Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The Third-Particle paradox, blamed on quantum superpositions, already occurs in classical mechanics and forbids any unique frame-independent split of the world into subsystems.

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 23:37 UTC pith:SPM26YRU

load-bearing objection No-go theorem holds; the concrete classical paradox is only approximate and the abstract overstates the theorem's assumptions. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15351 v1 pith:SPM26YRU submitted 2026-07-16 quant-ph gr-qc

The Paradox of the Third Particle is classical

Ladina Hausmann , Renato Renner This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qc
keywords Paradox of the Third Particlequantum reference framesclassical reference framesrelationalitysubsystem decompositionno-go theoremsymplectic transformationsrelativity of subsystems
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.

The paper sets out to show that the Paradox of the Third Particle — in which a bit encoded on one particle is readable from another particle's perspective only when a third particle is left out of the description — is not a quantum effect: it appears already in classical mechanics. To do this, the authors derive a unique classical reference-frame transformation from three natural postulates (geometry, position-momentum separation, and information preservation) and exhibit states where the diagram 'transform then discard the third particle' fails to commute. They then generalise the structure into an 'atlas of perspectives' and prove that any non-trivial atlas with a chosen subsystem partitioning must violate at least one of information preservation, relationality, or decomposability. The upshot is that giving physical meaning to individual particles from the viewpoint of another particle forces a choice: either frame changes lose information, or the world has no single frame-independent subsystem decomposition.

Core claim

The central discovery, stated in the paper's own terms, is that the Paradox of the Third Particle has a classical analogue, making it a symptom of treating reference frames as physical systems rather than of quantum superposition. In the classical model, a random bit M is encoded in the momentum of particle B; from A's perspective a third particle C is factorised and harmless, but the frame transformation fixed by the postulates couples A's momentum in B's frame to the sum of B's and C's momenta. Marginalising over C then erases the bit from A, while omitting C in the first place would have kept it readable. The general consequence is Theorem 2: in any consistent atlas of classical or quantu

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'atlas of perspectives': a directed graph whose nodes are perspectives (a reference system, the set of systems it describes, and a state space) and whose edges are reference-frame transformations, with consistency requiring that any two paths between perspectives compose to the same map. The paradox is the failure of the square in Figure 2 to commute: tracing out the third particle after transforming to B's perspective gives a different state than transforming after tracing it out. In the classical version, the transformation of Lemma 1 — derived from geometry, position-momentum separation, and information preservation — sends A's momentum in B's frame to -p_B - Σ p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that 'removing a described system' means the ordinary trace/marginalization while reference-frame maps are invertible and information-preserving, and that relationality and decomposability are judged with respect to the same subsystem split; change any one of those and the no-go conclusion can be sidestepped.

What would settle it

Take the classical setup of Eq. (3.2): a bit m encoded in B's momentum, C at position 3 with momentum uniform on [-K,K], and apply the transformation of Lemma 1 to B's perspective. The paper predicts that successful decoding of m from A alone is at most 1/2 + (1/4)||Q_C - S_k Q_C||_1, which tends to 1/2 as K→∞. If, for the same initial state, there exists an information-preserving frame transformation to B's perspective under which A's marginal remains m-dependent, the claimed impossibility would be false.

