Boundaries, frames and the issue of physical covariance

Daniele Oriti; Henrique Gomes; Simon Langenscheidt

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Boundaries, frames and the issue of physical covariance

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Removing idealizations from gravitational modelling makes the description of any system intrinsically relative to a physical reference frame, and leaves no established notion of physical covariance across such frames.

desk verdict A candid, well-structured programmatic synthesis that plausibly unifies edge modes, relational observables, and quantum reference frames around 'physical covariance,' but whose 'necessarily perspectival' conclusion outruns the evidence and should be framed as conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00993 v3 pith:2QDKE3T7 submitted 2024-12-01 physics.hist-ph gr-qchep-thquant-ph

Henrique Gomes , Simon Langenscheidt , Daniele Oriti This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-phgr-qchep-thquant-ph

keywords physicalcovariancequantumreferenceframesedgemodesrelationalobservablesdiffeomorphisminvariancegaugetheoryandboundariesperspectivalismobserverdependence

open problems Quantum Gravity

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that two routine idealizations—treating gravitational systems as closed or extending to infinity, and modelling reference frames as coordinate choices—cannot both be removed from a realistic theory without making the description of any gravitational system relative to a physical frame. Drawing on recent work on edge modes, relational observables, and quantum reference frames, it claims that these three lines are aspects of one programme whose central open problem is physical covariance: how to relate descriptions built from different physical frames, and what is invariant between them. The authors conclude that a fundamental, quantum understanding of gravity is necessarily perspectival, and that standard general covariance is already accounted for while a physical counterpart is not. If correct, this converts philosophical talk about observers into a concrete technical challenge: either construct physical covariance, or accept that gravitational facts are frame-relative.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the identification of the observer/system split with a finite spacetime boundary, and the claim that the edge modes on that boundary act as a physical reference frame. In the relational strategy, gauge-fixing becomes 'dressing': a field configuration $\phi$ is mapped to a gauge-invariant composite by a field-dependent transformation $\gamma(\phi)$, which is precisely the choice of physical frame; its infinitesimal version is a connection form $\omega$ on field space, so what counts as 'pure gauge' vs 'physical' is itself a choice of frame. The second half of the machinery is quantum: physical frames are genuine quantum systems, so their uncertainty, entanglement, and back-reaction on geometry cannot be switched off. The triple identification of boundary, physical frame, and observer perspective carries the whole argument: finite boundary implies physical frame, and physical frame implies perspectival description.

What would settle it

Construct, in a concrete quantum gravity toy model with two different physical clocks, the exact unitary transformation between their relational descriptions and check whether it preserves the full algebra of relational observables. A single model in which this map exists and preserves the algebra would falsify the paper's claim that physical covariance across physical frames is unattained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is conditional: if two standard idealizations are removed—the idealization of closed or asymptotic boundaries and the idealization of coordinate or non-gravitating reference frames—then gravitational physics becomes necessarily perspectival. The formal support is well-established: diffeomorphism invariance makes coordinate frames unphysical; relational observables require physical frames; finite regions require edge modes; and edge modes define physical frames at the boundary. Since physical frames are dynamical and, at quantum level, subject to uncertainty and entanglement, no exact notion of covariance across them has been constructed, and the paper argues there is no reason to expect invariance of physical properties under such maps. The shift is from searching for invariant observables to asking what, if anything, is invariant across physical frames.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that every realistic gravitational model must encode a stable split between the modelled system and the agent/observer, realized as a finite spacetime boundary carrying edge modes; if a system could be treated as genuinely closed or the observer harmlessly decoupled, the conclusion that gravity is necessarily perspectival would lose its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A realistic quantum theory of gravity would consist of a family of relational descriptions, each expressed through a physical frame, rather than a single gauge-invariant account of spacetime.
Standard general covariance is already taken into account by relational observables; the remaining open problem is physical covariance across physical frames, which the paper says is unattained.
Quantum properties such as superposition and entanglement can be frame-dependent, so even the sharpness of a reference frame is relative to the perspective of another observer.
Physical frames back-react on geometry, and in the quantum regime their fluctuations can make this back-reaction non-negligible, so idealized non-gravitating clocks and rods are expected to fail.
The conclusions extend to any gauge theory in finite regions, since edge modes are needed there to preserve gauge invariance and define physical frames at the boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step, not taken in the paper, is to attempt a no-go theorem: show that in a generic quantum gravitational system no unitary map between physical-frame descriptions can preserve the full algebra of relational observables.
If the argument is right, it suggests that facts in quantum mechanics and facts about spacetime geometry may share the same structural origin: both are relative to a chosen physical perspective.
The weakest premise could be tested by constructing a model of a closed universe with no observer and asking whether diffeomorphism-invariant observables can be defined globally; the paper assumes the system/agent split is unavoidable.
The paper's conjecture that invariance across physical frames is generically absent implies that full intersubjective agreement, if possible at all, would require new physics beyond standard gauge symmetries.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Readable, honest synthesis paper. The genuinely new thing is the unification claim: edge modes and boundary charges, relational dynamics, and quantum reference frames presented as three faces of one program, with 'physical covariance' named as the central open problem. As a programmatic statement, that lands. It is not a technical paper; the component results are recalled from prior work, much of it the authors' own, but the synthesis itself is the contribution.

