Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Uncertainty Relations Relative to Phase-Space Quantum Reference Frames

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that relative to a covariant phase-space quantum reference frame, position and momentum are always jointly measurable, with new bounds that return to the standard one in a classical limit.

desk verdict A sound frame-relative uncertainty construction with a real interpretive gap: the formal bounds are correct, but the classical-limit claim is asserted, not derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08589 v2 pith:GWYFFDLC submitted 2024-11-13 quant-ph

Miguel Jorquera Riera , Leon Loveridge This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1581S30 PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.-w
keywords quantumreferenceframesuncertaintyrelationscovariantphase-spaceobservablesjointmeasurabilityincompatibility-breakingchannelsposition-momentumcompatibilityclassicallimitrelativization
topics The Measurement Problem
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 asks what the position–momentum uncertainty relation becomes when positions and momenta are defined relative to a quantum reference frame rather than an absolute background. It introduces the frame as a covariant phase-space observable and proves that, relative to such a frame, the sharp position and momentum of a system are always jointly measurable: the frame-conditioning channel breaks their incompatibility for every frame state and every generating state of the frame observable. The paper derives explicit frame-relative uncertainty bounds—for instance, the product of the frame-conditional variances is at least $3/2$—where each variance splits additively into a system part, a frame-state part, and a part set by the frame's phase-space structure. In a classical limit in which the frame is treated as a perfectly localized phase-space point, the bounds reduce to the familiar ones ($1/2$ and $1$), which the paper reads as evidence that standard quantum mechanics is written relative to an external classical frame.

What carries the argument

The central object is the covariant phase-space observable $G_T(Z) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_Z W(q,p) T W(q,p)^* dq dp$, a POVM whose margins are smeared position and momentum. The argument works through the relativization map $\yen$ and the frame-conditioning map $\yen_{\omega}^{T'}$, which turns a system observable into an invariant and then externalizes the frame state. The load-bearing identity is that the frame-conditioned sharp position and momentum are exactly the margins of a single smeared phase-space observable $M = (\lambda_{\omega}^{Q_R} \times \lambda_{\omega}^{P_R}) \star G_{T'}^S$; this explicit joint observable proves Theorem 2, and the additivity of variances under convolution (Prop. 2) produces the numerical bounds.

What would settle it

Compute the product of variances of the frame-conditioned position and momentum for a specific frame state $\omega$ and generating state $T'$ (say, both highly non-Gaussian) and check whether it can fall below $3/2$; if it can, the joint-observable construction in Eq. (24) or the claimed bound fails. Separately, a rigorous small-$\hbar$ derivation of the frame limit, replacing the declared Dirac-delta classical state, would settle whether the standard bounds $1/2$ and $1$ actually follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the map that conditions a system observable on a phase-space quantum reference frame is incompatibility-breaking for the sharp position and momentum observables. For any frame state $\omega$ and any generating state $T'$, the frame-conditioned observables $\yen_{\omega}^{T'}(Q_S)$ and $\yen_{\omega}^{T'}(P_S)$ admit a joint observable, constructed explicitly as $M = (\lambda_{\omega}^{Q_R} \times \lambda_{\omega}^{P_R}) \star G_{T'}^S$. Its margins are exactly the conditioned position and momentum, so their joint measurability holds without further assumptions on the frame preparation. Correspondingly, the standard relation $\Delta(Q,\rho)\Delta(P,\rho) \geq 1/2$ is replaced by frame-dependent bounds such as $\Delta(\yen_{\omega}^{T'}\circ Q_S,\rho)\Delta(\yen_{\omega}^{T'}\circ P_S,\rho) \geq 3/2$, and by $2$ when the system observables are themselves a compatible smeared pair. These bounds are tight; the paper also notes the formal symmetry between relativizing a compatible pair to a sharp frame and relativizing sharp observables to a compatible-pair frame.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 'classical limit' of the frame can be imposed by declaring the frame state and the generating state of the frame observable to be perfectly localized phase-space points with zero uncertainty—an object that does not exist in quantum mechanics—and that this declaration captures the small-$\hbar$ limit of the frame; the frame-relative bounds themselves do not rest on this step, but the paper's conclusion about standard quantum mechanics assuming an external classical frame does.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any quantum reference frame defined by a covariant phase-space observable, the frame-relative sharp position and momentum are jointly measurable; no frame state can restore their incompatibility.
  • The frame-relative uncertainty product has the tight lower bound $3/2$ for sharp system observables, and $2$ when the system observables are a compatible smeared pair; each variance decomposes additively into system, frame-state, and frame-structure contributions.
  • Relativizing system observables separately to sharp position and momentum frames yields the bounds $1$ and $3/2$, reflecting a symmetry between interchangeable experimental arrangements.
  • In the declared classical limit of the frame, the standard bounds $1/2$ and $1$ are recovered, so the standard uncertainty relations can be read as those of a system described relative to an external, classical frame.
  • The frame-relative bounds are all tight, meaning the inequalities cannot be improved without additional assumptions on the frame or the system state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A plausible generalization, not pursued in the paper, is that the same construction applies to any Fourier-related pair of observables, so conditioning on a phase-space frame should break incompatibility for a whole class of complementary pairs, not only position and momentum.
  • The additive variance decomposition suggests a metrological reading: the frame state and the frame's phase-space structure contribute an irreducible 'reference-frame noise' that could be quantified experimentally in a finite-size frame.
  • The paper's classical-limit step is declared rather than derived; a rigorous small-$\hbar$ analysis could either convert the interpretational conclusion into a theorem or show that the limit is singular, which would weaken the claim that ordinary quantum theory presupposes an external classical frame.
  • Since the paper notes that distinguishing the bounds $3/2$ and $1/2$ experimentally is open, a concrete experiment with a controllable quantum frame could in principle probe whether nature realizes the frame-relative or the classical-frame bound.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a quantum reference frame (QRF) based on a covariant phase-space observable G^{T'}_R on the frame Hilbert space, and studies the relativization and restriction maps that produce frame-conditioned system observables. The main formal result (Theorem 2, Section 4) is that for any frame state ω and any phase-space generator T', the channel ¥^{T'}_ω breaks the incompatibility of sharp position and momentum Q_S, P_S: the explicit joint observable M^{T',ω}_S is constructed and shown to have the frame-conditioned position and momentum as margins. Section 5 derives variance-product bounds (Eqs. (29)-(32)) for the frame-conditioned observables using convolution variance additivity and known joint-measurement bounds, e.g., Δ(¥^{T'}_ω ∘ Q_S)Δ(¥^{T'}_ω ∘ P_S) ≥ 3/2. Section 5.1 then declares a classical phase-space point for the frame and claims that Eqs. (29)-(30) reduce to the standard Heisenberg bounds (26)-(27), supporting the conclusion that standard quantum mechanics is described relative to an external classical frame.

