We provide a possible fully geometric formulation of the core idea of quantum reference frames (QRFs) as it has been applied in the context of gravity, freeing its definition from unnecessary (though convenient) ingredients, such as coordinate systems. Our formulation is based on two main ideas. First, a QRF encodes uncertainty about what is the observer's (and, hence, the measuring apparatus's) perception of time and space at each spacetime point (i.e., event). For this, an observer at an event $p$ is modeled, as usual, as a tetrad in the tangent space $T_p$. So a QRF at an event $p$ is a complex function on the tetrads at $p$. Second, we use the result that one can specify a metric on a given manifold by stipulating that a basis one assigns at each tangent space is to be a tetrad in the metric one wants to specify. Hence a spacetime, i.e. manifold plus metric, together with a choice of "point of view" on it, is represented by a section of the bundle of bases, understood as taking the basis assigned to each point to be a tetrad. Thus a superposition of spacetimes gets represented as, roughly speaking, an assignment of complex amplitudes to sections of this bundle. A QRF, defined here as the collection of complex amplitudes assigned to bases at events--i.e., a complex function defined on the bundle of bases of the manifold--can describe, in a local way (i.e., attributing the amplitudes to bases at events instead of to whole sections), these superpositions. We believe that this formulation sheds some light on some conceptual aspects and possible extensions of current ideas about QRFs. For instance, thinking in geometric terms makes it clear that the idea of QRFs applied to the gravitational scenarios treated in the literature (beyond linear approximation) lacks predictive power due to arbitrariness which, we argue, can only be resolved by some further input from physics.
We provide a possible fully geometric formulation of the core idea of quantum reference frames (QRFs) as it has been applied in the context of gravity, freeing its definition from unnecessary (though convenient) ingredients, such as coordinate systems. Our formulation is based on two main ideas. First, a QRF encodes uncertainty about what is the observer's (and, hence, the measuring apparatus's) perception of time and space at each spacetime point (i.e., event). For this, an observer at an event p is modeled, as usual, as a tetrad in the tangent space Tp. So a QRF at an event p is a complex function on the tetrads at p. Second, we use the result that one can specify a metric on a given manifold by stipulating that a basis one assigns at each tangent space is to be a tetrad in the metric one wants to specify. Hence a spacetime, i.e. manifold plus metric, together with a choice of "point of view" on it, is represented by a section of the bundle of bases, understood as taking the basis assigned to each point to be a tetrad. Thus a superposition of spacetimes gets represented as, roughly speaking, an assignment of complex amplitudes to sections of this bundle. A QRF, defined here as the collection of complex amplitudes assigned to bases at events--i.e., a complex function defined on the bundle of bases of the manifold--can describe, in a local way (i.e., attributing the amplitudes to bases at events instead of to whole sections), these superpositions. We believe that this formulation sheds some light on some conceptual aspects and possible extensions of current ideas about QRFs. For instance, thinking in geometric terms makes it clear that the idea of QRFs applied to the gravitational scenarios treated in the literature (beyond linear approximation) lacks predictive power due to arbitrariness which, we argue, can only be resolved by some further input from physics.
We adapt to the context of quantum theory the treatment, familiar in relativity theory, of a reference frame as a tetrad. Since a tetrad is a set of four orthonormal vectors at a spacetime point, it encodes a timelike direction, three orthogonal spatial directions, and units; and so it gives a configuration in spacetime (a spatial orientation and state of motion) of an idealized infinitesimal apparatus (``rulers and a clock"). So a natural ``first guess" is that the state of a quantum reference frame should be an assignment of complex amplitudes to a set of tetrads. We develop this idea, in terms of bundles over spacetime of bases of the tangent spaces.