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

If this is right

  • Any proposed resolution of the paradox must sacrifice at least one of the three properties; the paper shows that known resolution strategies each do exactly this, so the no-go is not bypassed by tweaking details.
  • Subsystem relativity is generic: as soon as information-preserving frame changes are relational, what counts as a subsystem (and which correlations exist) depends on the reference frame, classically as well as quantumly.
  • A single classical particle cannot serve as an ideal reference frame for both translations and boosts in the sense of symplectically controlled operations; an ideal frame must have a phase space of the cotangent-bundle form G×g*.
  • The information-theoretic reading is that an all-satisfying frame transformation would act as an 'information diode', but any non-trivial information-preserving transformation causes bidirectional information flow, so physical reference frames suffer back-action under operations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that the no-go argument would likely survive in any theory whose state spaces have a product structure and whose 'removing a system' operation is a marginalization, since the proof only uses invertibility and factorization; this could be tested on general probabilistic theories.
  • The authors flag the 'basis problem' — the transformation is relational in position but not in momentum — which suggests a direct test of whether using a composite frame restores momentum relationality and makes the contradictory diagram commute.
  • If subsystem decompositions are genuinely frame-relative, then quantities built from coarse-graining, such as entropy and conditional information, are also frame-relative; the authors mention cryptographic relevance but do not develop the consequences for security definitions that assume a fixed subsystem adversary.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Paradox of the Third Particle—the inconsistency between two ways of relating descriptions of a bit encoded in a particle when a third particle is included—is not specific to quantum theory. It defines classical reference-frame transformations via three postulates (geometry, position/momentum separation, information preservation), exhibits a phase-space analogue in which the bit becomes non-retrievable from the frame particle when C is included, and then proves a no-go theorem (Theorem 2): any non-trivial atlas of classical or quantum perspectives with a fixed subsystem partitioning must violate at least one of information preservation, relationality, or decomposability. It also proves an equivalence between relationality and relativity of subsystem partitioning (Theorem 3). Full proofs are given in Appendix B.

Significance. The paper's central no-go theorem is a genuine and useful contribution: it formalizes a common structural obstacle in quantum reference frames and shows it is not quantum-specific. The explicit postulates and complete proofs are strengths, and the discussion of known resolution strategies in terms of the three properties is valuable. However, the concrete classical example is only approximate for finite K, and the abstract overstates the logical role of information preservation. These issues are local and fixable, but they affect the strength of the advertised claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.4); Theorem B.1] The claim that 'retrieval is impossible' is only correct if interpreted as 'perfect retrieval is impossible'. For every finite K, the marginal in (3.4) has total variation distance 1/(2K) between the m=0 and m=1 cases, giving an optimal success probability of 1/2 + 1/(4K), as Theorem B.1 itself shows. Thus the bit remains partially readable; 'effectively independent of M' is not an information-theoretic statement. The main text should be revised to state this bound explicitly and to clarify that the classical paradox is approximate (exact only in the improper K→∞ limit), rather than equating it with the quantum case where the reduced state is exactly M-independent.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract states that 'if one demands that frame transformations be information-preserving, then it is impossible to meaningfully partition the world into subsystems'. This misstates Theorem 2, which requires information preservation together with relationality and decomposability; the theorem concludes that at least one of the three must fail. Information preservation alone is compatible with a non-trivial atlas if one of the other properties is given up. The abstract and the conclusion should present the result as a trilemma.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5, 'The basis problem'] The paper correctly notes that the classical transformation is relational only in position, not momentum, and that Postulate 2 is the fragile premise. It would help to state explicitly in Section 3 that the concrete paradox depends on this postulate and does not survive if momentum is treated as relative in the same way as position.
  2. [Figure 2] The check marks in the figure are ambiguous between 'perfect retrieval' and 'any information'. The caption should specify that the diagram is about perfect retrieval, so that the finite-K classical case is not perceived as contradicting the displayed '×'.
  3. [Section 3, after Eq. (3.4)] Replace the phrase 'for large K' with a quantitative statement: for finite K the decoding advantage is 1/(4K), and zero only in theK→∞ limit, which is not a normalizable probability distribution.
  4. [Appendix B.2] The heading 'robust version of the classical paradox' may mislead; the theorem gives an upper bound on success probability that is strictly above 1/2 for any finite, normalizable Q_C. Consider calling it an 'approximate version' and clarifying that it does not provide an exact no-information regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: all results follow from stated postulates and definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Lemma 1 (Eq. 2.1) is proved from Postulates 1–3 (Appendix B.1), and the classical Paradox of the Third Particle is obtained by applying that explicitly derived transformation to the distributions in Eqs. (3.1)–(3.4); no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion and no 'prediction' secretly reduces to an input. Theorem 2 is a proof by contradiction from the formal definitions of a non-trivial consistent atlas, information preservation, relationality, and decomposability, with separate classical and quantum arguments in Appendix B.3; the claimed impossibility is not assumed in the premises. Theorem 3 is likewise an independent equivalence proof. The self-citations that appear (e.g., [30], [40], [51], [54]) are contextual or illustrate existing resolutions; none supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or empirical input on which the main results depend. The finite-K approximation noted in Section 3 and Theorem B.1 is a quantitative accuracy concern, not a circularity: the main text's 'impossible to retrieve' statement is an idealization, but this does not make the derivation equivalent to its own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central calculation needs one hand-set parameter, K, and a small set of explicitly stated postulates. No physical entities are invented. The no-go theorem is a mathematical consequence of the definitions of information preservation, relationality, and decomposability; its force depends on how natural those three properties are.

