Abstract:The study of quantum reference frames (QRFs) is motivated by the idea of taking into account the quantum properties of the reference frames that we use, explicitly or implicitly, in our description of physical systems. Like a classical reference frame, a QRF can be used to define physical quantities such as time, position, momentum, and spin relationally. Unlike its classical analogue, it relativises the notions of superposition and entanglement. Here, we provide a novel explanation for the frame-dependence of superposition and entanglement by tracing it back to the question of 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. Thus, sameness and difference-and, as a result, superposition and entanglement-lose their absolute meaning. We apply these ideas to semi-classical spacetimes in superposition and use coincidences of four scalar fields to construct a comparison map between the spacetime points in the different branches. This allows us to determine whether a given event is located at 'the same' or 'different' points in the superposed spacetimes. Since this feature depends on the choice of QRF, we argue that the localisation of an event should not be seen as an inherent property. This alleviates previously voiced concerns that QRF changes could have empirical consequences for interference experiments, such as the BMV proposal. Moreover, it implies that the number of events is equal in both the flat and the curved spacetime implementations of indefinite causal order. We conclude with the 'quantum hole argument' as a generalisation of Einstein's hole argument, arguing that not just spacetime points but also their identification across a superposition lose their absolute physical meaning.

Do neutrons disagree with photons about where they have been inside an interferometer?

Comment on "photons can tell 'contradictory' answer about where they have been"

Comment on "Photons can tell 'contradictory' answer about where they have been''

Comments on "Asking Photons Where They Have Been"

Comment on "Past of a quantum particle revisited"

Relativistic Effects in Atom and Neutron Interferometry and the Differences Between Them

Response to the Comment on "Paradox of Photons Disconnected Trajectories Being Located by Means of "Weak Measurements" in the Nested Mach-Zehnder Interferometer" (JETP Letters 105, 152 (2017))

An Ideal Experiment to Determine the 'past of a Particle' in the Nested Mach-Zehnder Interferometer

On the neutron orbital angular momentum: Has it actually been demonstrated?

Quantifying the presence of a neutron in the paths of an interferometer

Experimental Observation of Anomalous Trajectories of Single Photons

Past of a quantum particle: Common sense prevails

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment

Erasing the past of photons

Investigating the `Past of a Particle' without disturbing it

Three-path quantum Cheshire cat observed in neutron interferometry

Violation of the principle of Complementarity, and its implications

Identification is Pointless: Quantum Reference Frames, Localisation of Events, and the Quantum Hole Argument

Remarks on photon-hadron interactions

Separating a particle's mass from its momentum