Towards objectivity of classical reference frames in quantum mechanics

Jaros{\l}aw K. Korbicz; Rafa{\l} \'Cwiek

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Towards objectivity of classical reference frames in quantum mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reference frames can be made quantum-objective, but only modulo relative rotations and with unavoidable disturbance.

desk verdict A correct and useful extension of SBS objectivity to reference frames; the central limit holds, but the appendix proof needs a rigorous tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05545 v1 pith:EMN237TG submitted 2025-06-05 quant-ph

Rafa{l} Ćwiek , Jaros{l}aw K. Korbicz This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumobjectivityreferenceframesDarwinismspectrumbroadcaststructurescovariantagreementnon-disturbanceSU(2)representationsframetransmission

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 tries to establish that a complex piece of information—a 3D Cartesian reference frame, not just a single observable value—can be made objective in quantum mechanics. It embeds a known reference-frame transmission protocol into a Spectrum Broadcast Structure with multiple observers, replacing the usual requirement that everyone sees the same value with a 'covariant agreement': each observer's measured rotation differs only by their relative orientation. The central mathematical result is that in the limit of many encoding spins the joint probability distribution over all observers' estimates converges to a product of delta functions, so agreement holds modulo relative rotations with certainty. The paper also checks the non-disturbance condition and finds it fails: even a single measurement leaves the frame state significantly disturbed, and the disturbance grows with the number of observers. This establishes partial, not full, objectivity for reference frames, and opens the way to objectifying geometric information in quantum theory.

What carries the argument

The left regular representation states |g⟩ of SU(2), with the idealization ⟨g|h⟩=δ(g,h). These states encode all possible reference frames and are used to build an SBS-like state that is a frame-invariant mixture over Alice's possible rotations. The calculation of the transmission fidelity probability p(g'|g) (which depends only on the hyperspherical angle θ between g and g′) plus the delta-convergence of this probability in the large-spin limit is what carries the argument, yielding the covariant agreement and the fidelity bounds for disturbance.

What would settle it

Prepare the SBS-like frame state (35) with a moderate but finite number of spins N, let k observers perform the maximum-likelihood covariant POVM, and measure the joint distribution of their estimates plus the post-measurement state fidelity. If the joint distribution fails to concentrate on R R_i with the expected 1/N² width, or if the measured disturbance disagrees with the bounds (1−λ^k, √(1−λ^k)), the asymptotic claims would be falsified. A more direct check would be to test the delta-convergence limit (46) numerically for finite large J by evaluating the integral in Eq. (171) without the small-θ expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reference frames can be (at least partially) objectified in quantum mechanics, with a novel form of agreement called 'covariant agreement'. For a state that encodes a rotation in N spins shared with k observers, the joint probability density that observer i estimates rotation R'_i is shown to converge, as N,J→∞, to ∫ dR p0(R) ∏_i δ(R R_i, R'_i). This means asymptotically all observers agree on Alice's frame modulo their relative orientations R_i. The paper also shows the non-disturbance condition fails: the trace distance between pre- and post-measurement states is bounded below by 1−λ^k where λ≈0.236, so even a single measurement significantly disturbs the state, and the disturbance grows with the number of observers.

Load-bearing premise

The math relies on treating the reference frame degrees of freedom as non-normalizable states with delta-function overlaps, then dropping the infinite traces that appear and redefining the joint probability and trace norm using only the finite parts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Reference-frame transmission to k observers can achieve error-free covariant agreement in the limit of large N, with the error scaling like 1/N² for a single observer.
The non-disturbance condition of SBS objectivity fails for reference frames; the post-measurement state is asymptotically disturbed even for one observer, with the disturbance growing with the number of observers.
The disturbance analysis quantifies the previously unexamined disturbance of the original single-receiver reference frame transmission protocol.
The results are stated for SO(3)/SU(2) frames but the formalism is expected to generalize to arbitrary compact-group reference frames using the same left regular representation construction.
The state (35) could be a stepping stone to connecting quantum objectivity with geometry, if a way to satisfy non-disturbance is found in future schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

The distinction between covariant and absolute agreement suggests a hierarchy of objectivity notions: information with a gauge group can only be objective modulo the group action, and this may be the best possible for geometric information in quantum theory.
A natural next test is whether open-system dynamics (e.g., decoherence into a many-body environment) can produce the SBS-like frame state (35) approximately, which would make covariant agreement dynamical rather than just a property of an engineered state.
The failure of non-disturbance indicates that a full objectivity criterion for reference frames would require either a different kind of measurement (e.g., weak or unsharp) or an encoding with a different trade-off between fidelity and disturbance.
The relation between the frame-objectivization state (35) and frame-inclusion states (37) is a mathematical gap left open; it could be clarified by considering states that are invariant under a subgroup rather than fully invariant, which may allow a non-constant p0.