Credit where due: the nine-step argument is clearly structured; the technical summaries in Sections 1-6 are accurate recollections of solid results (dressing and gauge-fixing, edge modes as frames, regional invariant structures); and Section 9 is fair to the opposition, explicitly citing classical examples of physical covariance and the perspective-neutral QRF route. The authors are also unusually candid. Section 7 admits that no complete, fully general construction of a relational description exists, and the Discussion concedes the conclusion is 'mostly a pointer.' That honesty matches what the evidence supports.

The soft spot is the modal step. The paper moves from 'physical covariance is not yet constructed' to 'we may have no general covariance' to 'necessarily perspectival' and limits on objectivity. Nothing in Sections 1-6 rules out a construction, and the authors themselves point to promising routes. So the philosophical payload is conditional on a conjecture, not implied by the technical results. The reader's conditional verdict is right, and this is the load-bearing issue even if one grants Presumption I. Second: the necessity claim inherits the system/agent split (Presumption I). If closed-system modelling or asymptotic decoupling is legitimate in the regimes that matter, and the authors admit these idealizations are often robust, the inevitability weakens. Third, minor: several premises cite the authors' own recent program. That is not circular, since the cited results stand independently, but it does make the synthesis partly self-referential.

Audience: philosophers of physics and the relational/QRF/edge-mode community. The paper is useful as an umbrella reference and is the clearest statement yet of a real open problem. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it out, and push the authors to either formalize what 'physical covariance' would be or explicitly recast the necessity claim as a conjecture requiring a no-go result.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that three currently active research lines—edge modes and boundary charges in finite regions, relational dynamics in classical and quantum gravity, and quantum reference frames—form parts of a single research programme aimed at removing two standard idealizations: idealized coordinate frames and closed or asymptotic boundary conditions. On the basis of these lines it claims that realistic gravitational models must be formulated relative to physical reference frames, and that physical covariance across such frames is a key open problem. It then draws the stronger conclusion that removing the idealizations makes gravitational physics 'necessarily perspectival' and that this poses fundamental limitations on intersubjectivity and objectivity.

Significance. If the technical background is accepted, the paper provides a valuable synthesis of three currently active research directions and clearly identifies physical covariance as a central unsolved problem. Its nine-step argument is transparent, it explicitly states its starting presumptions, and it draws on robust results in gauge theory, edge modes, and relational observables. The paper is also commendably explicit about the open and programmatic nature of much of what it reviews. Its genuine contribution is to connect these research lines and to sharpen the question of what, if anything, is invariant across fully physical reference frames in quantum gravity. The philosophical conclusions about perspective and objectivity are potentially important, but their strength depends on closing the modal gap discussed in the major comments.

major comments (3)

