Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 142 references

A closed quantum system of N particles carries exactly 3N physical degrees of freedom, not the 3(N−1) of the classical relational picture.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 19:22 UTC pith:QF2TSIZS

load-bearing objection A serious, mostly coherent challenge to the relational QRF program; the Galilean core is right and the GUR algebra checks out, but the positive claim is proven only for separable states and the categorical rejection rests on a premise the other side rejects. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16988 v2 pith:QF2TSIZS submitted 2026-07-18 quant-ph gr-qchep-ph

How many degrees of freedom describe a quantum N-particle state?

Matthew J. Lake , Marek L. Miller This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qchep-ph MSC 81P0581S0570H45 PACS 03.65.Ta03.65.-w
keywords Galilean invariancequantum reference framedegrees of freedomgeneralised uncertainty relationssuperselection rulerelational quantum mechanicscanonical quantisationdetectables
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Classical physics can discard the centre-of-mass degrees of freedom of an N-particle system without losing anything: only 3(N−1) relational variables are physically meaningful. This paper argues that quantum mechanics is different. Because the Schrödinger equation has no classical counterpart, the operator analogue of the conserved net momentum cannot be set to zero without either breaking Galilean invariance or imposing a superselection rule that canonical quantum mechanics does not contain. All 3N canonical degrees of freedom are therefore physical, even though only 3(N−1) of them appear in relational observables. The three 'extra' degrees of freedom are not idle: they show up as non-Heisenberg terms in the uncertainty relations for relational quantities, giving a measurable signature of the quantum reference frame's own spread. The paper introduces the term 'detectables' for variables that are not individually measurable but whose variances are.

Core claim

The central claim, stated as the paper's conclusion, is that a closed system of N quantum particles possesses exactly 3N physical degrees of freedom, excluding spin. In the canonical theory the net-momentum operator P̂ = Σp̂_J is time-independent but has a continuous spectrum; imposing P̂|Ψ⟩=0 would select non-normalisable eigenstates and would force a superselection rule that does not exist in standard quantum mechanics. The paper shows that attempts to excise the centre-of-mass and reference-particle degrees of freedom, as done in recent relational QRF models, produce a 'physical Schrödinger equation' that is not invariant under Galilean boosts. By contrast, the standard canonical equation

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the variance calculus for relational observables in a separable three-particle state. Writing |Ψ⟩ = ψ_A φ_B ξ_C, the variance of the relational coordinate x_B|A = x_B − x_A decomposes as a sum of the individual spreads of B and A (Eq. 5.2), and similarly for the relational momentum p_{B:A} = p_B − (m_B/m_A)p_A (Eq. 5.3). Inserting the canonical Heisenberg bound for B's own spread gives the GUR (5.6), whose extra terms are controlled by the frame particle's position and momentum widths σ_A and σ̃_A. These widths can be extracted from Galilean-invariant data alone via (5.7) for separable states with N≥3. The paper calls variables whose operators are not Galilean-invariant

Load-bearing premise

The derivations of the generalised uncertainty relation and the frame-spread extraction formulas are proven only for separable three-particle states; the claim that entangled wave functions 'straightforwardly' generalise is asserted, not derived, and entangled covariances could change the positivity and interpretation of the non-Heisenberg terms.

What would settle it

Check the GUR (5.6) for an entangled three-particle state, e.g., a state in which A and B share a two-mode squeezed (or otherwise correlated) wave function: compute var(x_B − x_A) and var(p_B − (m_B/m_A)p_A) exactly and see whether the non-Heisenberg remainder is still positive and equals a sum of A's individual position and momentum spreads as claimed. Alternatively, measure the variance of relational position and momentum for fixed preparation but varying reference mass m_A; the predicted (ℏ/2)²[2(m_B/m_A)+(m_B/m_A)²] floor is absent in the 3(N−1) relational models, so the mass dependence di