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

Read it. The paper does what it says: it takes the Bagan/Baig/Chiribella reference-frame transmission protocol and embeds it in an SBS-style objectivity construction. The genuinely new pieces are the exact conditional probability p(g'|g) in Eq. (26), the multi-observer covariant-agreement limit Eq. (48), and the first disturbance bounds for the protocol, Eqs. (61)–(63). The single-observer asymptotic correctness partly re-derives known transmission asymptotics, but the multi-observer agreement statement is new.

The appendices are detailed and the derivations are internally consistent. I checked the main line: given the encoding (8) and POVM (12), the character sum to Eq. (26) is clean. The covariant-agreement limit (48) is the real result. The stress-test note worried that Appendix E's replacement of the integrand by its small-θ expansion at Eq. (161) is uncontrolled and therefore the delta-limit is not established. I disagree. Rescale θ = x/J; the integrand converges pointwise to a fixed L¹ kernel 8π sin²2x/(π²−4x²)², whose integral is 1, and F(x/J) → F(0). That is a standard delta-sequence. The proof as written does skip the justification, and a referee should ask for a proper dominated-convergence argument, but the conclusion is correct.

The bigger caveat is the one the authors acknowledge themselves: the reference-frame degrees of freedom are non-normalizable states |g⟩ with δ-function inner products. When divergent traces appear, the probability density and trace norm are redefined by dropping Tr(|g⟩⟨g|). That is a formal move, not a well-defined measurement on a normalizable state. For a physics paper it is acceptable if stated clearly, which it is, but it limits the mathematical strength of the objectivity claim.

The disturbance constant λ≈0.236 is given by a numerical integral with no closed form or code. Minor, but annoying for reproducibility. The disturbance bounds depend on the chosen POVM square root; they flag the ambiguity, and their choice is the natural projection one.

Who is this for: people working on quantum Darwinism/SBS, the quantum-to-classical transition, or reference frames in QI. It does not reorder the field, but it extends the SBS framework to geometric information and gives a concrete notion of covariant agreement.

Recommendation: yes, send to peer review. Ask the authors to replace the informal expansion in Appendix E with a rescaling argument and to comment on the normalization issue. Conditional acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes the Spectrum Broadcast Structures (SBS) framework of quantum objectivity from discrete values of observables to 3D Cartesian reference frames, which carry an SO(3) gauge structure. Alice encodes an unknown rotation R_A in a state of N spin-1/2 particles, and k observers independently decode it with covariant POVMs, each using a copy of the state. By introducing a Hilbert-space degree of freedom for the reference frame via the non-normalizable states |g> of the left regular representation, the authors define a formal joint state (35) and a renormalized joint probability density (41). Their central result, Eq. (48), states that as N goes to infinity the joint probability density of the observers' estimates converges to \int dR p0(R) \prod_i \delta(RR_i,R'_i), expressing covariant agreement modulo relative orientations. They also compute the asymptotic disturbance, showing that the fidelity between pre- and post-measurement states tends to lambda^k with lambda≈0.236, so the non-disturbance condition is violated and only partial objectivity is achieved.

Significance. If the technical gaps are closed, this work constitutes a meaningful conceptual extension of quantum Darwinism/SBS objectivity from unstructured information to continuously parametrized, group-valued information. The paper is clearly written and provides unusually detailed appendices: the closed-form conditional probability p(g'|g) in Eq. (26) is an exact expression, the derivation of the optimal encoding coefficients in Appendix C is explicit, and the disturbance constant lambda in Eq. (62) is evaluated from a definite integral rather than fitted. These are genuine strengths. The predicted asymptotic covariant agreement and the lower bound on the asymptotic disturbance are quantitative, falsifiable statements that go beyond previously studied objectivity scenarios. However, the present version contains two load-bearing formal gaps—the uncontrolled small-angle expansion in the central convergence proof and the non-normalizable character of the reference-frame states—so the results are not yet rigorously established as stated.

major comments (3)