Significance. If the central claim is sustained, the paper would be a useful contribution to the operational QRF literature: it gives a covariant phase-space treatment in which incompatibility of position and momentum is explicitly broken by the frame, and it provides new frame-relative uncertainty bounds with no free parameters. The construction of the joint observable is explicit and verifiable, and the bounds are derived from standard external inputs (Heisenberg's relation, the joint-measurability theorem for smeared position and momentum, and convolution variance properties). The advertised interpretive conclusion, however, rests on a classical-limit step that is not presently justified; the paper's lasting value is therefore in the formal results and bounds, which stand independently.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.1, Eqs. (33)-(34)] The recovery of the standard uncertainty relations is imposed rather than derived. The text declares that the frame state ω and the generator T' are 'phase-space points (0,0)' with zero uncertainty, and then asserts that (29) and (30) 'become' (33) and (34). However, for every ω, T' in S(H_R), the quantum inequalities Δ(λ^Q_ω)Δ(λ^P_ω) ≥ 1/2 and Δ(μ_T')Δ(ν_T') ≥ 1/2 hold, so the left-hand sides of (29) and (30) can never approach the classical limits with vanishing frame contributions. There is no sequence of quantum states converging to the declared classical configuration; the bounds 3/2 and 2 in (29)-(30) are uniform over all quantum frames and are discontinuous at the classical point (where the corresponding products can be as low as 1/2 and 1). Since the abstract and conclusions use this 'classical limit' to infer that standard quantum mechanics is formulated relative to an external classical frame, the manuscript needs either a rigorous limiting construction (e.g., an explicit ℏ-scaling of ω and T' along with a quantized phase-space observable that converges weakly to a phase-space point) or a substantial weakening of the interpretational claim.
  2. [Section 5, Proposition 2] Proposition 2 is stated without proof ('which we state without proof') and is then used to derive every bound in Eqs. (29)-(32). The statement is elementary and true (it follows from variance additivity under convolution and the Cauchy-Schwarz/Minkowski inequality), but as a load-bearing lemma it should be demonstrated or cited so that the derivation is self-contained. Please add a short proof or an explicit reference.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (24)] The notation (λ^Q_ω × λ^P_ω) ⋆ G^{T'}_S is not covered by Definition 3, which only defines convolution for observables on R. Please define the R²-convolution explicitly, e.g., (µ ⋆ G)(Z) = ∫_{R²} G(Z - z) dµ(z), and verify the margin calculation in Eqs. (25).
  2. [Section 5, before Eq. (29)] The claim that the inequalities 'all of which are tight' is not substantiated; please either exhibit families of states and frames attaining the bounds or clarify in which asymptotic sense tightness is meant.
  3. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'we expect that it corresponds to a rigorous classical limit in the smallℏ regime of the reference frame [39]' relies on the textbook [39] without specifying the theorem or construction that justifies the limit; please give a precise reference or argument.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Formal incompatibility-breaking and frame-relative bounds are self-contained, but the advertised 'classical-limit recovery' of standard uncertainty relations is stipulated by defining the frame to have zero phase-space uncertainty, making the recovery tautological.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.1, Eqs. (33)-(34) and preceding text]
    "we examine the frame-dependent uncertainty relations in the setting that we declare, by fiat, that the frame state ω is the phase-space point (0, 0) (or equivalently, the Dirac measure at (0, 0)), i.e., is a classical pure state, perfectly localized in phase space. Of course, this is not consistent with quantum mechanics, but we expect that it corresponds to a rigorous classical limit in the smallℏ regime of the reference frame [39]. We write ω0 and T ′ 0 for the classical states localized at (0, 0). Then, (29) and (30) become ..."