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the number of degrees of freedom needed to describe a closed N-particle quantum system is 3N, not 3(N−1), so relational state reductions lose physical information.
  • The net momentum of a closed system cannot be gauge-fixed in canonical quantum mechanics; imposing P̂|Ψ⟩=0 requires a superselection rule that contradicts standard quantum theory.
  • Quantum reference frames necessarily imply generalised uncertainty relations; the non-Heisenberg terms quantify the frame's Galilean-invariant spread, with a minimum positive floor (ℏ/2)²[2(m_B/m_A)+(m_B/m_A)²] that cannot be driven to zero.
  • As m_A → ∞, the GUR reduces to the ordinary Heisenberg relation, so a heavy reference particle behaves as a classical inertial frame.
  • Variables that are 'detectable' but not 'observable' form a new category of physically relevant quantities in canonical quantum mechanics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separability assumption (5.1) is load-bearing: for entangled states, A–B covariances enter the variance of x_B|A and p_{B:A}; whether the non-Heisenberg terms remain positive and interpretable as frame spreads is an open question that would settle the robustness of the 3N-count claim.
  • The paper's 'detectables' category suggests an information-theoretic reading: the difference between 3N and 3(N−1) degrees of freedom is observable as extra statistical noise in relational measurements, so the excess is not gauge.
  • A natural testable extension is to check the GUR (5.6) in an experiment with a controllable reference mass m_A, e.g., an ion or optomechanical oscillator: the non-Heisenberg floor should vary with mass ratio in a specific way.
  • The argument likely carries beyond translations: if analogous reasoning holds for rotations, the paper's logic would also challenge relational reductions to 3N−6 degrees of freedom, though the paper only explicitly treats translations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a closed quantum N-particle system possesses exactly 3N physical degrees of freedom, even though only 3(N−1) are relational. The argument has two parts. First, it criticizes relational and perspective-neutral quantum reference frame (QRF) models, claiming that their reduction from 3N to 3(N−1) degrees of freedom violates Galilean symmetry and canonical quantum mechanics: the net-momentum operator has a continuous spectrum, its zero-eigenstates are non-normalizable, and imposing P̂|Ψ⟩=0 introduces an unjustified superselection rule. Second, it claims that the discarded frame degrees of freedom are nevertheless detectable through generalized uncertainty relations (GURs): for a separable three-particle state, the variance of a relational position x_B|A and relational momentum p_B:A contains non-Heisenberg terms proportional to the position and momentum spreads σ_A, σ̃_A of the frame particle A (Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.2)–(5.7)). The paper introduces the term “detectables” for non-Galilean-invariant operators whose variances are Galilean-invariant and hence measurable. The Appendix develops the classical and quantum N-particle framework in detail.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the paper would be a substantial challenge to a large and influential body of relational QRF work, and it would introduce a qualitatively new category of physical quantities (“detectables”). The Sec. 4 Galilean analysis is a useful and largely correct reminder that the full Hamiltonian P̂²/2M + Û is needed for exact Galilean covariance of the Schrödinger equation, and that setting P̂|Ψ⟩=0 is an extra assumption, not a consequence of Galilean symmetry. The algebraic derivation of the GUR (5.6) for separable three-particle states is correct, and the extraction formulas (5.7) are correct given separability. These are genuine strengths. However, the paper’s universal claims — “all 3N canonical degrees of freedom are physical” and “QRFs imply GURs” — are currently established only for a special class of states, and the empirical protocol for detecting the frame spreads is incomplete for generic entangled states. The negative claim about the perspective-neutral framework also depends on a quantization convention (standard L² normalizability) that the framework explicitly replaces with group-averaged inner products; the paper does not fully justify