[Appendix E, Eq. (161)] The proof of the central delta-convergence relies on an uncontrolled small-angle expansion. In Eq. (161) the exact integrand of (159) is replaced by its expansion around theta=0 on the grounds that the integrand is 'significantly different from zero only for theta≈0'. The substitution sin^2[(J+j0)theta] cos^2[(J-j0+1)theta] -> (1/4) sin^2(2J theta) and the denominator expansion are only valid on a window of width O(1/J), and the paper supplies no remainder estimate, no dominated-convergence argument, and no bound on the error outside that window. Since Eq. (48) is exactly the statement that the kernel is a delta sequence, the central theorem is not proven as stated; this gap is independent of the non-normalizable-state issue and must be repaired with a quantitative estimate.
[Section 2, Eqs. (32), (39)-(41)] The proposed objectivity state rho in Eq. (35) is not a trace-class operator. The orthonormality condition <g|h> = delta(g,h) in Eq. (32) makes Tr(|g><g|) divergent, so the Born-rule probability in Eq. (39) is undefined. The authors 'bypass' this by redefining the probability density in Eq. (41), dropping the divergent trace without a limiting procedure. The resulting object is not the probability distribution of any measurement on a well-defined quantum state in the Hilbert space (34), so the objectivity claim applies to a formally renormalized distribution. The same issue affects the trace-norm redefinition in Eq. (57). Since the physical interpretation of the paper rests on rho being a quantum state, this is a load-bearing formal gap that the manuscript should either resolve (e.g., by a family of normalizable approximants or a rigged-Hilbert-space formulation) or explicitly state as a limitation of the model.
[Section 4, Eq. (213)] The computation of the disturbance constant lambda inherits the same uncontrolled expansion. In Eq. (213) the exact integrand of (212) is again replaced by its small-angle expansion, with the same assertion of concentration near theta=0. No remainder estimate or convergence argument is provided. Because the fidelity limit (61) and the disturbance bounds (63) depend on the value lambda≈0.236, the non-disturbance conclusion is not rigorously established. The repair of the Appendix E proof should be accompanied by an analogous estimate for Eq. (213).

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, after Eq. (21)] For even N the coefficients A_j in Eq. (21) come from approximating the tridiagonal matrix M by M' (setting zeta=0 to zeta=1), while for odd N Eq. (20) is exact. The paper should clarify whether the asymptotic covariant agreement (48) is claimed for the exact optimal protocol or only for the approximate one, and, if the former, justify that the difference is asymptotically negligible.
[Section 4, Eq. (62)] The numerical value lambda≈0.236 is quoted without describing how the integral was evaluated (analytically or numerically). Since lambda enters a quantitative lower bound on the disturbance, a statement about the accuracy of this value would be helpful.
[Throughout, Eqs. (54), (57), (199)-(200)] The notation ||rho-rho'||_1 with double vertical bars is inconsistent with the standard trace norm notation ||·||_1 used elsewhere; please unify the notation for the trace norm and for the Euclidean norm of |B>.
[Appendix F, Eq. (208)] In the fidelity calculation, after substituting p(g'_i|g_i) = |<A(g_i)|B(g'_i)>|^2, the integrand is written as p(g'_i|g_i)^2 / ||B||^2. It would be clearer to state that this is valid because the modulus squared of the scalar product is exactly the conditional probability density, and that the normalization of sigma follows from the completeness relation of the POVM.
[Section 3, Eq. (48)] The paper should explicitly note that the limit (48) is a distributional limit and that the joint probability density is normalized for each finite J, i.e., that the replacement of the left-hand side by a delta measure is consistent with the total probability being one.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the covariant-agreement and disturbance results are self-contained from the stated encoding/decoding; self-citations and the acknowledged renormalization are not load-bearing circularity.