free parameters (1)
  • K (width of C's uniform momentum prior) = K > 0, considered large; success probability bounded by 1/2 + 1/(4K)
    Introduced in Eq. (3.2) to erase the bit from A's marginal in the classical paradox. Not fitted to data; a modeling parameter whose large-K limit makes retrieval effectively impossible.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Classical states are probability measures on finite-dimensional connected symplectic phase spaces; quantum states are density operators on separable Hilbert spaces.
    Background in Appendix A; underpins definitions of classical and quantum perspectives.
  • domain assumption Postulate 1: relative positions transform by shifting the origin (x_A^(B) = -x_B^(A), x_C^(B) = x_C^(A) - x_B^(A)).
    Geometric meaning of a change of perspective; Section 2.
  • ad hoc to paper Postulate 2: momenta from B's perspective depend only on momenta from A's perspective, and the phase-space origin maps to itself.
    Load-bearing modeling choice; yields Eq. (2.1) and is the source of the information loss in the classical paradox. The authors note it is restrictive.
  • domain assumption Postulate 3: frame transformations are symplectomorphisms (information preservation).
    Reversibility/information-preservation requirement; central to Theorem 2.
  • domain assumption Decomposability: removing a described system is the trace/marginalization with respect to the subsystem partitioning.
    One horn of the no-go theorem; the paper shows relational-trace resolutions give up this property.
  • domain assumption Atlas consistency: any two paths between the same perspectives compose to the same map.
    What a resolution of the paradox would require; used in the proof of Theorem 2.
  • standard math Darboux theorem and standard symplectic/Poisson-geometry facts.
    Used in the classical proof of Theorem 2 (Appendix B.3).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22296 in / 23105 out tokens · 229157 ms · 2026-08-01T23:37:51.796028+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Paradox of the Third Particle arises when particles are described relative to one of them serving as a reference frame. Although it is typically attributed to quantum superpositions, we show that the paradox and its ramifications$\unicode{x2014}$such as the relativity of subsystems$\unicode{x2014}$already occur classically. In light of this insight, we establish a no-go theorem that holds whenever physical subsystems, whether classical or quantum, are used as reference frames: if one demands that frame transformations be information-preserving, then it is impossible to meaningfully partition the world into subsystems, like individual particles, from the perspective of each frame.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15351 by Ladina Hausmann, Renato Renner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Quantum Paradox of the Third Particle. From the perspective of one particle (dotted), the state of other particles (solid) depends on the value m of a bit. From A’s perspective, the state of particle B is the same independently of whether the third particle C is ignored, as in (a), or included in the description, as in (b). The paradox arises because, after transforming to B’s perspective (vertical arrow),… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Structure of the Paradox of the Third Particle. From the perspective of particle A (upper part), information M can be retrieved from particle B alone, i.e., without acting on the third particle C. An analysis of the same setup after transforming to the perspective of B (lower part), however, yields contradictory answers to whether M can be retrieved without access to C. For concreteness, the diagram is phr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Geometric intuition. The upper part shows the perspective from particle A (dotted) on particles B and C (solid). The lower part shows the perspective from particle B (dotted) on particles A and C (solid). The reference frame transformation T¯A→B from A’s perspective to B’s perspective corresponds to a shift of the origin from the location of A to the location of B. To characterize the transformation betwee… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The classical Paradox of the Third Particle. From A’s perspective, B’s state depends on the value m of the bit M, regardless of whether the third particle C is ignored, as in (a), or included, as in (b). However, upon transforming to B’s perspective, a discrepancy arises: the state of A depends on m if C is ignored when transforming, as on the right-hand side of (a), whereas it is independent of m if C is … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Atlas of perspectives. An atlas of perspectives is a directed graph whose nodes represent individual perspectives and whose edges define transformations from one to the other. This figure illustrates a subgraph where the Paradox of the Third Particle arises. Vertical edges denote reference frame transformations between A’s and B’s perspectives. Horizontal edges correspond to removing a system from the desc… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Heisenberg cuts. Originally, the notion of a Heisenberg cut was introduced in quantum theory as the boundary between the world described by quantum theory and the rest. Here, we use this notion more generally: the boundary between the systems described from a perspective and the rest. Figure (a) shows the case relevant to the Paradox of the Third Particle, and Figure (b) the standard situation. well with t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Frame-Dependent Traces and the Third-Particle Paradox