[Section 9; Discussion] The central modal claim is under-supported. The paper moves from 'physical covariance across physical frames has not yet been constructed' to 'we may have no general covariance' (Section 9) and to the conclusion that a quantum understanding of gravity is 'necessarily perspectival' (Discussion). However, Section 9 itself states that explicit classical examples of physical covariance exist and cites the perspective-neutral and QRF-switching routes as promising, and the Discussion concedes that the conclusion is 'mostly a pointer' to further research. No no-go theorem is offered for the absence of such maps in full quantum gravity. Because the intersubjectivity and objectivity conclusions depend on this step, they are currently conditional on a conjecture rather than consequences of the technical results. Please either weaken the claims to explicitly conditional form or provide a substantive argument that the known constructions cannot be generalized.
[Section 8] The sentence 'concrete physical models associated with different physical frames are, in principle. unrelated' asserts an impossibility that is not established by the preceding discussion. The Gribov obstruction, quantum-frame incompatibility, and backreaction effects show that frame dependence is nontrivial and that explicit translation maps are difficult to construct, but they do not show that no translation map exists. This is especially problematic because Section 9 lists examples of physical covariance and promising QRF-switching constructions. The claim should be replaced by a carefully scoped statement about the present lack of general maps, or supported by a proof of non-relation.
[Introduction, Presumption I] The 'necessarily' in the conclusion depends on the claim that a stable system/agent split encoded in finite spacetime boundaries is unavoidable in realistic modelling. This is stated as a presumption, which is legitimate, but the paper then presents the perspectival conclusion as categorical rather than conditional on that presumption. If a gravitational system can be modelled as genuinely closed, or if the observer can be effectively decoupled, the conclusion that physical covariance is an unavoidable open problem loses its force. The final claims should be explicitly scoped by Presumption I and by the assumed impossibility of a fully closed-system description.

minor comments (4)

[Section 8] There is a typographical error in 'in principle. unrelated'; the period should be removed.
[References] The in-text citation 'Hoehn, Smith, & Lo 2021a' is a truncated rendering of 'Hoehn, Smith, & Lock 2021a'; please correct the citation.
[Acknowledgements] The section header is misspelled as 'Ackowledgements'; it should be 'Acknowledgements'.
[Section 4] The claim that coordinate frames can be physical in the special cases of isometries and asymptotic boundaries is substantive and would benefit from an explicit example or more detailed justification, since it is used to demarcate the idealized cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the physics inputs are independent, but several framing premises come from the authors' own prior work, making the synthesis self-reliant rather than circular.

full rationale

The central chain—gauge invariance forces relational observables; finite boundaries require edge modes; edge modes double as physical frames; hence realistic gravitational descriptions are frame-relative and a physical notion of covariance is open—is assembled from standard results (Noether's second theorem, the Gribov obstruction, relational observables, boundary edge modes, quantum reference frames) with citations spanning Rovelli, Dittrich, Brown-Kuchar, Giesel-Thiemann, Donnelly-Freidel, Geiller, Riello, Carrozza-Höhn, Höhn and many others, not only the authors' own papers. The self-citations (Gomes 2024b, Gomes & Riello 2021, Oriti 2024, Barzegar/Margoni/Oriti 2023) supply specific constructions or interpretive glosses, but the paper summarizes the relevant content rather than treating those citations as unexamined black boxes, and the same claims are independently attested in the broader literature. The 'necessarily perspectival' conclusion is explicitly conditional on Presumptions I–III, which are stated as presumptions, not derived from the target claim; the step from frame-relative relational observables to 'perspectival' is a definitional unpacking of the term, not a circular derivation. Section 9 also explicitly marks physical covariance as an open problem, and the Discussion concedes that the conclusion 'is, to a large extent, mostly a pointer to further research.' The under-supported modal step from 'not yet constructed' to 'we may have no general covariance' is a correctness/evidential gap, not a circularity. Because several interpretive premises are drawn from the authors' own prior programme, the synthesis is somewhat self-reliant rather than fully external, which justifies a low nonzero score.