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.1)–(5.7)] The GUR and extraction formulas are derived only for the separable product state |Ψ⟩=ψ_A φ_B ξ_C (5.1). For a generic entangled state, Δ²(x_B−x_A)=Δ²x_B+Δ²x_A−2Cov(x_A,x_B), and similarly for p_B−(m_B/m_A)p_A; the covariances are not determined by the relational variances and can be negative. Eq. (5.6) and especially Eq. (5.7) therefore do not hold for non-separable states. The text says both that it is “straightforward to generalise” and, a few lines below (5.7), that extraction is “not possible when N=2, or when the state is non-separable, for any N.” These statements are in tension. Since the paper’s central positive claim — that the discarded frame degrees of freedom are physically detectable — rests on the GUR and extraction protocol, that claim is currently proven only for a measure-zero set of states. Please either provide a full derivation for entangled states, with covariance te
  2. [Sec. 5, text below Eq. (5.6)] The proposal to determine σ_A and σ̃_A by “curve-fitting” the GUR (5.6) is not a complete measurement protocol. Eq. (5.6) is an inequality: for any measured pair (Δx, Δp), choosing sufficiently small σ_A, σ̃_A always satisfies it. Eq. (5.7) does provide a direct algebraic extraction, but only for separable N≥3. For entangled states no such formula is given. Thus the statement that the non-Heisenberg terms are “measurable” in general is not supported. The paper should state precisely what data set, what fitting procedure, and what independence assumptions are needed to extract σ_A and σ̃_A, and how this works when the state is entangled.
  3. [Secs. 3.3 and 4] The rejection of the relational/perspective-neutral Hilbert space relies on the criterion that physical states must be normalizable with respect to the standard inner product. The paper itself notes that [35] uses a different, group-averaged “physical inner product.” The paper calls this non-canonical, but does not give a direct argument that refined algebraic quantization (RAQ) is inconsistent with canonical quantum mechanics; it simply asserts that the standard norm is the correct one. This is a substantive assumption, not a theorem. Consequently, the strong claim that the relational models “violate canonical quantum mechanics” is not fully established; at present it is a critique from within one quantization convention. Please provide either a direct argument that RAQ cannot be embedded in canonical QM, or soften the claim to “violate the standard Schrödinger-picture treatment” or sim
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. 6] The abstract and Sec. 6 state that a closed system of N quantum particles possesses exactly 3N physical degrees of freedom, with no caveat about separability or entanglement. Given the restriction of the GUR derivation, this should be qualified, or the general proof should be supplied in the main text.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.7)] There are notation and typesetting issues: the expressions such as p∆Ψxi_B|Aq² and p∆Ψp_C:Ajq² have mismatched parentheses and are hard to read. Please reformat for clarity.
  3. [Sec. 5, “detectables”] The term “detectable” is introduced informally. A precise definition would help: e.g., an operator Ô such that ⟨Ô⟩ is frame-dependent but the variance Δ²ΨÔ is invariant under the relevant symmetry group, together with an operational prescription for measuring that variance without measuring Ô itself.
  4. [Sec. 4] The paper states that “there is no superselection rule for the net momentum” and cites references [126,127]. This is standard in the usual treatment, but the statement is used as a load-bearing premise; a short proof or explicit statement of the assumptions (no external frame, no constraints) would strengthen the argument.
  5. [Introduction / Sec. 6] The phrase “the set of all relational variables, R, forms only a subset of the set of all Galilean-invariant variables” is helpful and could be used earlier. Also, the paper’s historical/philosophical discussion is extensive; some of it could be trimmed to keep the technical argument in focus.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 3N-count follows from canonical Hilbert-space structure, and the GUR is a derived inequality, not an assumed input.