    With ω0 and T'0 declared perfectly localized, the variance decompositions preceding (29) give ∆²(¥T'0_ω0∘QS,ρ)=∆²(QS,ρ)+0+0 and likewise for momentum, so (29) reduces identically to the product of system standard deviations, which is exactly (26). The 'limit' never passes through quantum states: Heisenberg's relation for the frame, ∆(λ^Q_ω)∆(λ^P_ω)≥1/2, forbids any sequence of states in S(HR) from approaching (0,0) in both margins simultaneously. Hence the recovery of standard relations is not a derived limit but an immediate consequence of the declared definition of the classical frame; the advertised verification is built into the input. The formal results Theorem 2 and the frame-relative bounds (29)-(32) do not share this defect.

full rationale

The core formal development is self-contained against standard external results. Theorem 2 constructs a joint observable M (Eq. 24) whose margins are exactly the frame-conditioned position and momentum (Eqs. 25), so the claim that the channel breaks incompatibility does not depend on any fitted parameter or self-citation. The frame-relative uncertainty bounds (29)–(32) follow from variance additivity under convolution (Eq. 19), the standard trade-off for smearing measures (Eq. 28), and Heisenberg's relation for the system; these inputs are external textbook references (Refs. 26, 27) and not outcomes of this paper. No self-citation is load-bearing: the relevant framework (Relativization, Definition 2) cites the authors' own earlier work (Ref. 6) but the operational definition is stated and used directly, and the central incompatibility-breaking result is proved here rather than imported. The paper also self-reports the classical-frame assumption as 'by fiat', thereby flagging the circular step. The only significant circularity is in Section 5.1: the classical limit is not taken as a sequence of quantum frame states but is imposed by declaring the frame state and its phase-space observable generator to be perfectly localized classical points. With that declaration, the variance contributions from the frame vanish identically, so Eq. (29) reduces to Eq. (26) by construction rather than by a derived limit. Moreover, no quantum state can have vanishing uncertainty in both position and momentum, so the substitution does not correspond to any physical approximation. Thus the paper's headline conclusion that standard quantum mechanics is formulated relative to an external classical frame is supported only by this stipulated identification. The formal theorem and the frame-relative bounds remain non-circular, so the overall score is 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's derivations rest on standard results from quantum measurement theory and the theory of covariant phase-space observables, plus one unproved elementary lemma and one explicitly declared, non-rigorous classical limit. No free parameters are fitted. The central mathematical claim (Theorem 2) depends only on standard facts; the interpretive claim about classical frames depends on the ad hoc classical-limit premise.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Heisenberg preparation uncertainty bound: ∆(Q)∆(P) ≥ 1/2 for any state.
    Used as the base bound for system and frame state spreads in deriving (29)-(32). Standard quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption For a covariant phase-space observable G_T, the margin smearing measures µ_T and ν_T satisfy ∆(µ_T)∆(ν_T) ≥ 1/2 (measurement uncertainty relation).
    Used to bound the uncertainty contributed by the frame's phase-space structure and by the system's smearing in (29)-(32). Cited from [26,35,36,37,27,38].
  • standard math Variance additivity under convolution: Var(µ ⋆ Q, ρ) = Var(µ) + Var(Q, ρ).
    Used in Eq. (19) and in computing variances for (29)-(32). Standard probability theory.
  • standard math Proposition 2: if ∆(a)∆(b) ≥ x and ∆(c)∆(d) ≥ y, then ∆(a ⋆ c)∆(b ⋆ d) ≥ x + y.
    Stated without proof in Section 5; it is an elementary consequence of variance additivity and Cauchy-Schwarz, and is the key combinatorial step yielding the sums 3/2, 2, etc.
  • ad hoc to paper Classical limit: the frame state and frame generator can be replaced by perfectly localized phase-space points (Dirac measures) with zero variance.
    Section 5.1: 'we declare, by fiat, that the frame state ω is the phase-space point (0,0)... Of course, this is not consistent with quantum mechanics, but we expect that it corresponds to a rigorous classical limit in the small ℏ regime.' This premise is needed to recover (26) and (27).
  • domain assumption The identification of classical physics with zero uncertainty and joint measurability of all observables.
    Section 5.1: 'We take the view that the hallmark of classical physics is the joint measurability of all observables and the existence of states with zero uncertainty.' This interpretive premise frames the classical-limit conclusion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty Relations Relative to Phase-Space Quantum Reference Frames." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GWYFFDLC