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

This paper introduces no free parameters or new physical entities. Its argument rests on explicit modelling presumptions (I-III), standard gauge-theoretic background, and cited results about edge modes, relational observables and quantum reference frames. The main assumptions are domain-level, not formal axioms.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption A stable system/agent split is presupposed and is encoded as a finite spacetime boundary (Presumption I, Introduction).
The boundary/frame link and the need for edge modes both depend on this split; the paper states it as a presumption, not a derived consequence.
domain assumption A reference frame is any entity used to standardise recordings; a physical reference frame is one whose dynamical properties are included in the model (Presumption II).
This definition drives the distinction between coordinate and physical frames that supports the perspectival conclusion.
domain assumption Observers/agents can be embodied in the model, for example as boundary conditions or physical frames (Presumption III).
Needed to move from mathematical frame-dependence to claims about observers, intersubjectivity and objectivity.
standard math Diffeomorphism invariance implies coordinate frames are unphysical and physical observables are relational or dressed quantities (Steps 1-2).
This is standard gauge/GR background from the cited literature (Rovelli, Dittrich, Gomes); the paper does not re-derive it.
domain assumption Physical reference frames are dynamical, gravitate, and at the quantum level their fluctuations cannot be neglected (Step 3).
Needed to argue that coordinate idealizations must be removed in quantum gravity and that quantum frame effects are physical.
standard math In bounded regions, gauge invariance requires edge modes, which can be interpreted as physical reference frames (Steps 5-6).
Taken from recent literature (Donnelly and Freidel, Riello, Gomes and Riello, Carrozza and Hoehn); the paper uses it as a premise.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boundaries, frames and the issue of physical covariance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QDKE3T7

@misc{pith2026241200993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boundaries, frames and the issue of physical covariance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QDKE3T7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00993}
}

read the original abstract

We focus on three distinct lines of recent developments: edge modes and boundary charges in gravitational physics, relational dynamics in classical and quantum gravity, and quantum reference frames. We argue that these research directions are in fact linked in multiple ways, and can be seen as different aspects of the same research programme. This research programme has two main physical goals and one general focus, as well as broader conceptual implications. The physical goals are to move beyond the two idealizations/approximations of asymptotic or closed boundary conditions in gravitational physics and of ideal reference frames (coded in coordinate frames or gauge fixings), thus achieving a more realistic modelling of (quantum) gravitational physical phenomena. These two goals combine to identify a key open issue: a proper characterization of physical covariance, i.e. covariance across fully physical (as opposed to idealized) reference frames. The broader conceptual implications concern the influence of observers in physics and possible physical limits to objectivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Soft edges: the many links between soft and edge modes
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

In Maxwell theory, asymptotically charged edge modes (soft edges) pull asymptotic symmetries and soft data into finite subregions, giving finite-distance corner charges without an infinite-volume limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Bamonti, N. (2023). What is a reference frame in general relativity? Bamonti, N., & Gomes, H. (2024). What Reference Frames Teach Us About Symmetry Principles and Observability. 18 Banerjee, K., Calcagni, G., & Martin-Benito, M. (2012). Introduct ion to loop quantum cosmology. SIGMA, 8 ,

work page 2023
[4]

doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/004 Massimi, M. (2017). Perspectivism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The routledge handbook of scientiﬁc realism (pp. 164–175). Routledge. Oriti, D. (2024). Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linea r Extension of Quan- tum Cosmology: An Eﬀective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity. Fundam. Theor. Phys. , 216 ...

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/004 2017
[12]

([,1(1977)]) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(78)90175-X Hamette, A.-C. d. l., Galley, T. D., Hoehn, P. A., Loveridge, L., & Mueller , M. P. (2021, October). Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame co- variance for general symmetry groups. arXiv. Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13824 (arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]) doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2110...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13824 1977
[16]

(2023, July)

doi: 10.3842/SIGMA.2012.016 Barzegar, A., Margoni, E., & Oriti, D. (2023, July). A minimalist account of agency in physics. arXiv. Retrieved 2024-11-30, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16054 (arXiv:2307.16054) doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.16054 Barzegar, A., & Oriti, D. (2024). Epistemic–Pragmatist Interpret ations of Quantum Mechanics: A Comparative Assessmen...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16054 2024
[17]

Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.10072FJHEP0528201729017 doi: 10 .1007/JHEP05(2017)017 Gomes, H., & Riello, A. (2021). The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory. SciPost Phys. , 10 ,

work page 2017
[48]

Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00913 (arXiv:2205.00913 [hep-th]) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.2.048 Carrozza, S., & H¨ ohn, P. A. (2022, feb). Edge modes as referen ce frames and boundary actions from post-selection. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2022 (2). doi: 10.1007/ jhep02(2022)172 Cepollaro, C., & Giacomini, F. (2024, October...

arXiv 2022
[66]

doi: 10.1007/ s10701-024-00804-3 Berghofer, P., Francois, J., Friederich, S., Gomes, H., Hetzroni, G., Maas, A., & Son- denheimer, R. (2023). Elements in the Foundations of Physics: Gauge Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, and Gauge-Invariant Approaches . Cambridge University Press. Brading, K., & Brown, H. R. (2000). Noether’s theorems and gauge symmetries. ...

2023
[102]

doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)102 Donnelly, W., & Giddings, S. B. (2016, Jan). Diﬀeomorphism-invariant observ- ables and their nonlocal algebra. Physical Review D , 93 (2). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024030 doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93 .024030 Fraassen, B. C. V. (2008). Scientiﬁc representation: Paradoxes of perspective . Oxford, GB: Oxfo...

doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)102 2016

Show all 19 references

[116]

A., Russo, A., & Smith, A

Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.00611 (arXiv:1811.00611 [gr-qc]) doi: 10.3390/ universe5050116 Hoehn, P. A., Russo, A., & Smith, A. R. H. (2023, November). Mat- ter relative to quantum hypersurfaces. arXiv. Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2...

2021 arXiv
[125]

Retrieved from https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.6.125 doi: 10.21468/ SciPostPhys.10.6.125 Rovelli, C. (2002a). Partial observables. Phys. Rev. D , 65 , 124013. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.65.124013 Rovelli, C. (2002b, Jun). Partial observables. Physical Review D , 65 (12...

2002 doi
[130]

Retrieved from https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.6.130 doi: 10.21468/ SciPostPhys.10.6.130 Gribov, V. N. (1978). Quantization of Nonabelian Gauge Theories. Nucl. Phys. , B139 ,

1978 doi
[225]

D., Eccles, S., Hoehn, P

doi: 10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225 22 Vuyst, J. D., Eccles, S., Hoehn, P. A., & Kirklin, J. (2024, May). Grav- itational entropy is observer-dependent. arXiv. Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.00114 (arXiv:2405.00114 [hep-th]) doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2405.00114 Wal...

2002 doi arXiv
[286]

doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(74)90404 -7 Riello, A. (2021). Symplectic reduction of Yang-Mills theory with boun daries: from su- perselection sectors to edge modes, and back. SciPost Phys. , 10 ,

2021 doi
[315]

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0550321319300483 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.02.020 Gomes, H., Kabel, V., de la Hamette, A.-C., Apadula, L., Cepollaro, C., Bu tterﬁeld, J., & Brukner, C. (2024). Identiﬁcation is Pointless: Qua...

2024 doi
[350]

(2020, August)

doi: 10.3390/e20050350 Brukner, C. (2020, August). Facts are relative. Nature Physics , 16 (12), 1172–1174. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0984-8 Buividovich, P., & Polikarpov, M. (2008, Dec). Entanglement entrop y in gauge theories and the holographic principle for electric strings....

2020 doi
[367]

(2022, August)

doi: 10.22331/q-2020-11-30-367 Dieks, D. (2022, August). Perspectival quantum realism. Foundations of Physics , 52 (4). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-022-00611-8 doi: 10.1007/ s10701-022-00611-8 Dittrich, B. (2006). Partial and complete observables for canoni...

