One of the key ways in which quantum mechanics differs from relativity is that it requires a fixed background reference frame for spacetime. In fact, this appears to be one of the main conceptual obstacles to uniting the two theories. Additionally, a combination of the two theories is expected to yield non-classical, or "indefinite", causal structures. In this paper, we present a background-independent formulation of the process matrix formalism – a form of quantum mechanics that allows for indefinite causal structure – while retaining operationally well-defined measurement statistics. We do this by postulating an arbitrary probability distribution of measurement outcomes across discrete "chunks" of spacetime, which we think of as physical laboratories, and then requiring that this distribution be invariant under any permutation of laboratories. We find (a) that one still obtains nontrivial, indefinite causal structures with background independence, (b) that we lose the idea of local operations in distinct laboratories, but can recover it by encoding a reference frame into the physical states of our system, and (c) that permutation invariance imposes surprising symmetry constraints that, although formally similar to a superselection rule, cannot be interpreted as such.
One of the key ways in which quantum mechanics differs from relativity is that it requires a fixed background reference frame for spacetime. In fact, this appears to be one of the main conceptual obstacles to uniting the two theories. Additionally, a combination of the two theories is expected to yield non-classical, or "indefinite", causal structures. In this paper, we present a background-independent formulation of the process matrix formalism – a form of quantum mechanics that allows for indefinite causal structure – while retaining operationally well-defined measurement statistics. We do this by postulating an arbitrary probability distribution of measurement outcomes across discrete "chunks" of spacetime, which we think of as physical laboratories, and then requiring that this distribution be invariant under any permutation of laboratories. We find (a) that one still obtains nontrivial, indefinite causal structures with background independence, (b) that we lose the idea of local operations in distinct laboratories, but can recover it by encoding a reference frame into the physical states of our system, and (c) that permutation invariance imposes surprising symmetry constraints that, although formally similar to a superselection rule, cannot be interpreted as such.
The idea that events are equipped with a partial causal order is central to our understanding of physics in the tested regimes: given two pointlike events A and B , either A is in the causal past of B , B is in the causal past of A , or A and B are space-like separated. Operationally, the meaning of these order relations corresponds to constraints on the possible correlations between experiments performed in the vicinities of the respective events: if A is in the causal past of B , an experimenter at A could signal to an experimenter at B but not the other way around, while if A and B are space-like separated, no signaling is possible in either direction. In the context of a concrete physical theory, the correlations compatible with a given causal configuration may obey further constraints. For instance, space-like correlations in quantum mechanics arise from local measurements on joint quantum states, while time-like correlations are established via quantum channels. Similarly to other variables, however, the causal order of a set of events could be random, and little is understood about the constraints that causality implies in this case. A main difficulty concerns the fact that the order of events can now generally depend on the operations performed at the locations of these events, since, for instance, an operation at A could influence the order in which B and C occur in A ’s future. So far, no formal theory of causality compatible with such dynamical causal order has been developed. Apart from being of fundamental interest in the context of inferring causal relations, such a theory is imperative for understanding recent suggestions that the causal order of events in quantum mechanics can be indefinite. Here, we develop such a theory in the general multipartite case. Starting from a background-independent definition of causality, we derive an iteratively formulated canonical decomposition of multipartite causal correlations. For a fixed number of settings and outcomes for each party, these correlations form a polytope whose facets define causal inequalities. The case of quantum correlations in this paradigm is captured by the process matrix formalism. We investigate the link between causality and the closely related notion of causal separability of quantum processes, which we here define rigorously in analogy with the link between Bell locality and separability of quantum states. We show that causality and causal separability are not equivalent in general by giving an example of a physically admissible tripartite quantum process that is causal but not causally separable. We also show that there are causally separable quantum processes that become non-causal if extended by supplying the parties with entangled ancillas. This motivates the concepts of extensibly causal and extensibly causally separable (ECS) processes, for which the respective property remains invariant under extension. We characterize the class of ECS quantum processes in the tripartite case via simple conditions on the form of the process matrix. We show that the processes realizable by classically controlled quantum circuits are ECS and conjecture that the reverse also holds.
