Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Quantum spacetime from constraints: wave equations and fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, and Dirac equations, together with their plane-wave solutions and second-quantized field operators, follow from two global constraints on the total energy and momentum of a closed…

desk verdict A careful but incremental derivation of known wave equations from the author's constraint-based framework; the Dirac section has a fixable typo and the 'emergence' claim is stronger than the derivation supports. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.12698 v4 pith:SC7Z4F55 submitted 2025-08-18 gr-qc quant-ph

Tommaso Favalli This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcquant-ph
keywords emergentspacetimeglobalconstraintsrelationalcoordinatesSchrödingerequationKlein-GordonDiracsecondquantizationquantumclockandrod
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 tries to show that the familiar single-particle wave equations of quantum mechanics can be read off from two global constraints on a closed three-part Universe consisting of a clock, a reference particle, and a system particle. The constraints fix total energy to zero and total momentum to zero, and the conditional state of the system, obtained by projecting the global state on clock time and reference position, is shown to obey the free Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, or Dirac equation depending on the form of the system Hamiltonian placed in the energy constraint. If the derivation is correct, time and space coordinates, and the differential equations particles obey in them, would be relational artifacts of entanglement and constraints rather than elements of a pre-existing background. The paper carries this out in $1+1$ dimensions, derives the standard plane-wave solutions directly from the constraints, and promotes those solutions to second-quantized fields on the relational coordinate $\xi=y-x$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relative state $|\psi(\xi,t)\rangle_S=\langle t,x|\Psi\rangle$, obtained by expanding the global state in the clock's time states and the reference particle's position states, with $\xi=y-x$ the separation between system and reference. The momentum constraint $\hat P|\Psi\rangle=0$ is what makes the state depend only on $\xi$ rather than on absolute positions, so the emergent space is genuinely relational. The operator relation $\hat P_S|\psi(x,t)\rangle_S=i\,\partial_x|\psi(x,t)\rangle_S$ is the bridge that converts the algebraic constraints on operators into differential equations in $\xi$; after projection onto the system position basis, each constraint becomes the corresponding wave equation. The same relative-state expansion underlies the second-quantized fields $\hat\psi(\xi,t)$, so the relational coordinate survives as the argument of the field operators.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to replace $\hat H_S$ in the energy constraint with a modified Hamiltonian, for example $\hat H_S=\hat P_S^2/2m+\lambda\hat P_S^4$, and to check whether the projected conditional state still satisfies the ordinary Schrödinger equation. For $\lambda\neq0$ it will not, which would show that the 'derived' equation tracks the Hamiltonian inserted by hand. A second check is to take $M\approx m$ and keep the reference kinetic energy: the paper itself shows the equation becomes the reduced-mass form, so the single-particle Schrödinger equation is recovered only in the $M\gg m$ limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that imposing $\hat H|\Psi\rangle=(\hat H_C+\hat H_R+\hat H_S)|\Psi\rangle=0$ and $\hat P|\Psi\rangle=(\hat P_R+\hat P_S)|\Psi\rangle=0$ on the state of a closed Universe makes the conditional relative state $\psi(\xi,t)=\langle t,x|\Psi\rangle$, with $\xi=y-x$, satisfy the standard wave equations. With the reference kinetic energy neglected ($M\gg m$), the choices $\hat H_S=\hat P_S^2/2m$, $\hat H_S=\sqrt{\hat P_S^2+m^2}$, and $\hat H_S=\hat P_S\sigma_1+m\sigma_3$ yield the Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, and