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    The Third-Particle Paradox is not a contradiction: the authors characterize exactly which states allow consistent subsystem discarding in the perspective-neutral and quantum-information approaches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Charge superselection rule

    Yakir Aharonov and Leonard Susskind. “Charge superselection rule”. In:Phys. Rev. 155 (5 1967), pp. 1428–1431.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.155.1428. 14

    doi:10.1103/physrev.155.1428 1967

  2. [2]

    Observability of the sign change of spinors under 2πrotations

    Yakir Aharonov and Leonard Susskind. “Observability of the sign change of spinors under 2πrotations”. In:Phys. Rev.158 (5 1967), pp. 1237–1238.doi:10 . 1103 / PhysRev.158.1237

    1967

  3. [3]

    Evolution without evolution: dynamics described by stationary observables

    Don N. Page and William K. Wootters. “Evolution without evolution: dynamics described by stationary observables”. In:Phys. Rev. D27 (12 1983), pp. 2885–2892. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2885

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.27.2885 1983

  4. [4]

    Quantum frames of reference

    Yakir Aharonov and Tirzah Kaufherr. “Quantum frames of reference”. In:Phys. Rev. D30 (2 1984), pp. 368–385.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.30.368

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.30.368 1984

  5. [5]

    Quantum reference systems

    Carlo Rovelli. “Quantum reference systems”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.8.2 (1991), p. 317.doi:10.1088/0264-9381/8/2/012

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

  6. [6]

    Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information

    Stephen D. Bartlett, Terry Rudolph, and Robert W. Spekkens. “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information”. In:Rev. Mod. Phys.79 (2 2007), pp. 555–609.doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.79.555

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.79.555 2007

  7. [8]

    Physics within a quantum reference frame

    Renato M. Angelo, Nicolas Brunner, Sandu Popescu, Anthony J. Short, and Paul Skrzypczyk. “Physics within a quantum reference frame”. In:J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.44.14 (Mar. 2011), p. 145304.issn: 1751-8121.doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/ 14/145304

    doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/ 2011

  8. [9]

    Quantum reference frames associated with noncompact groups: the case of translations and boosts and the role of mass

    Alexander R. H. Smith, Marco Piani, and Robert B. Mann. “Quantum reference frames associated with noncompact groups: the case of translations and boosts and the role of mass”. In:Phys. Rev. A94 (1 2016), p. 012333.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 94.012333

    doi:10.1103/physreva 2016

  9. [10]