2006 doi
[508]

Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.11628 (arXiv:2101.11628 [quant-ph]) doi: 10.22331/ q-2021-07-22-508 Gielen, S., & Men´ endez-Pidal, L. (2022). Unitarity, clock dependen ce and quantum recollapse in quantum cosmology. Class. Quant. Grav. , 39 (7), 075011. d...

2022 arXiv
[530]

doi: 10.22331/q-2021-08-27-530 Marchetti, L., & Oriti, D. (2022). Eﬀective dynamics of scalar cosmo logical perturbations from quantum gravity. JCAP, 07 (07),

2022 doi
[1088]

A., Giacomini, F., & Castro-Ruiz, E

doi: 10.22331/q-2023-08-22-1088 Vanrietvelde, A., Hoehn, P. A., Giacomini, F., & Castro-Ruiz, E. (2020 ). A change of per- spective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective- neutral framework. Quantum, 4 ,

2023 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bamonti, N. (2023). What is a reference frame in general relativity? Bamonti, N., & Gomes, H. (2024). What Reference Frames Teach Us About Symmetry Principles and Observability. 18 Banerjee, K., Calcagni, G., & Martin-Benito, M. (2012). Introduct ion to loop quantum cosmology. SIGMA, 8 ,

work page 2023

[2] [4]

doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/004 Massimi, M. (2017). Perspectivism. In J. Saatsi (Ed.), The routledge handbook of scientiﬁc realism (pp. 164–175). Routledge. Oriti, D. (2024). Hydrodynamics on (Mini)superspace or a Non-linea r Extension of Quan- tum Cosmology: An Eﬀective Timeless Framework for Cosmology from Quantum Gravity. Fundam. Theor. Phys. , 216 ...

work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/004 2017

[3] [12]

([,1(1977)]) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(78)90175-X Hamette, A.-C. d. l., Galley, T. D., Hoehn, P. A., Loveridge, L., & Mueller , M. P. (2021, October). Perspective-neutral approach to quantum frame co- variance for general symmetry groups. arXiv. Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.13824 (arXiv:2110.13824 [quant-ph]) doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2110...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.13824 1977

[4] [16]

(2023, July)

doi: 10.3842/SIGMA.2012.016 Barzegar, A., Margoni, E., & Oriti, D. (2023, July). A minimalist account of agency in physics. arXiv. Retrieved 2024-11-30, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16054 (arXiv:2307.16054) doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.16054 Barzegar, A., & Oriti, D. (2024). Epistemic–Pragmatist Interpret ations of Quantum Mechanics: A Comparative Assessmen...

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16054 2024

[5] [17]

Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.10072FJHEP0528201729017 doi: 10 .1007/JHEP05(2017)017 Gomes, H., & Riello, A. (2021). The quasilocal degrees of freedom of Yang-Mills theory. SciPost Phys. , 10 ,

work page 2017

[6] [48]

Retrieved 2025-01-27, from http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00913 (arXiv:2205.00913 [hep-th]) doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.17.2.048 Carrozza, S., & H¨ ohn, P. A. (2022, feb). Edge modes as referen ce frames and boundary actions from post-selection. Journal of High Energy Physics , 2022 (2). doi: 10.1007/ jhep02(2022)172 Cepollaro, C., & Giacomini, F. (2024, October...

arXiv 2022

[7] [66]

doi: 10.1007/ s10701-024-00804-3 Berghofer, P., Francois, J., Friederich, S., Gomes, H., Hetzroni, G., Maas, A., & Son- denheimer, R. (2023). Elements in the Foundations of Physics: Gauge Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, and Gauge-Invariant Approaches . Cambridge University Press. Brading, K., & Brown, H. R. (2000). Noether’s theorems and gauge symmetries. ...

2023

[8] [102]

doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2016)102 Donnelly, W., & Giddings, S. B. (2016, Jan). Diﬀeomorphism-invariant observ- ables and their nonlocal algebra. Physical Review D , 93 (2). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024030 doi: 10.1103/physrevd.93 .024030 Fraassen, B. C. V. (2008). Scientiﬁc representation: Paradoxes of perspective . Oxford, GB: Oxfo...

doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)102 2016