Dirac equations in $1+1$ dimensions. The global momentum constraint forces the wave function to depend only on the separation between the system and the reference particle, and the identity $\hat P_S|\psi(x,t)\rangle=i\,\partial_x|\psi(x,t)\rangle$ turns the imposed constraints into differential equations. The paper constructs the global states explicitly, showing that their projections give the usual plane-wave solutions, including the correct normalizations from the conserved current, and then shows that promoting these solutions to operators on $\xi$ reproduces the standard bosonic and fermionic second-quantized field theories.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the particle's energy formula is put in by hand to match the target equation—$\hat P^2/2m$, $\sqrt{\hat P^2+m^2}$, or $\hat P\sigma_1+m\sigma_3$—so the constraints do not by themselves select the wave equation; a second premise is that the reference particle's kinetic energy is negligible ($M\gg m$).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the derivation is correct, the free Schrödinger equation for a single particle is the conditional dynamics of the system when the reference particle is much more massive than the system and the energy constraint contains $\hat H_S=\hat P_S^2/2m$.
  • Keeping the reference kinetic energy changes the result: the joint system obeys the Schrödinger equation with the reduced mass $\mu=mM/(m+M)$, and interactions $V(y-x)$ enter naturally as $V(\xi)$ in the relative coordinate.
  • The Klein-Gordon equation requires two separate non-quadratic energy constraints, one for each sign of the energy; the paper shows that the usual plane-wave solutions with the conserved-current normalization follow directly from the global state.
  • The Dirac spinor solutions in $1+1$ dimensions, including normalization and the completeness relation $u_ku_k^\dagger+v_{-k}v_{-k}^\dagger=1$, are recovered from a single energy constraint with Hamiltonian $\hat P_S\sigma_1+m\sigma_3$.
  • Second quantization on the relational coordinate yields the standard commutators and anticommutators for bosonic and fermionic fields, and the effective Hamiltonian and momentum become sums of particle and antiparticle number operators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the wave equation is a projection of whatever Hamiltonian is inserted into the energy constraint, the construction demonstrates that the equations' functional form is compatible with constraints, but it does not by itself explain why the Hamiltonian has the particular form $\hat P^2/2m$, $\sqrt{\hat P^2+m^2}$, or $\hat P\sigma_1+m\sigma_3$.
  • Beyond the paper: the same two-constraint mechanism should be testable against modified dispersion relations—inserting, say, $\hat H_S=\sqrt{\hat P_S^2+m^2}+\lambda\hat P_S^4$ would yield a deformed wave equation, allowing the relational framework to be compared with Planck-scale corrections to quantum mechanics.
  • Beyond the paper: the appendix's interpretation of chirality as a sense of rotation on the relational circle suggests that discrete symmetries such as parity could be re-expressed as a swap of the reference and system in the constrained global state, a step the paper does not take.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the standard Schrödinger, Klein-Gordon, and Dirac wave equations, together with their mode solutions, emerge from global energy and momentum constraints imposed on a closed quantum Universe composed of a clock C, a reference particle R, and a system S. After reviewing the relational spacetime formalism of Refs. [14,15], the author projects the constrained global state onto clock time states and reference position states, obtaining evolution equations in the relational coordinate ξ=y−x. Explicit global states satisfying the constraints are written down for each case, the solutions are normalized, and the second-quantized field formalism is developed for the non-relativistic, Klein-Gordon, and Dirac cases. An appendix treats the massless Dirac field and its chiral decomposition.