@misc{pith2026241108589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty Relations Relative to Phase-Space Quantum Reference Frames},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GWYFFDLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08589}
}
read the original abstract

We study Heisenberg's uncertainty relation relative to a quantum reference frame (QRF). We introduce the QRF as a covariant phase-space observable, show that when described relative to it, position and momentum appear compatible, and derive novel, frame-relative uncertainty relations. This is achieved by constructing a joint observable for position and momentum, and calculating the variances of its margins. We then verify that in the classical limit of the QRF, the standard uncertainty relations are recovered, fortifying claims that standard quantum theory must be understood relative to an external, classical frame. These results may open up new research directions at the interface between QRFs and incompatibility.

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. On the relation between perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective quantum reference frames

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For ideal quantum reference frames with a single constraint, the perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective semiclassical approaches describe the same physics and the same frame-switching rules.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg

    W. Heisenberg. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. In: Z. Phys. 43.3 (Mar. 1927), pp. 172–198

    work page 1927

  2. [2]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner.Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames. In: Nat. Commun. 10.1 (Jan. 2019), pp. 1–13

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    de la Hamette and T

    A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley. Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups. In: Quantum 4 (Nov. 2020), p. 367

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Loveridge

    L. Loveridge. Quantum measurements in the presence of symmetry. PhD thesis. University of York, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Miyadera, L

    T. Miyadera, L. Loveridge, and P. Busch.Approximating relational observables by absolute quantities: A quantum accuracy-size trade-off. In: J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 49.18 (May 2016), p. 185301

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Loveridge, T

    L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch. Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics. In: Found. Phys. 48.2 (Feb. 2018), pp. 135–198

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Carette, J

    T. Carette, J. Głowacki, and L. Loveridge. Operational quantum reference frame transformations. In: Quantum 9 (Mar. 2025), p. 1680

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Głowacki

    J. Głowacki. Operational quantum frames. PhD thesis. Center for Theoretical Physics PAS, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    C. J. Fewster, D. W. Janssen, L. D. Loveridge, K. Rejzner, and J. Waldron.Quantum reference frames, measurement schemes and the type of local algebras in quantum field theory. In: Commun. Math. Phys. 406 (Dec. 2025), p. 19

    2025

  2. [10]

    Aharonov and T

    Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr. Quantum frames of reference. In: Phys. Rev. D 30.2 (July 1984), p. 368

    1984

  3. [11]

    M. Dickson. A view from nowhere: Quantum reference frames and uncertainty. In: Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part B: Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 35.2 (June 2004), pp. 195–220

    2004

  4. [12]

    de la Hamette, T

    A.-C. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, L. Loveridge, and M. P. Mueller.Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups. Oct. 2021. arXiv: 2110 . 13824 [quant-ph]

    2021

  5. [13]

    M. J. Lake and M. Miller.Quantum reference frames, revisited. Dec. 2023. arXiv:2312.03811 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Suleymanov, A

    M. Suleymanov, A. Carmi, and E. Cohen. Relativity of quantum correlations: Invariant quantities and frame-dependent measures. Mar. 2025. arXiv:2503.20090 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Busch, M

    P. Busch, M. Grabowski, and P. J. Lahti.Operational quantum physics. Vol. 31. Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995.isbn: 9783540593584

    1995

  8. [16]

    G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner.The intrinsic parity of elementary particles. In: Phys. Rev. 88 (Oct. 1952), pp. 101–105

    1952

  9. [17]