    Relativity of quantum states and observables

    Leon Loveridge, Paul Busch, and Takayuki Miyadera. “Relativity of quantum states and observables”. In:Europhysics Letters117.4 (2017), p. 40004.doi:10.1209/0295- 5075/117/40004

    doi:10.1209/0295- 2017

  10. [11]

    Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics

    Leon Loveridge, Takayuki Miyadera, and Paul Busch. “Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics”. In:Found. Phys.48.2 (2018), pp. 135–198.doi:10.1007/s10701-018-0138-3

    doi:10.1007/s10701-018-0138-3 2018

  11. [12]

    Quantum mechan- ics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames

    Flaminia Giacomini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Quantum mechan- ics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames”. In:Nat. Com- mun.10.494 (Jan. 2019), pp. 1–13.issn: 2041-1723.doi:10 . 1038 / s41467 - 018 - 08155-0

    2019

  12. [13]

    Relativistic quan- tum reference frames: the operational meaning of spin

    Flaminia Giacomini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Relativistic quan- tum reference frames: the operational meaning of spin”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (9 2019), p. 090404.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.090404

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.090404 2019

  13. [14]

    A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective- neutral framework

    Augustin Vanrietvelde, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Flaminia Giacomini, and Esteban Castro- Ruiz. “A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective- neutral framework”. In:Quantum4 (2020), p. 225.doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27- 225. 15

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27- 2020

  14. [15]

    How to switch between relational quantum clocks

    Philipp A. H¨ ohn and Augustin Vanrietvelde. “How to switch between relational quantum clocks”. In:New J. Phys.22.12 (2020), p. 123048.doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/abd1ac

    doi:10.1088/1367- 2020

  15. [17]

    The group structure of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames

    Angel Ballesteros, Flaminia Giacomini, and Giulia Gubitosi. “The group structure of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames”. In:Quantum5 (2021), p. 470.doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-08-470

    doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-08-470 2021

  16. [18]

    Galley, Philipp A

    Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Thomas D. Galley, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Leon Loveridge, and Markus P. M¨ uller.Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame covariance for general symmetry groups. 2021. arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [19]

    Trinity of relational quantum dynamics

    Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Alexander R. H. Smith, and Maximilian P. E. Lock. “Trinity of relational quantum dynamics”. In:Phys. Rev. D104.6 (2021), p. 066001.doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.104.066001

    2021

  18. [20]

    Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle

    Marius Krumm, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Markus P. M¨ uller. “Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle”. In:Quantum 5 (Aug. 2021), p. 530.doi:10.22331/q-2021-08-27-530

    doi:10.22331/q-2021-08-27-530 2021

  19. [21]

    Transformation of spin in quantum reference frames

    Marion Mikusch, Luis C. Barbado, and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Transformation of spin in quantum reference frames”. In:Phys. Rev. Res.3 (4 2021), p. 043138.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.3.043138

    2021

  20. [22]

    Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups

    Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Marius Krumm, and Markus P. M¨ uller. “Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups”. In:Journal of Mathematical Physics63.11 (Nov. 2022).issn: 1089-7658.doi:10.1063/5.0088485

    doi:10.1063/5.0088485 2022

  21. [23]

    Quantum relativity of subsystems

    Shadi Ali Ahmad, Thomas D. Galley, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Maximilian P. E. Lock, and Alexander R. H. Smith. “Quantum relativity of subsystems”. In:Physical Review Letters128.17 (2022).issn: 1079-7114.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.170401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.170401 2022

  22. [24]

    Jan G lowacki.Operational quantum frames: an operational approach to quantum ref- erence frames. 2023. arXiv:2304.07021 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [25]

    Switching quan- tum reference frames in the N-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives

    Augustin Vanrietvelde, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Flaminia Giacomini. “Switching quan- tum reference frames in the N-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives”. In:Quantum7 (2023), p. 1088.doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-22-1088

    doi:10.22331/q-2023-08-22-1088 2023

  24. [26]

    H¨ ohn, Andrea Russo, and Alexander R

    Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Andrea Russo, and Alexander R. H. Smith.Matter relative to quantum hypersurfaces. 2023. arXiv:2308.12912 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [27]

    H¨ ohn, Isha Kotecha, and Fabio M

    Philipp A. H¨ ohn, Isha Kotecha, and Fabio M. Mele.Quantum frame relativity of subsystems, correlations and thermodynamics. 2023. arXiv:2308.09131 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [28]

    Quantum reference frames for an indefinite metric

    Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Viktoria Kabel, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Quantum reference frames for an indefinite metric”. In:Communications Physics6.1 (Aug. 2023).issn: 2399-3650.doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01344-4. 16

    doi:10.1038/s42005-023-01344-4 2023

  27. [29]

    Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition

    Viktoria Kabel, Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition”. In: Quantum8 (Dec. 2024), p. 1547.issn: 2521-327X.doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-04- 1547

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2024-12-04- 2024

  28. [30]

    Measure- ment events relative to temporal quantum reference frames

    Ladina Hausmann, Alexander Schmidhuber, and Esteban Castro-Ruiz. “Measure- ment events relative to temporal quantum reference frames”. In:Quantum9 (2025), p. 1616.doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-30-1616

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2025-01-30-1616 2025

  29. [31]

    Angel Ballesteros, Diego Fernandez-Silvestre, Flaminia Giacomini, and Giulia Gu- bitosi.Quantum Galilei group as quantum reference frame transformations. 2025. arXiv:2504.00569 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [32]

    Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Viktoria Kabel, and ˇCaslav Brukner.Quantum refer- ence frames in arbitrary charge sectors: accessibility of global properties from internal perspectives. 2025. arXiv:2510.09100 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [33]

    Operational quantum reference frame transformations

    Titouan Carette, Jan Glowacki, and Leon Loveridge. “Operational quantum reference frame transformations”. In:Quantum9 (Mar. 2025), p. 1680.doi:10.22331/q-2025- 03-27-1680

    doi:10.22331/q-2025- 2025

  32. [34]

    H¨ ohn, and Artur Tsobanjan.On the relation between perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective quantum reference frames

    Julian De Vuyst, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Artur Tsobanjan.On the relation between perspective-neutral, algebraic, and effective quantum reference frames. 2025. arXiv: 2507.14131 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent

    Julian De Vuyst, Stefan Eccles, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Josh Kirklin. “Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent”. In:J. High Energy Phys.2025.7 (July 2025), p. 146. issn: 1029-8479.doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)146

    doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)146 2025

  34. [36]

    H¨ ohn, and Fabio M

    Sylvain Carrozza, Aidan Chatwin-Davies, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Fabio M. Mele.A cor- respondence between quantum error correcting codes and quantum reference frames

  35. [37]

    H¨ ohn, and Francesco Sartini.Relational entan- glement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories

    Goncalo Araujo-Regado, Philipp A. H¨ ohn, and Francesco Sartini.Relational entan- glement entropies and quantum reference frames in gauge theories. 2025. arXiv:2506. 23459 [hep-th]

    2025

  36. [38]

    Relative subsystems and quantum ref- erence frame transformations

    Esteban Castro-Ruiz and Ognyan Oreshkov. “Relative subsystems and quantum ref- erence frame transformations”. In:Commun. Phys.8.187 (Apr. 2025), pp. 1–17.issn: 2399-3650.doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02036-x

    doi:10.1038/s42005-025-02036-x 2025

  37. [39]

    Galley, and Leon Loveridge.Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example