full rationale

The central claim (48) is derived from an explicit finite-N probability kernel p(g'|g)=|⟨A(g)|B(g')⟩|^2 (Eqs. 13, 26, 146), where |A⟩ and |B⟩ are defined in (8) and (12) and the coefficients A_j come from diagonalizing the tridiagonal matrix M (Appendix C), an independent mathematical calculation rather than a fit to the target. Appendix E proves delta-convergence of this kernel (Eqs. 161-171) and lifts it to the k-observer formula (179/48). No target objectivity statement is used as an input, and no parameter is tuned to (48). The prior p0 and the POVM are stated inputs. The constant λ in (62)/(214) is the numerical value of a definite integral, not a fitted parameter. Self-citations to SBS literature [2,4,8] motivate the SBS-like form (35) but do not carry the proof; the uniqueness claim quoted from [2,4] is not used to justify (48). The paper explicitly acknowledges that the non-normalizable states (32) make p and the trace norm ill-defined, and it redefines them in (41) and (57); this is a formal limitation, not a circularity. The small-angle substitution in (161) lacks a dominated-convergence estimate and is a rigor/correctness concern, but it is not a reduction of the result to its own assumptions. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim imports the SBS objectivity framework and the single-observer reference-frame protocol from [19,20], but within that framework the results are derived, not fitted. The main added structure is the non-normalizable left-regular representation, which introduces an idealization and requires formal redefinitions; this is the most significant unpaid input.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The left regular representation frame states satisfy ⟨g|h⟩ = δ(g,h) and form a delta-normalized basis of L²(SU(2)).
Used in Section 2 (Eqs. 31-34) to encode all frames; leads to infinite traces and forces the formal redefinitions in Eqs. (41) and (57).
domain assumption The optimal encoding |A⟩ and decoding POVM |B⟩⟨B| from [19,20] remain the right choice in the multi-observer protocol.
The paper reuses Alice's state (8) and Bob's measurement (12) without re-optimizing for multiple receivers; the exact probability (26) is derived from these definitions.
domain assumption The square root of each POVM effect is taken as the projection |B(g')⟩⟨B(g')|/||B||, without extra unitaries.
Stated in Appendix F after Eq. (186); the disturbance bound (63) depends on this choice, which the authors acknowledge is ambiguous.
standard math Standard SU(2) representation theory, characters, and Haar measure identities.
Background summarized in Appendix A and used in Eqs. (73), (79), (126).

invented entities (1)

Non-normalizable frame states |g⟩ of the left regular representation
purpose: To encode all possible reference frames of Alice in Hilbert space HR (Eq. 34); the objectivity state (35) is built as an integral over these states.
Introduced in Section 2 (Eqs. 31-34). The states satisfy ⟨g|h⟩=δ(g,h), have infinite norm, and make traces such as Tr(|g⟩⟨g|) divergent; the paper drops these terms when defining physical probabilities and trace distances (Eqs. 41, 57).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards objectivity of classical reference frames in quantum mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMN237TG

@misc{pith2026250605545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards objectivity of classical reference frames in quantum mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMN237TG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05545}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in our understanding of foundations of quantum mechanics have shown that information can be made objective through quantum states. Such objectification processes, predicted e.g. in a variety of quantum open systems, must accompany any realistic quantum-to-classical transition mechanism in order to reproduce the objective character of the classical limit of our world. However, so far only examples of simple, unstructured information, such as a value of an observable, have been studied. In this work we show that a more complicated form of information, given by a Cartesian reference frame, can also be made (at least partially) objective in quantum mechanics. The non-trivial internal gauge structure of reference frames, given by the transformation group, leads to a more general form of objectivity, where all observers see the same but modulo their relative orientations, like it happens in modern understanding of geometry. This opens a way to extend quantum objectivity beyond simple scenarios and possibly link it to the foundations of modern geometry.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum darwin- ism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek. “Quantum darwin- ism”. Nature Physics5, 181–188 (2009)

work page 2009
[2]

Quantum origins of ob- jectivity

R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki. “Quantum origins of ob- jectivity”. Phys. Rev. A91, 032122 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

Strongquantumdarwinismandstronginde- pendence are equivalent to spectrum broad- cast structure

Thao P. Le and Alexandra Olaya-Castro. “Strongquantumdarwinismandstronginde- pendence are equivalent to spectrum broad- cast structure”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010403 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Roads to objectivity: Quan- tum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Struc- tures, and Strong quantum Darwinism – a review

J. K. Korbicz. “Roads to objectivity: Quan- tum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Struc- tures, and Strong quantum Darwinism – a review”. Quantum5, 571 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Decoherence and quantum darwinism: From quantum foun- dations to classical reality

Wojciech Hubert Zurek. “Decoherence and quantum darwinism: From quantum foun- dations to classical reality”. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. (2025)

work page 2025
[6]

Quantum darwinism in quantum brownian motion

Robin Blume-Kohout and Wojciech H. Zurek. “Quantum darwinism in quantum brownian motion”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 240405 (2008)

work page 2008
[7]

