Arxiv:2103.05022V3 [Quant-Ph] 19 May 2021 Ism of Quantum Mechanics [1–11]

Transformation of Spin in Quantum Reference Frames

Marion Mikusch,1, 2, ∗ Luis C. Barbado,1, 2, 3, † and Caslavˇ Brukner1, 2, 3, ‡ 1Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 2Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ) 3Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information Vienna (IQOQI) (Dated: May 20, 2021) In physical experiments, reference frames are standardly modelled through a speciﬁc choice of coordinates used to describe the physical systems, but they themselves are not considered as such. However, any reference frame is a physical system that ultimately behaves according to quantum mechanics. We develop a framework for rotational (i.e. spin) quantum reference frames, with respect to which quantum systems with spin degrees of freedom are described. We give an explicit model for such frames as systems composed of three spin coherent states of angular momentum j and introduce the transformations between them by upgrading the Euler angles occurring in classical SO(3) spin transformations to quantum mechanical operators acting on the states of the reference frames. To ensure that an arbitrary rotation can be applied on the spin we take the limit of inﬁnitely large j, in which case the angle operator possesses a continuous spectrum. We prove that rotationally invariant Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg model is invariant under a larger group of quantum reference frame transformations. Finally, the application to physical examples shows that superposition and entanglement of spin states are frame-dependent notions.

I. INTRODUCTION A recent work by Giacomini, Castro-Ruiz and Brukner [22] outlines a formalism to treat reference sys- The description of physical systems relies heavily on tems with quantum degrees of freedom and provides an the choice of the reference frame used. Although prac- approach to the transformation of spatial and momen- tically it is always a physical system that constitutes a tum variables in QRFs that is genuinely relational by reference frame, within the theory they are commonly construction. The key methodological step is that the described as abstract entities that for themselves do not parameter of the transformation (e.g. displacement of carry any degrees of freedom. A well-known example the translation, velocity of the boost) is replaced by the is the laboratory frame. It is modelled as an idealized quantum operator acting on the QRF, so that the trans- mathematical coordinate system of inﬁnite extent that formation generalizes the usual coordinate transforma- does not possess a physical manifestation and therefore tions to a “superposition of coordinate transformations”. itself is not requested to obey the laws of physics. Some of these QRF transformations have subsequently However, in any experimental observation a physical been rederived starting from a gravity inspired symme- system is used as a reference frame. As such, it inherently try principle in a perspective neutral model [23] and ex- behaves according to the laws of quantum mechanics. tended to three-dimensional problems with translational Due to this fact, there have been attempts to quantize and rotational invariance [24]. the classical notion of reference frames and the concept In an independent approach, Pienaar has provided of so-called quantum reference frames (QRFs) has been the ﬁrst attempt to consider QRFs for spin and derived extensively studied in the literature. a symmetry transformation between spin systems [15]. In order to circumvent superselection rules and develop Subsequently, the operational meaning of spin in rela- quantum information tasks when parties have bounded tivistic QRFs has been outlined in [25]. This work intro- reference frames or even lack them, seminal works produces generalizations of the Lorentz boosts between QRF posed reference frames to be treated within the formal- attached to massive relativistic particles. Recently, temporal versions of QRFs, i.e. QRFs associated to quantum

arXiv:2103.05022v3 [quant-ph] 19 May 2021 ism of quantum mechanics [1–11]. Methods were developed to encode quantum information in relational de- clocks, have been introduced [26–28] and, using QRFs grees of freedom [8, 12–17], which upon measurement attached to freely falling quantum systems, Einstein’s lead to a degradation of QRFs [12, 13]. Other authors Equivalence Principle has been generalized to superpo- discuss a possible application of QRFs in quantum grav- sitions of gravitational ﬁelds [29]. ity [18]. Angelo et. al. [19–21] revised the initial work on De la Hamette and Galley recently found a group theo- QRFs [1,2] and examined the quantum description from retical approach to transformations between QRFs by as- the perspective of a single quantum particle. sociating a certain symmetry group to a QRF [30]. They introduced a generic operator that generalizes a change of QRF for arbitrary symmetry groups. The group theoretical approach to QRF has been extended in [31, 32]. ∗ [email protected] Nevertheless, an explicit treatment of reference systems † [email protected] with rotational or spin degrees of freedom has hitherto ‡ [email protected] not been developed. 2