full rationale

The central claim that a closed N-particle state requires 3N canonical degrees of freedom is not circular. It follows from standard canonical quantum mechanics: P̂ is a time-independent operator with a continuous spectrum, imposing P̂|Ψ⟩=0 selects non-normalisable states, and Galilean invariance of the Schrödinger equation requires the full Hamiltonian Ĥ = P̂²/2M + Û (Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.8)-(4.10)). None of these steps assumes the 3N conclusion. The GUR (5.6) is likewise derived from the variance decompositions (5.2)-(5.3), which follow from the separability ansatz (5.1), together with the standard uncertainty relation (5.4); it is not assumed as an input. The quantities σ_A and σ̃_A are defined as the position/momentum spreads of A's wave function (5.5), and for separable N≥3 states they are algebraically determined by the Galilean-invariant relational variances via (5.7), an exact inversion of (5.2)-(5.3), not a fit. The sentence about a 'curve-fitting procedure' is a practical data-analysis remark, not the logical basis of the result. I find no load-bearing self-citation chain and no definition of the target quantity in terms of the conclusion. The main unsupported step is the asserted 'straightforward' generalisation to non-separable states and the explicit exclusion of non-separable states from (5.7); this is a completeness/correctness limitation, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against standard QM inputs, and its derivation does not reduce by construction to its conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The GUR (5.6) is derived without free parameters from canonical commutation relations, the separability of the state, and the standard Heisenberg relation for particle B; the extraction formulas (5.7) are exact given separability. The quantities σ_A, σ̃_A are real quantum spreads, but the paper's operational protocol treats them as curve-fit parameters of ansatz (5.6), so the empirical magnitudes are fit-determined. The critique of the relational program leans on domain assumptions the targeted literature rejects: standard normalisability (plane-wave P-eigenstates unphysical), no net-momentum SSR in canonical QM, and exclusion of gravitational potentials. 'Detectables' is a new conceptual category, not a new physical entity; its only suggested empirical handle is the fit-based GUR. No new forces, particles, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Frame spreads σ_A^i, σ̃_A^j (and B, C analogues) in the GUR = To be extracted per system by curve-fitting ansatz (5.6), or via (5.7) for separable states with N≥3
    These set the size of the non-Heisenberg terms in (5.6). Per the paper's own protocol (Sec. 5) they are fit to the same relational-variance data used to verify the GUR; for entangled states or N=2 no direct extraction is provided.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Physical states of canonical QM live in the standard Hilbert space L²(R^{3N}) with the usual norm; plane-wave (net-momentum) eigenstates are non-normalisable and therefore unphysical
    Used to reject the perspective-neutral constraint P̂|Ψ>=0 (Secs. 3.2, 4, App. B.1). The group-averaging/refined-algebraic-quantisation construction in [35] is built on relaxing exactly this criterion.
  • standard math Galilean invariance of the Schrödinger equation requires the full Hamiltonian Ĥ = P̂²/2M + Û; the internal Hamiltonian Û alone cannot generate Galilean-invariant time evolution
    Textbook Bargmann/Lévy-Leblond projective-representation result (Sec. 4, Eqs. (4.8)-(4.10)); load-bearing for the 'catch-22' argument against the perspective-neutral physical Schrödinger equation (4.11).
  • domain assumption No superselection rule operates for the net momentum of a closed quantum system
    Sec. 3.3 and App. C.4, citing Giulini; used to argue that imposing P̂|Ψ>=0 is an unjustified ad hoc restriction. The relational program asserts the opposite constraint structure.
  • ad hoc to paper The three-particle state in Sec. 5 is separable: |Ψ> = ψ_A φ_B ξ_C (Eq. (5.1)); variance decompositions (5.2)-(5.3), GUR (5.6) and extraction formulas (5.7) require it
    The paper asserts 'it is straightforward to generalise' to arbitrary wave functions but gives no derivation; for entangled states covariance terms enter and the positivity/frame-spread interpretation of the non-Heisenberg terms is unproven.
  • domain assumption Inter-particle potentials are non-gravitational (V ≠ −G m_I m_J / |x_J−x_I|); the closed-system analysis excludes gravity
    App. A.1; the paper excludes gravitational potentials to preserve the absolute-vs-relative acceleration distinction it uses against the relational models, limiting the scope of its conclusions.
  • standard math Classical closed N-particle systems have 3(N−1) physical degrees of freedom; X and P are the (only) ignorable/unphysical variables
    Textbook classical mechanics (App. A); this is the comparison baseline for the quantum claim of 3N.
  • standard math The non-Heisenberg terms in the GUR (5.6) sum to at least (ℏ/2)²[2(m_B/m_A)+(m_B/m_A)²]
    Asserted after Eq. (5.6) ('it is straightforward to show') without derivation; it follows from the commutator [x_B|A, p_B:A] = iℏ(1+m_B/m_A) and the Schrödinger-Robertson relation, but the paper does not show it.
invented entities (1)
  • 'Detectables' — new conceptual category of quantum variables that are not observables (non-Galilean-invariant) but whose quantum spreads are Galilean-invariant and measurable no independent evidence
    purpose: Gives physical status to the 'non-relational' frame degrees of freedom, supporting the claim that excising them loses physical information
    The only proposed empirical handle is the GUR (5.6), whose non-Heisenberg coefficients are extracted by curve-fitting the same data (Sec. 5); direct formulas (5.7) fail for N=2 and non-separable states; no independent prediction (e.g., a predicted value of σ_A) is given.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 56723 in / 32845 out tokens · 301526 ms · 2026-08-01T19:22:41.539942+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In Newtonian spacetime, the canonical description of a classical $N$-particle system requires $3N$ degrees of freedom. Not all of these are physical, however, since the conservation of the net momentum implies that only $3(N-1)$ accelerations are independent. Hence, three constraints can be used to eliminate the unphysical centre-of-mass variables, at the level of the Lagrangian, leaving only the subset of observable displacements and momenta, which are relational. Imposing the constraints does not change the dynamics of these variables, at the classical level, and is analogous to a gauge-fixing procedure, which removes redundancy in the description of the system. In classical physics, therefore, the number of physical degrees of freedom equals the number of independent relational degrees of freedom. Here, we show that this is not the case in quantum mechanics. While an operator-analogue of the classical net momentum exists, it cannot be used to impose constraints that restrict the degrees of freedom in the theory, without a loss of physical information. This means that all $3N$ canonical degrees of freedom are physical, even though only $3(N-1)$ of them are relational. We explore the physical consequences of the non-relational variables and show that they give rise to generalised uncertainty relations (GURs), for the relational quantities that define the quantum reference frame (QRF). Hence, it is shown that the non-relational degrees of freedom refer to the frame itself and that the non-Heisenberg terms in the GURs define its Galilean-invariant spreads, in both real space and momentum space. The implications of this result for recent work on relational models, including the ``perspective neutral'' framework for QRFs, are discussed. Its implications for the wider relational program, and, in particular, the relevance of the latter to quantum gravity research, are also critically assessed