Significance. If the technical issues are resolved, the paper provides an explicit and self-contained demonstration that a constraint-based, relational framework without background coordinates can reproduce familiar single-particle wave equations and mode expansions. The explicit construction of global states, the exact normalization integrals, and the complete second-quantized field expansions for the Klein-Gordon and Dirac cases are genuine strengths, as is the appendix's interpretation of chirality as direction of motion on the relational circle. The claimed novelty is tempered, however, because the form of each wave equation is largely fixed in advance by the choice of subsystem Hamiltonian that is inserted into the constraint; the paper is best read as a consistency check and an explicit realization of relational dynamics rather than as a derivation of particle dynamics from no dynamical input.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (90)] The two printed eigenvalue equations are algebraically inconsistent for generic momentum. For ε_k = √(p_k² + m²), the matrix is [[ε_k−m, −p_k], [−p_k, ε_k−m]], whose determinant is (ε_k−m)² − p_k², which vanishes only in the massless or zero-momentum limits. Thus Eq. (90) admits no nontrivial spinor for generic p_k, and the ratio in Eq. (91) does not follow from the equations as printed. The standard spinors are recovered if the second equation is corrected to −p_k χ_{1,k} + (ε_k + m) χ_{2,k} = 0. This correction must be made and checked through the normalization calculation and Eqs. (99)–(101) before the Dirac part of the central claim is fully supported.
  2. [Sections III–V] The wave equations are not derived from the constraints alone; the subsystem Hamiltonian H_S is an input. Specifically, Eq. (21) uses H_S = P_S²/2m, Eq. (45) uses H_S = √(P_S²+m²), and Eq. (68) uses H_S = P_S σ₁ + m σ₃. The resulting equations (23), (51), and (71) are direct projections of these constraints. The physical content of each wave equation is therefore encoded in the chosen H_S. I recommend that the authors explicitly qualify the 'emerge' language in the abstract and conclusions, presenting the results as a demonstration that standard equations are consistent with a relational constraint-based description rather than as a derivation of the equations from constraints without dynamical input.
  3. [Section III, around Eqs. (27) and (39)] The global-state constructions rely on assumptions about matching and sufficiently rich spectra, but these are stated without proof. The text says that equal spectra or d_R ≫ d_S, L_R ≫ L_S ensure every system momentum can be paired, and that a 'good clock' has a sufficiently large and finely spaced energy spectrum, but no quantitative conditions are given. Since the exact states in Eqs. (27), (39), (52), and (80) are used to derive the wave-function solutions, a precise statement of these conditions is needed for the derivation to be fully rigorous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (91) and (95)] The identity (ε_k − m)/p_k = p_k/(ε_k + m) is used without comment; it requires p_k ≠ 0. The p_k = 0 mode should be treated separately, especially since the massless appendix already notes that k = 0 is special.
  2. [Section VI.C, Eq. (156)] The anticommutation relations are written with operators a_n and a_k, but the Dirac field expansion in Eq. (154) uses b_k and d_k operators. These should be {b_n,b_k†} and {d_n,d_k†}.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'sice' in Section IV, 'referencce' in Section III.C, 'unbouned' in Section V, and 'metioned' in the Appendix. These should be corrected.
  4. [Section III.C] The potential V(Y−X) is introduced before taking the limit N_R, N_S → ∞, and the operator X is defined with an integral over a finite interval. The passage to a continuous spectrum and the status of the periodic boundary conditions in the presence of a potential could be clarified.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The three advertised wave equations are, by construction, the assumed subsystem Hamiltonians rewritten in relational coordinates; a separate sign inconsistency breaks the printed Dirac spinor derivation.