    Esteban Castro-Ruiz, Thomas D. Galley, and Leon Loveridge.Interpreting quantum reference frame transformations through a simple example. 2025. arXiv:2508.09540 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    S´ ebastien Christophe Garmier, Ladina Hausmann, and Esteban Castro-Ruiz.The perspectives of non-ideal quantum reference frames. 2025. arXiv:2512 . 19343 [quant-ph]

    2025

  39. [41]

    Mixed states for reference frame transformations

    Gaetano Fiore and Fedele Lizzi. “Mixed states for reference frame transformations”. In:Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.(Mar. 2026), p. 2650201.issn: 0219-8878.doi: 10.1142/S0219887826502014

    work page doi:10.1142/s0219887826502014 2026

  40. [42]

    Anne-Catherine de la Hamette.Observer-dependent entropy and diagonal r´ enyi in- variants in quantum reference frames. 2026. arXiv:2603.23598 [quant-ph].url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23598. 17

    arXiv 2026

  41. [43]

    Elias Rothlin, Carla Ferradini, and Lin-Qing Chen.Error correction in lattice quantum electrodynamics with quantum reference frames. 2026. arXiv:2604.06149 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [44]

    Paolo Luppi, Viktoria Kabel, Flaminia Giacomini, and Andrea Smirne.Reduced quantum-reference-frame channels for open quantum systems. 2026. arXiv:2607 . 05578 [quant-ph]

    2026

  43. [45]

    2026.url:https://quantum.physics.sk/ocqg2026/index

    Esteban Castro-Ruiz, Kristina Giesel, Giulia Gubitosi, Fedele Lizzi, and Renato Ren- ner.Discussion session at the conference on Observers and Causality in Quantum Gravity, Bratislava. 2026.url:https://quantum.physics.sk/ocqg2026/index. html

    2026

  44. [46]

    unpublished

    Marius Krumm, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. unpublished. 2021

    2021

  45. [47]

    2024.url:https://www.youtube.com/live/APHlNaCTikk?si= ESwk5YqtHcnTrv2q&t=1201

    ˇCaslav Brukner.The common misconceptions around quantum reference frames and causal ordering. 2024.url:https://www.youtube.com/live/APHlNaCTikk?si= ESwk5YqtHcnTrv2q&t=1201

    2024

  46. [48]

    Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory

    Robert W. Spekkens. “Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: a toy theory”. In:Physical Review A75.3 (Mar. 2007).issn: 1094-1622.doi:10 . 1103 / physreva.75.032110

    2007

  47. [49]

    Quasi-quantization: Classical statistical theories with an epis- temic restriction

    Robert W. Spekkens. “Quasi-quantization: Classical statistical theories with an epis- temic restriction”. In:Quantum Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils. Dor- drecht, The Netherlands: Springer, Dec. 2015, pp. 83–135.isbn: 978-94-017-7303-4. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7303-4_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7303-4_4 2015

  48. [50]

    Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory

    Lorenzo Catani, Matthew Leifer, David Schmid, and Robert W. Spekkens. “Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory”. In:Quantum 7 (2023), p. 1119.issn: 2521-327X.doi:10.22331/q-2023-09-25-1119

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-09-25-1119 2023

  49. [51]

    Toys can’t play: physical agents in Spekkens’ theory

    Ladina Hausmann, Nuriya Nurgalieva, and L ´ ıdia del Rio. “Toys can’t play: physical agents in Spekkens’ theory”. In:New Journal of Physics25.2 (Feb. 2023), p. 023018. issn: 1367-2630.doi:10.1088/1367-2630/acb3ef

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/acb3ef 2023

  50. [52]

    On the significance of wigner’s friend in contexts beyond quantum foundations

    Caroline L. Jones and Markus P. M¨ uller. “On the significance of wigner’s friend in contexts beyond quantum foundations”. In:Quantum10 (June 2026), p. 2147.doi: 10.22331/q-2026-06-30-2147

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2026-06-30-2147 2026

  51. [53]

