the central consequence that every physically meaningful observable depends on multiple non-invariant observables. No explicit definition, construction, or uniqueness argument for this map is supplied for the molecules or solids under consideration; without it the procedure for selecting relational observables remains non-systematic and the claimed consequence is not demonstrated.
Authors: The second postulate is intentionally formulated as an existence statement to define a unified framework that connects symmetry reduction with relational observables, without prescribing a system-specific construction. The central consequence follows directly from the invariance requirements: any observable that is invariant under the selected subgroup of symmetries and under Galilean boosts cannot depend on a single non-invariant degree of freedom (such as the position or momentum of one particle) and must involve at least two such degrees of freedom to achieve invariance. We will revise the manuscript to make this logical implication more explicit in the main text and add a simple illustrative example (e.g., a two-particle system under Galilean invariance) demonstrating how the invariance condition enforces relational dependence. We do not claim uniqueness of the map, as multiple reduction procedures may exist for a given system. revision: partial
-
Referee: The claim that the postulates are 'well aligned with the literature on reduction and the description of molecules' and 'consistent with the relational interpretation' is asserted but not supported by a direct comparison or example showing how the map reproduces known reduced observables (e.g., relative coordinates or center-of-mass invariants) in a specific many-body Hamiltonian.
Authors: We agree that the alignment claims would benefit from explicit support. In the revised manuscript we will include a brief but direct comparison, using the standard separation into center-of-mass and relative coordinates for a two-body system with a translationally invariant Hamiltonian. This example will show how the Galilean-boost and symmetry invariance postulates recover the known reduced observables, thereby illustrating consistency with both the reduction literature and relational quantum mechanics. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No circularity: framework rests on two explicit postulates whose consequences follow deductively from invariance definitions without self-referential reduction or fitted inputs.
full rationale
The paper supplements standard QM with two postulates: (1) physically relevant states are normalizable stationary states and observables are invariant under a selected subgroup plus Galilean boosts; (2) a map exists from all QM observables to the invariant subset. The central claim—that every physically meaningful observable must depend on more than one non-invariant (typically single-particle) observable—follows directly as a logical consequence of the invariance requirement in postulate (1), not by redefining the input or fitting parameters. No equations reduce to prior results by construction, no self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and does not exhibit any of the enumerated circularity patterns.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (3)
- domain assumption For stable systems, the physically relevant states are normalizable stationary states.
- domain assumption Physically meaningful observables are required to be invariant under a selected subgroup of the symmetry group and under Galilean boosts.
- ad hoc to paper There exists a map from the set of all observables allowed by quantum mechanics to the corresponding invariant physically meaningful observables.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
P. A. M. Dirac 1958,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press
work page 1958
-
[2]
Wigner 1967,Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press
Eugene P. Wigner 1967,Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press
work page 1967
-
[3]
Emmy Noether. 1918,Nachr. Ges. Wiss. G¨ ottingen, Math.-Phys. Kl., pp. 235–257
work page 1918
-
[4]
C. N. Yang and R. L. Mills. 1954,Phys. Rev.,961, pp. 191–195
work page 1954
-
[5]
L. D. Landau. 1937,Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.,7, pp. 19–32
work page 1937
-
[6]