  1. self definitional [Section III.A, Eqs. (21), (23), (26)]
    "We begin by considering R and S as non-relativistic free particles, with energies Ĥ_R = P̂_R²/2M and Ĥ_S = P̂_S²/2m. Under the assumption M ≫ m, |p_k| ∀k, the energy constraint (11) reduces to the following form: (Ĥ_C + P̂_S²/2m)|Ψ⟩ ≈ 0. ... Using relation (19), we obtain the equation for the relative state of S: i∂_t |ψ(x,t)⟩_S ≈ −(1/2m) ∂²/∂x² |ψ(x,t)⟩_S."

    Equation (23) is obtained from Eq. (21) by the Page-Wootters projection i∂_t = Ĥ_S followed by the substitution P̂_S = i∂_x. Since Ĥ_S was declared to be P̂_S²/2m, the "derived" free Schrödinger equation is exactly the input Hamiltonian in position representation. The plane-wave dispersion p_k²/2m in the solution (30) is the eigenvalue of the same input Ĥ_S. The constraint contributes the relational coordinate ξ and the derivative substitution, but not the dynamical content of the Schrödinger equation.

  2. self definitional [Section IV, Eqs. (45), (51)]
    "We thus consider (c=1): Ĥ_R = sqrt(P̂_R² + M²) and Ĥ_S = sqrt(P̂_S² + m²). ... we can consider the global state satisfying (12) and: (Ĥ_C ± sqrt(P̂_S² + m²))|Ψ±⟩ ≈ 0 ... which is the Klein-Gordon equation expressed in terms of the relative spatial coordinate between R and S."

    The constraint (45) is built from the assumed subsystem Hamiltonian Ĥ_S = sqrt(P̂_S² + m²), the square-root energy of a Klein-Gordon particle. Iterating the conditional equation and using P̂_S = i∂_ξ squares that input Hamiltonian and returns (∂_t² − ∂_ξ² + m²)ψ = 0. The two signs in (45) are simply the two energy branches of the same input, and the mode solutions (61), (63) carry the input dispersion ±ε_k. Thus the Klein-Gordon equation is a rewriting of the assumed Ĥ_S, not an independent emergent result.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section V, Eqs. (67)-(71)]
    "In 1+1 spacetime, the system Hamiltonian can be written: Ĥ_S = P̂_S σ₁ + m σ₃. ... Accordingly, the energy constraint reads: (Ĥ_C + P̂_S σ₁ + m σ₃)|Ψ⟩ ≈ 0 ... we arrive at: i∂_t |ψ(ξ,t)⟩_σ ≈ −i ∂/∂ξ σ₁ |ψ(ξ,t)⟩_σ + m σ₃ |ψ(ξ,t)⟩_σ, which corresponds to the Dirac equation."

    The constraint (68) contains the complete Dirac Hamiltonian Ĥ_S = P̂_S σ₁ + m σ₃ as an input. Projecting onto the clock and position bases gives i∂_t ψ = (−i∂_ξ σ₁ + m σ₃)ψ, which is the Dirac equation by construction. The spinor solutions in Eqs. (99) and (101) are the eigenvectors of this inserted Ĥ_S. The relational framework supplies the identification P̂_S ↔ i∂_ξ and the coordinate ξ=y−x, but the Dirac dynamics itself is already present in the assumed Hamiltonian.

full rationale

The paper is transparent about its inputs: it explicitly chooses Ĥ_S = P̂_S²/2m, Ĥ_S = sqrt(P̂_S²+m²), and Ĥ_S = P̂_Sσ₁+mσ₃, and the subsequent equations follow from the Page-Wootters identity i∂_t|ψ⟩ = Ĥ_S|ψ⟩ together with the momentum-constraint substitution P̂_S ↔ i∂_ξ. For each of the three cases, the advertised wave equation is the input subsystem Hamiltonian in position representation, so the central claim of 'emergence from constraints' reduces by construction. I score 6 rather than higher because there is genuine independent content around the reduction: the momentum constraint forces the relational variable ξ = y−x, the massive-reference case yields the reduced-mass dynamics (38), and the second-quantization section verifies standard commutation/anticommutation relations and mode expansions without any fitted parameters. The self-citations to Refs. [14,15] are not load-bearing: the derivative relation (19) follows directly from the momentum constraint and the definition of the position states, and the Klein-Gordon section explicitly departs from the earlier treatment in those references. Separate from circularity, the printed Dirac derivation is internally inconsistent at Eq. (90): the two displayed equations require (ε_k−m)χ₁ = p_k χ₂ and p_k χ₁ = (ε_k−m)χ₂, which admit nonzero spinors only if (ε_k−m)² = p_k²; for ε_k = sqrt(p_k²+m²) this fails except at p_k=0 or m=0. The standard spinors in (99)/(101) would follow if the second equation's (ε_k−m) were corrected to (ε_k+m), so this appears to be a typographical error, but the Dirac derivation as printed does not go through. That flaw is not circularity and is not reflected in the score beyond the already-reduced status of the Dirac equation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the choice of subsystem Hamiltonians and the global constraint structure from the author's earlier work. No new entities are introduced; the two-component Klein-Gordon state is a formal device, not a new physical degree of freedom.