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

142 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aharonov and L

    Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind,Charge Superselection Rule, Phys. Rev.155, 1428-1431 (1967) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1428

    doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1428 1967

  2. [2]

    Aharonov and L

    Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind,Observability of the Sign Change of Spinors under 2pi Rotations, Phys. Rev.158, 1237-1238 (1967) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.158.1237

    doi:10.1103/physrev.158.1237 1967

  3. [3]

    Aharonov and T

    Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr,Quantum frames of reference, Phys. Rev. D30, 368-385 (1984) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.368

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.368 1984

  4. [4]

    Rovelli,Quantum Reference Systems, Class

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Reference Systems, Class. Quant. Grav.8, 317-332 (1991) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/012

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/012 1991

  5. [5]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens and P. S. Turner,Degradation of a quantum reference frame, New J. Phys. 8, 58 (2006) doi:10.1088/1367-2630/8/4/058 [arXiv:quant- ph/0602069v2]

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph and R. W. Spekkens,Reference frames, superse- lection rules, and quantum information, Rev. Mod. Phys.79, 555-609 (2007) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.79.555 [arXiv:quant-ph/0610030 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Gour and R

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens,The resource theory of quantum reference frames: ma- nipulations and monotones, New J. Phys. 10 (2008) 033023 doi.org/10.1088/1367- 2630/10/3/033023 [arXiv:0711.0043v2 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short and P. Skrzypczyk,Physics within a quantum reference frame, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 44.14 (2011): 145304 doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/14/145304

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/14/145304 2011

  9. [9]

    M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli and S. D. Bartlett,Changing quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A89, no.5, 052121 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.052121 [arXiv:1307.6597 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    Vedral,Observing The Observer, [1603.04583 [quant-ph]] (2016)

    V. Vedral,Observing The Observer, [1603.04583 [quant-ph]] (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Vedral,Observing The Observer II: Can I know I am in a superposition and still be in a superposition?, [arXiv:1803.03523v1 [quant-ph]] (2018)

    V. Vedral,Observing The Observer II: Can I know I am in a superposition and still be in a superposition?, [arXiv:1803.03523v1 [quant-ph]] (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Busch, L

    P. Busch, L. Loveridge and T. Miyadera,Approximating relational observables by abso- lute quantities: a quantum accuracy-size trade-off, J. Phys. A49, no.18, 185301 (2016) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/49/18/185301 [arXiv:1510.02063 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Loveridge, P