Redundancy of classical and quantum cor- relations during decoherence

Juan Pablo Paz and Augusto J. Roncaglia. “Redundancy of classical and quantum cor- relations during decoherence”. Phys. Rev. A 80, 042111 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

Objectivity in a noisy photonic environment through quantum state information broadcasting

J. K. Korbicz, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. “Objectivity in a noisy photonic environment through quantum state information broadcasting”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120402 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 33 references

[9]

Informa- tion transfer during the universal gravita- tional decoherence

J. K. Korbicz and J. Tuziemski. “Informa- tion transfer during the universal gravita- tional decoherence”. General Relativity and Gravitation 49, 152 (2017)

2017
[10]

En- coding position by spins: Objectivity in the boson-spin model

Tae-Hun Lee and Jarosław K. Korbicz. “En- coding position by spins: Objectivity in the boson-spin model”. Phys. Rev. A 109, 052204 (2024)

2024
[11]

Decoherence from spin environ- ments

F. M. Cucchietti, J. P. Paz, and W. H. Zurek. “Decoherence from spin environ- ments”. Phys. Rev. A72, 052113 (2005)

2005
[12]

Ob- jectivity in the non-markovian spin-boson model

Aniello Lampo, Jan Tuziemski, Maciej Lewenstein, and Jarosław K. Korbicz. “Ob- jectivity in the non-markovian spin-boson model”. Phys. Rev. A96, 012120 (2017)

2017
[13]

System information propagation for composite structures

P. Mironowicz, P. Należyty, P. Horodecki, and J. K. Korbicz. “System information propagation for composite structures”. Phys. Rev. A98, 022124 (2018)

2018
[14]

Revealing the emergence of classicality using nitrogen- vacancy centers

T. K. Unden, D. Louzon, M. Zwolak, W. H. Zurek, and F. Jelezko. “Revealing the emergence of classicality using nitrogen- vacancy centers”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 140402 (2019)

2019
[15]

Quantum darwinism in a composite system: Objectivity versus classi- cality

Barış Çakmak, Özgür E. Müstecaplıoğlu, Mauro Paternostro, Bassano Vacchini, and Steve Campbell. “Quantum darwinism in a composite system: Objectivity versus classi- cality”. Entropy23 (2021)

2021
[16]

Eavesdropping on the decohering en- vironment: Quantum darwinism, amplifica- tion, and the origin of objective classical re- ality

Akram Touil, Bin Yan, Davide Girolami, Sebastian Deffner, and Wojciech Hubert Zurek. “Eavesdropping on the decohering en- vironment: Quantum darwinism, amplifica- tion, and the origin of objective classical re- ality”. Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 010401 (2022)

2022
[17]

Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- tion

Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W. Spekkens. “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- tion”. Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 555–609 (2007)

2007
[18]

Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quan- tum reference frames

Flaminia Giacomini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and Časlav Brukner. “Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quan- tum reference frames”. Nature Communica- tions10 (2019)

2019
[19]

Aligning reference frames with quantum states

E. Bagan, M. Baig, and R. Muñoz Tapia. “Aligning reference frames with quantum states”. Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 257903 (2001)

2001
[20]

Efficient use of quantum resources for the transmis- sion of a reference frame

G. Chiribella, Giacomo D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M Sacchi. “Efficient use of quantum resources for the transmis- sion of a reference frame”. Physical review letters 93, 180503 (2004)

2004
[21]

Probabilistic and statis- tical aspects of quantum theory

Alexander Holevo. “Probabilistic and statis- tical aspects of quantum theory”. Publica- tions of the Scuola Normale Superiore. Edi- zioni della Normale. Pisa (2011)

2011
[22]

Covariant quantum measurements that maximize the likelihood

Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Paolo Perinotti, and Massimiliano F. Sac- chi. “Covariant quantum measurements that maximize the likelihood”. Physical Review A70 (2004)

2004
[23]

Representation theory of semisimple groups: An overview based on examples (PMS-36)

Anthony W. Knapp. “Representation theory of semisimple groups: An overview based on examples (PMS-36)”. Princeton University Press. Princeton (1986)

1986
[24]

Cryp- 10 tographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states

C.A. Fuchs and J. van de Graaf. “Cryp- 10 tographic distinguishability measures for quantum-mechanical states”. IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory 45, 1216– 1227 (1999)

1999
[25]

Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation: 10th anniversary edition

Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. “Quantum computation and quantum infor- mation: 10th anniversary edition”. Cam- bridge University Press. (2010)

2010
[26]

Vergleichende betrachtun- gen über neuere geometrische forschungen

Felix Klein. “Vergleichende betrachtun- gen über neuere geometrische forschungen”. Mathematische Annalen43, 63–100 (1893)
[27]

Generic appearance of objective results in quantum measurements

J. K. Korbicz, E. A. Aguilar, P. Ćwikliński, and P. Horodecki. “Generic appearance of objective results in quantum measurements”. Phys. Rev. A96, 032124 (2017)

2017
[28]

Dynamical objectivity in quantum brownian motion

J. Tuziemski and J. K. Korbicz. “Dynamical objectivity in quantum brownian motion”. Europhysics Letters112, 40008 (2015)

2015
[29]

Universal structure of objective states in all fundamental causal theories

Carlo Maria Scandolo, Roberto Salazar, Jarosław K. Korbicz, and Paweł Horodecki. “Universal structure of objective states in all fundamental causal theories”. Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033148 (2021)

2021
[30]

Tridiagonal toeplitz ma- trices: Properties and novel applications

Silvia Noschese, Lionello Pasquini, and Lothar Reichel. “Tridiagonal toeplitz ma- trices: Properties and novel applications”. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applica- tions20 (2013)

2013
[31]

The compact group ap- proach to representation theory

Brian Hall. “The compact group ap- proach to representation theory”. Pages 343–370. Springer International Publishing. Cham (2015)

2015
[32]

Trigonometry/The summation of finite series

“Trigonometry/The summation of finite series”. https://en.wikibooks.org/ wiki/Trigonometry/The_summation_of_ finite_series. Accessed: 2025-05-31. A The SU(2) Group and Its Representations The SU(2) group is the group of2×2 unitary matrices with determinant1, and the group oper...

2025
[33]

(162) We define a new function F 0 g′(θ) = { Fg′(|θ|) for θ∈ [−π 2, π 2 ] 0 for θ∈ R\ [−π 2, π 2 ]

We have (⋄) = lim J→+∞ 8πJ π 2∫ 0 sin2 (2Jθ) (4J 2θ2−π2)2Fg′(|θ|) dθ = lim J→+∞ 4πJ π 2∫ −π 2 sin2 (2Jθ) (4J 2θ2−π2)2Fg′(|θ|) dθ = (⋄⋄). (162) We define a new function F 0 g′(θ) = { Fg′(|θ|) for θ∈ [−π 2, π 2 ] 0 for θ∈ R\ [−π 2, π 2 ] . (163) 21 Then (⋄⋄) = lim J→+∞ 4πJ ∞∫ −∞...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum darwin- ism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek. “Quantum darwin- ism”. Nature Physics5, 181–188 (2009)

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Quantum origins of ob- jectivity

R. Horodecki, J. K. Korbicz, and P. Horodecki. “Quantum origins of ob- jectivity”. Phys. Rev. A91, 032122 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

Strongquantumdarwinismandstronginde- pendence are equivalent to spectrum broad- cast structure

Thao P. Le and Alexandra Olaya-Castro. “Strongquantumdarwinismandstronginde- pendence are equivalent to spectrum broad- cast structure”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 010403 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Roads to objectivity: Quan- tum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Struc- tures, and Strong quantum Darwinism – a review

J. K. Korbicz. “Roads to objectivity: Quan- tum Darwinism, Spectrum Broadcast Struc- tures, and Strong quantum Darwinism – a review”. Quantum5, 571 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Decoherence and quantum darwinism: From quantum foun- dations to classical reality

Wojciech Hubert Zurek. “Decoherence and quantum darwinism: From quantum foun- dations to classical reality”. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. (2025)

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Quantum darwinism in quantum brownian motion

Robin Blume-Kohout and Wojciech H. Zurek. “Quantum darwinism in quantum brownian motion”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 240405 (2008)

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Redundancy of classical and quantum cor- relations during decoherence

Juan Pablo Paz and Augusto J. Roncaglia. “Redundancy of classical and quantum cor- relations during decoherence”. Phys. Rev. A 80, 042111 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

Objectivity in a noisy photonic environment through quantum state information broadcasting

J. K. Korbicz, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki. “Objectivity in a noisy photonic environment through quantum state information broadcasting”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120402 (2014)

work page 2014