free parameters (4)
  • mass of system particle m
    Mass appears in the Hamiltonians Ĥ_S = P̂²/2m, sqrt(P̂²+m²), and P̂σ1 + mσ3; it is chosen by hand and sets the dynamics but is not derived.
  • mass of reference particle M
    Reference mass in Ĥ_R; the approximation M >> m is used to neglect its kinetic energy.
  • compact configuration space length L
    Determines the discrete momentum spectra p_k = 2πk/L and the periodicity of the relational coordinate ξ.
  • clock period T and energy spacing
    Defines the clock time states via the energy spectrum; the rationality condition on energy ratios can be relaxed with corrections made arbitrarily small.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The global universe state satisfies energy and momentum constraints exactly: (Ĥ_C + Ĥ_R + Ĥ_S)|Ψ⟩ = 0 and (P̂_R + P̂_S)|Ψ⟩ = 0.
    This is the foundational Page-Wootters-type assumption of the framework; it is imposed, not derived.
  • domain assumption The clock carries zero momentum, P̂_C = 0.
    Simplifies the momentum constraint; without it the spatial dynamics of S changes form and the standard wave equations do not emerge.
  • ad hoc to paper The subsystem Hamiltonians are chosen as P̂²/2m, sqrt(P̂²+m²), or P̂σ1+mσ3 in the respective sections.
    These choices determine the resulting wave equations; they are not derived from the constraints alone.
  • domain assumption The reference kinetic energy is negligible (M >> m and M >> |p_k|).
    Used to reduce the total energy constraint to Ĥ_C + Ĥ_S ≈ 0; if relaxed, the Schrödinger case acquires the reduced mass µ.
  • domain assumption Equal and sufficiently dense momentum spectra for R and S (N_R = N_S, L_R = L_S) and a 'good clock' with large finely spaced spectrum.
    Needed to build the global state satisfying the constraints and to normalize the wave function; the good clock conditions are referenced to prior work without being re-derived.
  • domain assumption The conditional probability density is given by the Born rule applied to the relative state, P(y-x,t) ∝ |⟨y|ψ(x,t)⟩|².
    The measurement rule is assumed, not derived from the constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum spacetime from constraints: wave equations and fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SC7Z4F55

@misc{pith2026250812698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum spacetime from constraints: wave equations and fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SC7Z4F55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.12698}
}
read the original abstract

In previous works, we showed that both time and space can emerge from entanglement within a globally constrained quantum Universe, with no background coordinates. By extending the Page and Wootters quantum time formalism to include both quantum clocks and rods, and imposing global constraints on total energy and momentum, we constructed a fully relational model of quantum spacetime. Here we take a further step: working in 1+1 dimensions, we show that the standard wave equations governing quantum particles (the Schr\"odinger, Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations) emerge naturally from this framework. The solutions of the equations are derived directly from the constraints, without assuming any external spacetime structure. The second quantization formalism is also implemented and discussed. Our results provide further support for the idea that quantum dynamics in spacetime may emerge from entanglement and constraints.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. S. DeWitt,Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory, Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967)

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    Phys.49, 1394–1403 (2019)

    L.Maccone,A fundamental problem in quantizing general relativity, Found. Phys.49, 1394–1403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Rovelli,Quantum reference systems, Class

    C. Rovelli,Quantum reference systems, Class. Quantum Grav.8, 317 (1991)

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    Rovelli,Relational quantum mechanics, Int