    L. Loveridge, P. Busch and T. Miyadera,Relativity of quantum states and observ- ables, EPL117, no.4, 40004 (2017) doi:10.1209/0295-5075/117/40004 [arXiv:1604.02836 [quant-ph]]. 28The relationsrpxi A, pPjs“0 andr pX i, pPjs“iℏ ` 1´ mA M ˘ δi jpIfollow from the three-dimensional generalisation of Eqs. (12) in [35], with arbitrary particle masses in place of...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Loveridge, T

    L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera and P. Busch,Symmetry, Reference Frames, and Re- lational Quantities in Quantum Mechanics, Found. Phys.48, no.2, 135-198 (2018) doi:10.1007/s10701-018-0138-3 [arXiv:1703.10434 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Carette, J

    T. Carette, J. G lowacki and L. Loveridge,Operational Quantum Reference Frame Trans- formations, Quantum9, 1680 (2025) doi:10.22331/q-2025-03-27-1680 [arXiv:2303.14002 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Frankel,The geometry of physics: An introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K

    T. Frankel,The geometry of physics: An introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, USA (2003)

    M. Nakahara,Geometry, topology and physics, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, USA (2003)

    2003

  18. [18]

    Maudlin,The Metaphysics Within Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007)

    T. Maudlin,The Metaphysics Within Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Schr¨ odinger,What is Life?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1944)

    E. Schr¨ odinger,What is Life?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK (1944)

    1944

  20. [20]

    Russell,The Scientific Outlook, W

    B. Russell,The Scientific Outlook, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, USA (1931)

    1931

  21. [21]

    A. A. Tomaz, R. S. Mattos and M. Barbatti,The Quantum Measure- ment Problem: A Review of Recent Trends, Philosophical Magazine (2025), doi:10.1080/14786435.2025.2601922 [arXiv:2502.19278 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    DiSalle,Space and Time: Inertial Frames, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2026 Edition), Edward N

    R. DiSalle,Space and Time: Inertial Frames, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2026 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2026/entries/spacetime-iframes/

    2026

  23. [23]

    Bargmann,On Unitary ray representations of continuous groups, Annals Math.59, 1-46 (1954) doi:10.2307/1969831

    V. Bargmann,On Unitary ray representations of continuous groups, Annals Math.59, 1-46 (1954) doi:10.2307/1969831

    doi:10.2307/1969831 1954

  24. [24]

    L´ evy-Leblond,Galilei Group and Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, J

    J. L´ evy-Leblond,Galilei Group and Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics, J. Math. Phys. 4, no.6, 776 (1963) doi:10.1063/1.1724319

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1724319 1963

  25. [25]

    J. M. L´ evy-Leblond,Galilei group and Galilean invariance, inGroup Theory and its Applications, Volume II, E. N. Loebl (ed.), Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (1971), doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-455152-7.50011-2

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-455152-7.50011-2 1971

  26. [26]

    Horzela, E

    A. Horzela, E. Kapuscik and J. Kempczynski,On Galilean covariant quantum mechan- ics, INP Report, Report No. INP-1557-PH (1991), https://inis.iaea.org/records/48ynm- 61319

    1991

  27. [27]

    D. Giulini,On Galilei invariance in quantum mechanics and the Bargmann superselec- tion rule, Annals Phys.249, 222-235 (1996) doi:10.1006/aphy.1996.0069 [arXiv:quant- ph/9508002 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 1996

  28. [28]

    Csillag,Galilean Covariance of Schr¨ odinger Equation, (2023) https://www.csillag.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Galilean-covariance-of-the- Schrodinger-equation.final.pdf

    L. Csillag,Galilean Covariance of Schr¨ odinger Equation, (2023) https://www.csillag.ro/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Galilean-covariance-of-the- Schrodinger-equation.final.pdf

    2023

  29. [29]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz and ˇC. Brukner,Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames, Nature Commun.10, no.1, 494 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08155-0 [arXiv:1712.07207 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia and ˇC. Brukner,Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems, Nature Commun.11, no.1, 2672 (2020) [erratum: Nature Commun.11, no.1, 6143 (2020)] doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16013-1 [arXiv:1908.10165 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    A. C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley,Quantum reference frames for general sym- metry groups, Quantum4, 367 (2020) doi:10.22331/q-2020-11-30-367 [arXiv:2004.14292 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Krumm, P