This paper is a companion to two other papers. It emphasises the main conceptual aspects of our proposal, while the other two papers give physical details. It also explains the main contrast between those two papers. Namely: (i) the first considers a single spacetime geometry, so that a quantum reference frame, on our proposal, gives a superposition of perspectives on that geometry; while (ii) the second considers the spacetime manifold with no geometry given a priori, which will imply that a quantum reference frame, on our proposal, can describe a superposition of perspectives on a superposition of geometries---not ``just" a superposition of perspectives on a single geometry. The main mathematical idea for representing this contrast will be choosing between (i) the orthonormal frame bundle, for a given spacetime geometry; (ii) the frame bundle in the usual sense of containing all bases of all spacetime points' tangent spaces.
In general relativity, the description of spacetime relies on idealised rods and clocks, which identify a reference frame. In any concrete scenario, reference frames are associated to physical systems, which are ultimately quantum in nature. A relativistic description of the laws of physics hence needs to take into account such quantum reference frames (QRFs), through which spacetime can be given an operational meaning. Here, we introduce the notion of a spacetime quantum reference frame, associated to a quantum particle in spacetime. Such formulation has the advantage of treating space and time on equal footing, and of allowing us to describe the dynamical evolution of a set of quantum systems from the perspective of another quantum system, where the parameter in which the rest of the physical systems evolves coincides with the proper time of the particle taken as the QRF. Crucially, the proper times in two different QRFs are not related by a standard transformation, but they might be in a quantum superposition one with respect to the other.Concretely, we consider a system of N relativistic quantum particles in a weak gravitational field, and introduce a timeless formulation in which the global state of the N particles appears "frozen", but the dynamical evolution is recovered in terms of relational quantities. The position and momentum Hilbert space of the particles is used to fix the QRF via a transformation to the local frame of the particle such that the metric is locally inertial at the origin of the QRF. The internal Hilbert space corresponds to the clock space, which keeps the proper time in the local frame of the particle. Thanks to this fully relational construction we show how the remaining particles evolve dynamically in the relational variables from the perspective of the QRF. The construction proposed here includes the Page-Wootters mechanism for non interacting clocks when the external degrees of freedom are neglected. Finally, we find that a quantum superposition of gravitational redshifts and a quantum superposition of special-relativistic time dilations can be observed in the QRF.
The study of quantum reference frames (QRFs) is motivated by the idea of taking into account the quantum properties of the reference frames used, explicitly or implicitly, in our description of physical systems. Like classical reference frames, QRFs can be used to define physical quantities relationally. Unlike their classical analogue, they relativise the notions of superposition and entanglement. Here, we explain this feature by examining how configurations or locations are identified across different branches in superposition. We show that, in the presence of symmetries, whether a system is in "the same" or "different" configurations across the branches depends on the choice of QRF. Hence, sameness and difference - and thus superposition and entanglement - lose their absolute meaning. We apply these ideas to the context of semi-classical spacetimes in superposition and use coincidences of four scalar fields to construct a comparison map between spacetime points in the different branches. This reveals that the localisation of an event is frame-dependent. We discuss the implications for indefinite causal order and the locality of interaction and conclude with a generalisation of Einstein's hole argument to the quantum context.
In their strongest usage, quantum reference frames have been described as referring to "the measurements performed by a superposed lab", "the perspective of a quantum particle", "the point of view of a superposed observer", etc. While exciting, these operational proposals have remained brief and ambiguous, leading to misinterpretations and criticism. Here, we provide a detailed specification and defense of the notion of a position-superposed lab or observer. We argue that this requires no exotic claims about quantum physics and raises no greater interpretive difficulty than ordinary quantum measurements. We then derive several consequences of taking this operational meaning seriously. We stress that the position-superposed observers that define quantum references frames are different from, and considerably less problematic than, the outcome-superposed observers considered in Wigners' friend scenarios. In particular, we show that outcomes obtained by a position-superposed observer may (without decohering the superposition) be broadcast to a well-localised one, in contrast with Wigner's friend scenarios, which require the outcomes to remain internal to the system at hand. Finally, we defend the possibility to roleplay a quantum reference frame from a classical reference frame.