    Charge superselection rule.In:Phys.Rev.155.5(Mar.1967),pp.1428–1431

    Y.AharonovandL.Susskind. Charge superselection rule.In:Phys.Rev.155.5(Mar.1967),pp.1428–1431

    1967

  10. [18]

    G.-C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner.Superselection rule for charge. In: Phys. Rev. D 1.12 (June 1970), pp. 3267–3269

    1970

  11. [19]

    Bartlett, T

    S. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. Spekkens.Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- tion. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 79.2 (Apr. 2007), pp. 555–609. 10

    2007

  12. [20]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz. A change of perspective: Switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework. In: Quantum 4 (Sept. 2020), p. 225

    2020

  13. [21]

    Głowacki, L

    J. Głowacki, L. Loveridge, and J. Waldron.Quantum reference frames on finite homogeneous spaces. In: Int. J. Theor. Phys. 63.5 (May 2024), p. 137

    2024

  14. [22]

    Głowacki

    J. Głowacki. Relativization is naturally functorial. Mar. 2024. arXiv:2403.03755 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. V. Kadison. Non-commutative conditional expectations and their applications. In: Contemp. Math. 365 (2004), pp. 143–180

    2004

  16. [24]

    Heinonen, P

    T. Heinonen, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, S. Pulmannova, and K. Ylinen.The norm-1-property of a quantum observable. In: J. Math. Phys. 44.5 (May 2003), pp. 1998–2008

    2003

  17. [25]

    Busch and D

    P. Busch and D. B. Pearson.Universal joint-measurement uncertainty relation for error bars. In: J. Math. Phys. 48.8 (Aug. 2007), p. 082103

    2007

  18. [26]

    Busch, T

    P. Busch, T. Heinonen, and P. J. Lahti.Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. In: Phys. Rep. 452.6 (Nov. 2007), pp. 155–176

    2007

  19. [27]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen.Quantum measurement. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer Cham, Aug. 2016.isbn: 9783319433875

    2016

  20. [28]

    A. M. Perelomov. Generalized coherent states and their applications. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Aug

  21. [29]

    A. S. Holevo. Covariant measurements and uncertainty relations. In: Rep. Math. Phys. 16.3 (Dec. 1979), pp. 385–400

    1979

  22. [30]

    A. S. Holevo. Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. North-Holland Pub. Co., 1982.isbn: 9788876423758

    1982

  23. [31]

    R. F. Werner. Quantum harmonic analysis on phase space. In: J. Math. Phys. 25.5 (May 1984), pp. 1404– 1411

    1984

  24. [32]

    R. F. Werner. The uncertainty relation for joint measurement of position and momentum. May 2004. arXiv: quant-ph/0405184 [quant-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinonen, and A. Toigo. Position and momentum observables on R and on R3. In: J. Math. Phys. 45.6 (June 2004), pp. 2526–2539

    2004

  26. [34]

    Heinosaari, J

    T. Heinosaari, J. Kiukas, D. Reitzner, and J. Schultz.Incompatibility breaking quantum channels. In: J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48.43 (Oct. 2015), p. 435301

    2015

  27. [35]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner.Proof of Heisenberg’s error-disturbance Relation. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 111.16 (Oct. 2013), p. 160405

    2013

  28. [36]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner.Measurement uncertainty relations. In: J. Math. Phys. 55.4 (Apr. 2014), p. 042111

    2014

  29. [37]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. Lahti, and R. F. Werner.Colloquium: Quantum root-mean-square error and measurement uncertainty relations. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 86.4 (Dec. 2014), pp. 1261–1281

    2014

  30. [38]

    Bullock and P

    T. Bullock and P. Busch. Measurement uncertainty relations: characterising optimal error bounds for qubits. In: J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 51.28 (June 2018), p. 283001

    2018

  31. [39]

    Landsman

    K. Landsman. Foundations of quantum theory: From classical concepts to operator algebras. Springer Cham, May 2017.isbn: 9783319517766

    2017

  32. [40]

    Switching quantum reference frames in theN-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives

    A.Vanrietvelde,P.A.Höhn,andF.Giacomini. Switching quantum reference frames in theN-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives. In: Quantum 7 (Aug. 2023), p. 1088

    2023

  33. [41]

    Castro-Ruiz and O

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov.Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations. Oct

  34. [42]

    Kiukas, P

    J. Kiukas, P. Lahti, J. Schultz, and R. F. Werner.Characterization of informational completeness for covariant phase space observables. In: J. Math. Phys. 53.10 (Sept. 2012), p. 102103. 11

    2012

  35. [2021]

    arXiv: 2110.13199 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.