    M. Krumm, P. A. Hoehn and M. P. Mueller,Quantum reference frame transforma- tions as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle, Quantum5, 530 (2021) doi:10.22331/q-2021-08-27-530 [arXiv:2011.01951 [quant-ph]]. 57

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Giacomini,Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times, Quantum5, 508 (2021) doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-22-508 [arXiv:2101.11628 [quant-ph]]

    F. Giacomini,Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times, Quantum5, 508 (2021) doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-22-508 [arXiv:2101.11628 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Castro-Ruiz and O

    E. Castro-Ruiz and O. Oreshkov,Relative subsystems and quantum reference frame transformations, Commun. Phys.8, no.1, 187 (2025) doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02036-x [arXiv:2110.13199 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini and E. Castro-Ruiz,A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework, Quantum4, 225 (2020) doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225 [arXiv:1809.00556 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    P. A. H¨ ohn,Switching Internal Times and a New Perspective on the ‘Wave Func- tion of the Universe’, Universe5, no.5, 116 (2019) doi:10.3390/universe5050116 [arXiv:1811.00611 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    P. A. H¨ ohn and A. Vanrietvelde,How to switch between relational quantum clocks, New J. Phys.22, no.12, 123048 (2020) doi:10.1088/1367-2630/abd1ac [arXiv:1810.04153 [gr- qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    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, [arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith and M. P. E. Lock,Trinity of relational quantum dy- namics, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 066001 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066001 [arXiv:1912.00033 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Ali Ahmad, T

    S. Ali Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, M. P. E. Lock and A. R. H. Smith, Quantum Relativity of Subsystems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, no.17, 170401 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.170401 [arXiv:2103.01232 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn and F. Giacomini,Switching quantum reference frames in the N-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives, Quantum7, 1088 (2023) doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-22-1088 [arXiv:1809.05093 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    P. A. Hoehn, I. Kotecha and F. M. Mele,Quantum Frame Relativity of Subsystems, Correlations and Thermodynamics, [arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph]] (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. Russo and A. R. H. Smith,Matter relative to quantum hyper- surfaces, Phys. Rev. D109, no.10, 105011 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.105011 [arXiv:2308.12912 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    De Vuyst, P

    J. De Vuyst, P. A. Hoehn and A. Tsobanjan,On the relation between perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective quantum reference frames, [arXiv:2507.14131 [quant-ph]] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Aristotle,Physics, inAristotle: Complete Works, Volumes 1 & 2, C. D. C. Reeve & P. Kontos (eds.), Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Bodnar,Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N

    I. Bodnar,Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy (Spring 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/aristotle-natphil/

    2025

  47. [47]

    Descartes,Principia Philosophiae(1644);Principles of Philosophy, V. R. Miller and R. P. Miller (transl.), D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Netherlands (1983)

    1983

  48. [48]

    Slowik,Descartes’ Physics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy (Winter 2025 Edition), Edward N

    E. Slowik,Descartes’ Physics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy (Winter 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/entries/descartes-physics/

    2025

  49. [49]

    R. T. W. Arthur,Leibniz on Time, Space, and Relativity, Oxford University Press, New York, USA (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    J. K. McDonough,Leibniz’s Philosophy of Physics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/leibniz-physics/. 58

    2024

  51. [51]

    Barbour and H

    J. Barbour and H. Pfister (eds.),Mach’s Principle: From Newton ’s Bucket to Quantum GravityBirkhauser, Boston, USA (1995)

    1995

  52. [52]

    Barbour,The Definition of Mach’s Principle, Found Phys 40, 1263–1284 (2010)

    J. Barbour,The Definition of Mach’s Principle, Found Phys 40, 1263–1284 (2010). doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9490-7

    doi:10.1007/s10701-010-9490-7 2010

  53. [53]

    Hoefer, N

    C. Hoefer, N. Huggett and J. Read,Absolute and Relational Space and Motion: Classical Theories, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy (Summer 2026 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2026/entries/spacetime-theories-classical/

    2026

  54. [54]

    Hoefer, N

    C. Hoefer, N. Huggett and J. Read,Absolute and Relational Space and Motion: Post-Newtonian Theories, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/spacetime-theories/

    2024

  55. [55]