    C. Rovelli,Relational quantum mechanics, Int. J. Theor. Phys.35, 1637–1678 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    D. N. Page and W. K. Wootters,Evolution whitout evo- lution: Dynamics described by stationary observables, Phys. Rev. D27, 2885 (1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    W.K.Wootters,“Time”replaced by quantum correlations, Int. J. Theor. Phys.23, 701–711 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    D. N. Page,Clock Time and Entropy. In: Physical Ori- gins of Time Asymmetry, edited by J. J. Halliwell, J. Perez-Mercader, and W. H. Zurek, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone,Quantum time, Phys. Rev. D92, 045033 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral,Evolution without evolution and without ambiguities, Phys. Rev. D95, 043510 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Vedral,Time, (Inverse) Temperature and Cosmologi- cal Inflation as Entanglement

    V. Vedral,Time, (Inverse) Temperature and Cosmologi- cal Inflation as Entanglement. In: R. Renner, S. Stupar, Time in Physics, 27-42, Springer (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Favalli,Page and Wootters Theory, in:On the Emer- gence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Systems, Springer Theses, Springer Nature (2024)

    T. Favalli,Page and Wootters Theory, in:On the Emer- gence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Systems, Springer Theses, Springer Nature (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Favalli and A

    T. Favalli and A. Smerzi,Time Observables in a Timeless Universe, Quantum4, 354 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Favalli and A

    T. Favalli and A. Smerzi,Peaceful coexistence of thermal equilibrium and the emergence of time, Phys.Rev.D105, 023525 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Favalli and A

    T. Favalli and A. Smerzi,A model of quantum spacetime, AVS Quantum Sci.4, 044403 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Favalli,On the Emergence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Systems, edited by Springer Nature (2024)

    T. Favalli,On the Emergence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Systems, edited by Springer Nature (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Favalli and A

    T. Favalli and A. Smerzi,Time Dilation of Quantum Clocks in a Relativistic Gravitational Potential, Entropy 27(5), 489 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    A. R. H. Smith and M. Ahmadi,Quantizing time: Inter- acting clocks and systems, Quantum3, 160 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    A. R. H. Smith and M. Ahmadi,Quantum clocks observe classical and quantum time dilation, Nat. Commun.11, 5360 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Boette and R

    A. Boette and R. Rossignoli,History states of systems and operators, Phys. Rev. A98, 032108 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Boette, R

    A. Boette, R. Rossignoli, N. Gigena and M. Cerezo, System-time entanglement in a discrete time model, Phys. Rev. A93, 062127 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith and M. P. E. Lock,The Trinity of Relational Quantum Dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 104, 066001 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. R. H. Smith and M. P. E. Lock,Equiv- alence of approaches to relational quantum dynamics in relativistic settings, Front. Phys.9, 587083 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    N. L. Diaz, J. M. Matera and R. Rossignoli,History state formalism for scalar particles, Phys. Rev. D100, 125020 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    N. L. Diaz and R. Rossignoli,History state formalism for Dirac’s theory, Phys. Rev. D99, 045008 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    C. Foti, A. Coppo, G. Barni, et al.,Time and classical equations of motion from quantum entanglement via the Page and Wootters mechanism with generalized coherent states, Nat. Commun.12, 1787 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Castro-Ruiz, F

    E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia and Č. Brukner,Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems, Nat. Commun.11, 2672 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Moreva, G

    E. Moreva, G. Brida, M. Gramegna, V. Giovannetti, L. Maccone and M. Genovese,Time from quantum entan- glement: an experimental illustration, Phys. Rev. A89, 052122 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Moreva, M

    E. Moreva, M. Gramegna, G. Brida, L. Maccone and M. Genovese,Quantum time: Experimental multitime corre- lations, Phys. Rev. D96, 102005 (2017). 18

    2017

  21. [29]

    D. T. Pegg,Complement of the Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A58, 4307 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Favalli,Complement of the Hamiltonian, in:On the Emergence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Sys- tems, Springer Theses, Springer Nature (2024)