    Testing quantum theory with thought exper- iments

    Nuriya Nurgalieva and Renato Renner. “Testing quantum theory with thought exper- iments”. In:Contemporary Physics61.3 (2020), pp. 193–216.issn: 1366-5812.doi: 10.1080/00107514.2021.1880075

    arXiv 2020

  52. [54]

    The firewall paradox is Wigner’s friend paradox

    Ladina Hausmann and Renato Renner. “The firewall paradox is Wigner’s friend paradox”. In:The Black Hole Information Paradox. Singapore: Springer, Aug. 2025, pp. 371–398.isbn: 978-981-96-6170-1.doi:10.1007/978-981-96-6170-1_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-96-6170-1_13 2025

  53. [55]

    Lucien Hardy.The construction interpretation: conceptual roads to quantum gravity

  54. [56]

    Quantum formulation of the Einstein equiva- lence principle

    Magdalena Zych and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Quantum formulation of the Einstein equiva- lence principle”. In:Nat. Phys.14 (Oct. 2018), pp. 1027–1031.issn: 1745-2481.doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0197-6. 18

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0197-6 2018

  55. [57]

    Flaminia Giacomini and ˇCaslav Brukner.Einstein ’s equivalence principle for superpo- sitions of gravitational fields and quantum reference frames. 2020. arXiv:2012.13754 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [58]

    Implementation of the quantum equivalence principle

    Lucien Hardy. “Implementation of the quantum equivalence principle”. In:Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity. Cham, Switzerland: Birkh¨ auser, Apr. 2020, pp. 189–220.isbn: 978-3-030-38941-3.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38941- 3_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38941- 2020

  57. [59]

    Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein’s equivalence principle

    Flaminia Giacomini and ˇCaslav Brukner. “Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein’s equivalence principle”. In:A VS Quantum Sci.4.1 (Jan. 2022), p. 015601.doi:10.1116/5.0070018

    doi:10.1116/5.0070018 2022

  58. [60]

    Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 1987.isbn: 978-94- 009-3807-6.doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3807-6

    Paulette Libermann and Charles-Michel Marle.Symplectic Geometry and Analytical Mechanics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 1987.isbn: 978-94- 009-3807-6.doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3807-6

    doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3807-6 1987

  59. [61]

    Spekkens’ toy model in all dimensions and its relationship with stabiliser quantum mechanics

    Lorenzo Catani and Dan E. Browne. “Spekkens’ toy model in all dimensions and its relationship with stabiliser quantum mechanics”. In:New J. Phys.19.7 (July 2017), p. 073035.issn: 1367-2630.doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa781c

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa781c 2017

  60. [62]

    Ladina Hausmann, Nuriya Nurgalieva, and L ´ ıdia del Rio.A consolidating review of Spekkens’ toy theory. 2021. arXiv:2105.03277 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  61. [63]

    Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008.isbn: 978-3-540-45330-7.url:https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ 978-3-540-45330-7

    Ana Cannas da Silva.Lectures on Symplectic Geometry. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2008.isbn: 978-3-540-45330-7.url:https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ 978-3-540-45330-7

    2008

  62. [64]

    Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch

    Nick Ormrod, Augustin Vanrietvelde, and Jonathan Barrett. “Causal structure in the presence of sectorial constraints, with application to the quantum switch”. In: Quantum7 (June 2023), p. 1028.issn: 2521-327X.doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-01- 1028

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-06-01- 2023

  63. [65]

    Causal and compositional structure of unitary transformations

    Robin Lorenz and Jonathan Barrett. “Causal and compositional structure of unitary transformations”. In:Quantum5 (2021), p. 511.issn: 2521-327X.doi:10.22331/q- 2021-07-28-511. 19 Appendix A Classical mechanics In the Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, the state space of the system is its phase space, which, mathematically, is a symplectic mani...

    doi:10.22331/q- 2021

  64. [2018]

    arXiv:1807.10980 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  65. [2025]

    arXiv:2412.15317 [quant-ph]

    arXiv