    T. W. B. Kibble and F. H. Berkshire,Classical Mechanics, 5 th Edition, Imperial College Press, London UK (2004)

    2004

  56. [56]

    M. W. McCall,Classical Mechanics, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, UK (2011)

    2011

  57. [57]

    V. I. Arnold,Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer, New York (1978)

    1978

  58. [58]

    J. E. Marsden and T. S. Ratiu,Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry, Second Edi- tion, Springer, New York (1999)

    1999

  59. [59]

    A. I. M. Rae,Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, UK (2002)

    2002

  60. [60]

    C. J. Isham,Lectures on Quantum Theory, Imperial College Press, London, UK (1995)

    1995

  61. [61]

    P. A. M. Dirac,The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Fourth Edition, Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, UK (1958)

    1958

  62. [62]

    von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA (1955)

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton Univer- sity Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA (1955)

    1955

  63. [63]

    A. P. French,Special Relativity, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, USA (1966)

    1966

  64. [64]

    Tong,Quantum Field Theory, University of Cambridge Part III Mathematical Tripos 2007, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html

    D. Tong,Quantum Field Theory, University of Cambridge Part III Mathematical Tripos 2007, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html

    2007

  65. [65]

    Padmanabhan,Quantum Field Theory: The Why, What and How, Springer, New York, USA (2016)

    T. Padmanabhan,Quantum Field Theory: The Why, What and How, Springer, New York, USA (2016)

    2016

  66. [66]

    L. E. Parker and D. J. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2009)

    2009

  67. [67]

    R. M. Wald,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermody- namicsUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA (1994)

    1994

  68. [68]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, USA (1973)

    1973

  69. [69]

    P. A. M. Dirac,General Theory of Relativity, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA (1975)

    1975

  70. [70]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA (1984)

    1984

  71. [71]

    M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou and A. N. Lasenby,General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2006)

    2006

  72. [72]

    Barbour and B

    J. Barbour and B. Bertotti,Mach’s principle and the structure of dynamical theories, Proc. A (1982) 382 (1783): 295–306, doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1982.0102

    arXiv 1982

  73. [73]

    Mercati,Barbour–Bertotti Best Matching, inShape Dynamics: Relativity and Rela- tionalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2018)

    F. Mercati,Barbour–Bertotti Best Matching, inShape Dynamics: Relativity and Rela- tionalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (2018). 59 [74]100 Years of Quantum Theory, aNaturespecial, https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-025-00357-z/index.html

    2018

  74. [75]

    A. C. de la Hamette, V. Kabel, M. Christodoulou and ˇC. Brukner,Indefinite causal order and quantum coordinates, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 141402 (2025) doi:10.1103/bnkn- 4p3f [arXiv:2211.15685 [quant-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [76]

    Kabel, A

    V. Kabel, A. C. de la Hamette, L. Apadula, C. Cepollaro, H. Gomes, J. Butterfield and ˇC. Brukner,Identification is Pointless: Quantum coordinates, localisation of events, and the quantum hole argument, Commun. Phys.8, no.1, 185 (2025) doi:10.1038/s42005-025- 02084-3 [arXiv:2402.10267 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [77]

    Giacomini and ˇC

    F. Giacomini and ˇC. Brukner,Einstein ’s Equivalence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields and quantum reference frames, [arXiv:2012.13754 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [78]

    Giacomini and ˇC

    F. Giacomini and ˇC. Brukner,Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein ’s equivalence principle, A VS Quantum Sci.4, no.1, 015601 (2022) doi:10.1116/5.0070018 [arXiv:2109.01405 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [79]

    Cepollaro and F

    C. Cepollaro and F. Giacomini,Quantum generalisation of Einstein ’s equivalence prin- ciple can be verified with entangled clocks as quantum reference frames, Class. Quant. Grav.41, no.18, 185009 (2024) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad6d26 [arXiv:2112.03303 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [80]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz and ˇC. Brukner,Relativistic Quantum Reference Frames: The Operational Meaning of Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.9, 090404 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.090404 [arXiv:1811.08228 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [81]

    Mikusch, L

    M. Mikusch, L. C. Barbado and ˇ c. Brukner,Transformation of spin in quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. Res.3, no.4, 043138 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.043138 [arXiv:2103.05022 [quant-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.