    T. Favalli,Complement of the Hamiltonian, in:On the Emergence of Time and Space in Closed Quantum Sys- tems, Springer Theses, Springer Nature (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Everett,The Theory of the Universal Wave Func- tion

    H. Everett,The Theory of the Universal Wave Func- tion. In: The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press, Department of Physics, 1-140 (1957)

    1957

  24. [32]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction To Quantum Field Theory, edited by CRC Press (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    Greiner,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics

    W. Greiner,Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Wave Equations, edited by Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Thaller,The Dirac Equation, edited by Springer- Verlag (1992)

    B. Thaller,The Dirac Equation, edited by Springer- Verlag (1992)

    1992

  27. [35]

    Greiner,Field Quantization, edited by Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

    W. Greiner,Field Quantization, edited by Springer Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    N. L. Dias, J. M. Matera and R. Rossignoli,Spacetime quantum actions, Phys. Rev. D103, 065011 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    N. L. Dias, J. M. Matera and R. Rossignoli,Spacetime quantum and classical mechanics with dynamical folia- tion, Phys. Rev. D109, 105008 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    N.L.Dias, J.M.MateraandR.Rossignoli,Path integrals from spacetime quantum actions, Annals of Physics479, 170052 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    N. L. Dias and R. Rossignoli,Spacetime quan- tum mechanics for bosonic and fermionic systems, arXiv:2506.10250

  32. [40]

    Suleymanov, I

    M. Suleymanov, I. L. Paiva and E. Cohen,Nonrelativistic spatiotemporal quantum reference frames, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032205 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Kabel, Č

    V. Kabel, Č. Brukner and W. Wieland,Quantum refer- ence frames at the boundary of spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 108, 106022 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    P. A. Hoehn, A. Russo and A. R. H. Smith,Matter rela- tive to quantum hypersurfaces, Phys. Rev. D109, 105011 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Singh,Quantum Space, Quantum Time, and Rel- ativistic Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Stud.: Math

    A. Singh,Quantum Space, Quantum Time, and Rel- ativistic Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Stud.: Math. Found.9, 35-53 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Giacomini,Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times, Quantum5, 508 (2021)

    F. Giacomini,Spacetime Quantum Reference Frames and superpositions of proper times, Quantum5, 508 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz and Č. Brukner ,Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames, Nat. Commun.10, 494 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, E. Castro- Ruiz,A change of perspective: switching quantum refer- ence frames via a perspective-neutral framework, Quan- tum4, 225 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn and F. Giacomini,Switch- ing quantum reference frames in the N-body prob- lem and the absence of global relational perspectives, arXiv:1809.05093

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. M. Yang,Switching Quantum Reference Frames for Quantum Measurement, Quantum4, 283 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Giacomini, E

    F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz and Č. Brukner,Relativis- tic Quantum Reference Frames: The Operational Mean- ing of Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 090404 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    L. F. Streiter, F. Giacomini and Č. Brukner,Relativistic Bell Test within Quantum Reference Frames, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 230403 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    de la Hamette and T

    AC. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley,Quantum refer- ence frames for general symmetry groups, Quantum4, 367 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Krumm, P

    M. Krumm, P. A. Hoehn and M. P. Mueller,Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle, Quantum5, 530 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Ballesteros, F

    A. Ballesteros, F. Giacomini and G. Gubitosi,The group structure of dynamical transformations between quantum reference frames, Quantum5, 470 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    de la Hamette, T

    AC. de la Hamette, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, L. Loveridge and M. P. Mueller,Perspective-neutral ap- proach to quantum frame covariance for general symme- try groups, arXiv:2110.13824

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. A. Ahmad, T. D. Galley, P. A. Hoehn, M. P. E. Lock and A. R. H. Smith,Quantum Relativity of Subsystems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170401 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    P. A. Hoehn, M. Krumm and M. P. Mueller,Internal quantum reference frames for finite Abelian groups, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 170401 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.