J. F. Cornwell 1997,Group Theory in Physics, Academic Press
work page 1997
-
[7]
Steven Weinberg 1995,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations, Cambridge Uni- versity Press
work page 1995
-
[8]
Isaac Newton 1687,Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Royal Society
-
[9]
Joseph-Louis Lagrange 1788,M´ ecanique Analytique, Chez la Veuve Desaint
- [10]
-
[11]
Carl Gustav Jacob Jacobi. 1842
-
[12]
Henri Poincar´ e 1892,Les M´ ethodes Nouvelles de la M´ ecanique C´ eleste, Gauthier-Villars
- [13]
- [14]
-
[15]
Harald H. Nielsen. 1951,Rev. Mod. Phys.,23, pp. 90–136
work page 1951
-
[16]
Edgar Bright Wilson, John Courtney Decius, and Paul C Cross 1955,Molecular vibrations: the theory of infrared and Raman vibrational spectra, McGraw-Hill Book Company
work page 1955
- [17]
-
[18]
R. G. Woolley 1980,Quantum dynamics of molecules: the new experimental challenge to theorists, Plenum Press
work page 1980
- [19]
-
[20]
T. Kreibich and E. K. U. Gross. 2001,Phys. Rev. Lett.,86, pp. 2984–2987
work page 2001
-
[21]
James KG Watson. 2004,J. Mol. Spectrosc.,2282, pp. 645–658
work page 2004
-
[22]
Antonio O Bouzas. 2005,J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.,3836, p. 7873
work page 2005
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26]
-
[27]
N. P. Landsman 1998,Mathematical Topics Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics, Springer
work page 1998
-
[28]
Littlejohn and Matthias Reinsch
Robert G. Littlejohn and Matthias Reinsch. 1997,Rev. Mod. Phys.,69, pp. 213–276
work page 1997
-
[29]
Mechanical Systems: Symmetry and Reduction
Jerrold E. Marsden and Tudor S. Ratiu. “Mechanical Systems: Symmetry and Reduction”.En- cyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Ed. by Robert A. Meyers. Vol. 6. Springer, 2009, pp. 5482–5510.doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_329
-
[30]
Jerrold E Marsden and Tudor S Ratiu 2013,Introduction to mechanics and symmetry: a basic exposition of classical mechanical systems, Springer Science & Business Media
work page 2013
- [31]
- [32]
- [33]
-
[34]
Beyond Born-Oppenheimer Green’s function theories: absolute and relational
Ville J H¨ ark¨ onen. “Beyond Born-Oppenheimer Green’s function theories: absolute and relational”. J Phys.: Conference Series. Vol. 3017. 1. IOP Publishing. 2025, p. 012023
work page 2025
- [35]
-
[36]
H¨ ark¨ onen, Robert van Leeuwen, and E
Ville J. H¨ ark¨ onen, Robert van Leeuwen, and E. K. U. Gross. 2020,Phys. Rev. B,101, p. 235153
work page 2020
- [37]
-
[38]
Julian B Barbour. 1982,Br. J. Philos. Sci.,333, pp. 251–274
work page 1982
- [39]
- [40]
- [41]
- [42]
- [43]
-
[44]
Leon Loveridge, Takayuki Miyadera, and Paul Busch. 2018,Found. Phys.,482, pp. 135–198
work page 2018
-
[45]
Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W
Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W. Spekkens. 2007,Rev. Mod. Phys.,79, pp. 555– 609
work page 2007
-
[46]
2019,Nature communications,10 1, pp
Flaminia Giacomini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. 2019,Nature communications,10 1, pp. 1–13
work page 2019
-
[47]
W. H. Zurek. 1982,Phys. Rev. D,26, pp. 1862–1880
work page 1982
- [48]
-
[49]
Don N. Page and William K. Wootters. 1983,Phys. Rev. D,27, pp. 2885–2892
work page 1983
-
[50]
Yakir Aharonov and Daniel Rohrlich 2005,Quantum Paradoxes: Quantum Theory for the Perplexed, Wiley-VCH
work page 2005
-
[51]
Michael Reed and Barry Simon 1978,Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics: Vol.: 4.: Analysis of Operators, Academic Press New York
work page 1978
-
[52]
Max Wagner 1986,Unitary Transformations in Solid State Physics, North-Holland
work page 1986
- [53]
- [54]
-
[55]
K Huang and M Born 1954,Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices, Clarendon Press Oxford
work page 1954
- [56]
- [57]
-
[58]
Reiner M. Dreizler and Eberhard K. U. Gross 1990,Density Functional Theory: An Approach to the Quantum Many-Body Problem, Springer-Verlag
work page 1990
- [59]
-
[60]
Thomas Kreibich, Robert van Leeuwen, and E. K. U. Gross. 2008,Phys. Rev. A,78, p. 022501
work page 2008
- [61]
-
[62]
Eberhard K.U. Gross, Erich Runge, and O. Heinonen 1991,Many-particle theory, Adam Hilger
work page 1991
- [63]
- [64]
-
[65]
Ville J H¨ ark¨ onen. 2026,J. Phys.: Condens. Matter,384, p. 045501
work page 2026
- [66]
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.