In general relativity, the causal structure between events is dynamical, but it is definite and observer-independent; events are point-like and the membership of an event A in the future or past light-cone of an event B is an observer-independent statement. When events are defined with respect to quantum systems however, nothing guarantees that the causal relationship between A and B is definite. We propose to associate a causal reference frame corresponding to each event, which can be interpreted as an observer-dependent time according to which an observer describes the evolution of quantum systems. In the causal reference frame of one event, this particular event is always localised, but other events can be ‘smeared out’ in the future and in the past. We do not impose a predefined causal order between the events, but only require that descriptions from different reference frames obey a global consistency condition. We show that our new formalism is equivalent to the pure process matrix formalism (Araújo et al 2017 Quantum 1 10). The latter is known to predict certain multipartite correlations, which are incompatible with the assumption of a causal ordering of the events—these correlations violate causal inequalities. We show how the causal reference frame description can be used to gain insight into the question of realisability of such strongly non-causal processes in laboratory experiments. As another application, we use causal reference frames to revisit a thought experiment Zych et al (arXiv: 1708.00248 ) where the gravitational time dilation due to a massive object in a quantum superposition of positions leads to a superposition of the causal ordering of two events.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
One of the most fundamental open problems in physics is the unification of general relativity and quantum theory to a theory of quantum gravity. An aspect that might become relevant in such a theory is that the dynamical nature of causal structure present in general relativity displays quantum uncertainty. This may lead to a phenomenon known as indefinite or quantum causal structure, as captured by the process matrix framework. Due to the generality of that framework, however, for many process matrices there is no clear physical interpretation. A popular approach towards a quantum theory of gravity is the Page-Wootters formalism, which associates to time a Hilbert space structure similar to spatial position. By explicitly introducing a quantum clock, it allows to describe time-evolution of systems via correlations between this clock and said systems encoded in history states. In this paper we combine the process matrix framework with a generalization of the Page-Wootters formalism in which one considers several observers, each with their own discrete quantum clock. We describe how to extract process matrices from scenarios involving such observers with quantum clocks, and analyze their properties. The description via a history state with multiple clocks imposes constraints on the physical implementation of process matrices and on the perspectives of the observers as described via causal reference frames. While it allows for describing scenarios where different definite causal orders are coherently controlled, we explain why certain non-causal processes might not be implementable within this setting.
The process-matrix formalism describes quantum processes without assuming a fixed global causal order, but the physical meaning of indefinite causal order remains open. We address this question within histories theory, where temporal ordering and dynamical evolution are distinct structures. We show that the decoherence functional admits coherent superpositions of dynamics. In measurement settings, under suitable factorization conditions, these generate process matrices. Thus, we identify process-matrix indefinite causal order as an operationally restricted realization of the more general phenomenon of superposition of dynamics. Histories theory also admits a distinct kinematical notion of indefinite order, in which the ordering of physical events is itself a history observable. The resulting distinction between event order and intervention order clarifies the relation between indefinite causal order, quantum dynamics, and spacetime structure.
A quantum process encodes the causal structure that relates quantum operations performed in local laboratories. The process matrix formalism includes as special cases quantum mechanics on a fixed background space-time, but also allows for more general causal structures. Motivated by the interpretation of processes as a resource for quantum information processing shared by two (or more) parties, with advantages recently demonstrated both for computation and communication tasks, we investigate the notion of composition of processes. We show that under very basic assumptions such a composition rule does not exist. While the availability of multiple independent copies of a resource, e.g. quantum states or channels, is the starting point for defining information-theoretic notions such as entropy (both in classical and quantum Shannon theory), our no-go result means that a Shannon theory of general quantum processes will not possess a natural rule for the composition of resources.