The topic of quantum reference frames (QRFs) has attracted a great deal of attention in the recent literature. Potentially, the correct description of such frames is important for both the technological applications of quantum mechanics and for its foundations, including the search for a future theory of quantum gravity. In this letter, we point out potential inconsistencies in the mainstream approach to this subject and propose an alternative definition that avoids these problems. Crucially, we reject the notion that transformations between QRFs can be represented by unitary operators and explain the clear physical reasons for this. An experimental protocol, capable of empirically distinguishing between competing definitions of the term, is also proposed. The implications of the new model, for uncertainty relations, spacetime symmetries, gauge symmetries, the quantisation of gravity, and other foundational issues are discussed, and possible directions for future work in this field are considered.
This paper is the thirty-first in a sequence developing an interpretive framework that redescribes physical reality as a causally consistent history of information updates rather than as a collection of independently existing objects. It is the third panel — the capstone — of the eighth grouping, a foundational-physics trilogy. Its subject is spacetime localization: where and when a record or system is — its position, orientation, relative phase, and time. The claim is that localization is real but not authoritatively global. There is no Global Frame: no physically privileged reference system that fixes absolute location and orientation, a privileged global simultaneity, a classical frame standing outside quantum theory, and one physically privileged, globally valid perspectival gauge-fixing. Localization is relational: positions and times are defined relative to a declared quantum reference frame (QRF), itself a quantum system that may be superposed and entangled with what it localizes (Giacomini, Castro-Ruiz, & Brukner, 2019; Loveridge, Miyadera, & Busch, 2018). What keeps this objective rather than subjective is a strict typing of cross-frame comparison: a single gauge-invariant relational (Dirac) observable has one invariant prediction, its perspectival representations intertwined by a frame-change map (case A); distinct relational observables form a relationally consistent web (case B); and where two frames share no common refinement their claims are declared incomparable (case C). "Objective" means invariance of the physical predictions under the declared symmetry group and the frame-change groupoid over the admissible frame family, to a declared tolerance — never frame-independence in an absolute sense. The flagship R-A is a dynamics-independent kinematic existence witness: a finite-dimensional discrete-ring model exhibits one physical state and two admissible ideal QRFs under which the localization profile and the entanglement structure differ — a sharp product relative to one particle; an entangled state with a delocalized, mixed marginal relative to another — while the distribution of the same relational observable is preserved. R-B splits into a domain covariance on shared refinements (ideal QRFs compose and agree on shared Dirac predictions) and a model-dependent global-perspective obstruction: where a globally valid relational gauge-fixing fails, as in known Gribov-type models (Vanrietvelde, Höhn, & Giacomini, 2023), no single perspective covers the whole physical state space — which is neither the same as, nor a consequence of, the absence of a privileged frame, and does not preclude a perspective-neutral description. R-C places Paper 8's relational time as the time-translation special case, with its finite-resolution-clock, conditional-covariance, and record–clock qualifications, separating the retired claim (no global clock) from the deferred one (relativistic foliation with dynamical geometry). R-D identifies and transports the frame-representable localization sector of certain Paper-30 grains, partially discharging that paper's grain-coherence deferral while leaving interaction, fragmentation, redundancy, and history-family structure grain-relative. This completes the trilogy's dismantling of the Global Bookkeeper while keeping geometry fixed: the quantum-mechanics–gravity interface is prepared, not entered. Localization is frame-relative but objective: no absolute frame, no globally gauge-fixed perspective claimed beyond what models establish, and no anarchy. ALAC Paper 31. Third panel (capstone) of the eighth grouping — a foundational-physics trilogy (29 Public Quantum Records -> 30 Classicality Without a Global Classicalizer -> 31 Spacetime Localization Without a Global Frame). Part of the Consistency-Constrained Information History (Akashic Ledger Architecture Cosmology) series. Presents no new quantum mechanics; results are interpretive (L2) on imported physics (L1).