In this work, we propose the notion of a QRF for quantum spin degrees of freedom and establish a formalism for transformations between them. More specifically, we define spin reference frames as systems composed of three spin coherent states (SCS) with infinitely large spin. We ‘quantize’ rotational reference frames by treating the Eu- ler angles entering the classical SO(3) spin transformations as quantum mechanical operators. This extends the group of transformations between QRFs from rotations to “superpositions of rotations”. A special case of such a transformation is one between two QRFs that are in a Schrödinger-catlike state with respect to each other. We find the dynamical law that is invariant under the extended group of transformations. Finally, we observe that superposition and entanglement are reference-frame FIG. 1. Image of two QRFs A and C and a quantum spin dependent notions, in agreement with the results of [22] system B. A and C are illustrated as two classical coordinate for spatial position and momentum degrees of freedom. systems but should be thought of as quantum laboratories We consider our QRF to have unlimited resources for equipped with their own devices allowing for arbitrarily pre- cise measures of orientations. Here, the quantum system B is measuring orientations, hence the angular momentum depicted as a Bloch vector ~n. quantum number j of the SCS constituting a QRF is infinitely large. This does not mean, however, that we take the classical limit, since we can still consider superpositions of QRFs in this limit (similarly to Schrödinger-cat scribe the physical properties of both A and B. Then, states). The limit j → ∞ enables us to perform ar- we change to the viewpoint of A. The key questions we bitrary conditional SO(3) rotations on the physical sys- address in this paper are: How spin degrees of freedom tem being described within the different reference frames. are encoded in the physical structure of the QRFs A and Note that the assumption of unlimited resources was tacit C, and how such a change of perspective between them also in the framework for QRF transformation of spatial induces a transformation of the description of B and the position and momentum variables developed by Giaco- remaining QRF. mini et. al. [22]. Notice also that we use SCS with in- In Figure1 the usual ‘classical reference frame’ version finitely large spin as a resource for measuring directional- of this situation is depicted. Under a classical change ity that we find particularly convenient in the framework of reference frame a physical system exhibits a coordi- of spin transformations. However, any other states which nate transformation in which the new coordinates are could act as resources of directionality may in principle expressed in terms of the old ones. In the case of rota- be equally valid for this purpose. In particular, states tional degrees of freedom, this transformation constitutes with well-defined three momentum of the (rigged) Hilbert a representation of the underlying symmetry group SO(3) space for the spatial degrees of freedom of a particle could and is characterized by three successive rotations given also be used, at least formally. by Euler angles. One could also consider transforma- The article is organized as follows: In SectionII we tions between frames that do not share the same chiral- present the main results of the work. We first intro- ity, in which case the transformations correspond to the duce the SCS and the transformation between classical symmetry group O(3) and include both rotations and re- reference frames for spins, and then combine these two flections. For simplicity, from here on we consider only ingredients to build the transformations between QRFs. transformations between reference frames that share the We complete the Section by providing some illustrative same chirality (both in the classical and the quantum examples of transformations between QRFs for spin. In scenarios). We leave the description of transformations SectionIID we prove the invariance of the Heisemberg between reference frames with different chirality for Ap- interaction Hamiltonian under QRF transformations. Fi- pendixA. nally, in SectionIV we conclude with a physical discus- In the framework of quantum mechanics, a single spin ˆ sion of the results and some possible generalizations. rotation is represented by a unitary operation Uˆ = eiφ~n·J~, where ~n and φ are the axis and angle of rotation and ˆ J~ = (Jˆx, Jˆy, Jˆz) denotes the angular momentum opera- II. RESULTS tor. The transformation of a quantum system from one classical reference frame to another would consist of such Let us focus on the following physical situation: A rotation, plus a conditional reflection. and C are two arbitrary QRFs for spin, which we will In order to establish a formalism for spin QRFs, we precisely define later, and B is a spin quantum system. next introduce the basic concepts of our approach. We As a starting point we imagine ourselves ’sitting’ in the define a QRF for spin and adopt the view that the QRF frame C and assume that from this perspective we de- itself is not a dynamical variable with respect to its own 3 description (to avoid ‘self-reference problem’) [33, 34]. A coherent state of a spin-j-particle (SCS) along the di- Thus, if we imagine ourselves ’sitting’ in the frame C, rection ~n, which we denote |j, m = ji~n, is defined as the we only perceive the composition of the QRF A and the state with the highest quantum number m = j along such ˆ quantum system B as the ‘external world’ (see Figure direction ~n; i.e. J~n |j, m = ji~n = ~j |j, m = ji~n, where ˆ 1). A and C themselves will be composite spin quan- J~n is the angular momentum operator along the direc- tum systems. As we already mentioned, a single QRF tion ~n. From here on, we will denote the SCS shortly as will be represented by three SCS in the limit of large |~ni. The state is usually pictured as a vector living on spin lengths, which are oriented along three mutually or- a Bloch sphere with radius j. Mathematically, SCS are thogonal directions. The three SCS are the counterparts associated with unitary irreducible representations of the of the three directional degrees of freedom of an usual rotation group SO(3), and can be represented by (classical) reference frame.

A. Construction of QRFs for spin

Let us ﬁrst proceed to the explicit construction of a QRF for spin by using three mutually orthogonal SCS.

j s j+m j−m X 2j θ θ |~n(θ, φ)i = cos sin ei(j−m)φ |j, mi , (1) j + m 2 2 m=−j

angular uncertainty of the SCS vanishes as compared to the size of the Bloch vector. In that sense, the states are sharply aligned to the coordinate axes of an imag- ined reference frame. Recently, such a triplet has been introduced as an example of reference frames which separately store non-commuting conserved quantities [37]. Note that, in general, to construct a QRF for spin one can also use three SCS that are linearly independent but not orthogonal. In this case, the form of the rotation matrix is cumbersome, and so the choice of the orthogonal directions is like a choice of a suitable coordinate system in which the description of physics is simple and convenient. Let us now return to the situation illustrated in Fig- ure1 . According to our construction principle, from the viewpoint of QRF C, the systems are in the state FIG. 2. Illustration of a QRF for spin with well-defined ori- C entation: The QRF K is modelled as a composition of three |ΨiC = |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n,mi , (2) AB 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B macroscopic spin superposition states (SCS) |~kii, i = 1, 2, 3, that, in the limit of large quantum numbers j → ∞, coin- where f~ , with i = 1, 2, 3, name the orientations of the cide with three mutually orthogonal directions, which would i single SCS of A in the QRF C, and m denotes the spin correspond to the coordinate axes x, y and z of the reference frame. quantum number associated to the state of B. To this description we could add the three orthonormal vectors {~e1,~e2,~e3}, which indicate the directions of the three orthogonal axes in the QRF C. Note however that this is where φ is the azimuthal angle and θ the polar angle of just a notational issue, since these orientations are fixed the vector ~n. An in-depth discussion of SCS and their and do not constitute a quantum degree of freedom in the properties can be found in [35, 36]. QRF C. The QRF C only describes the systems A and B We propose that the state of a QRF K for spin with as external systems with dynamical degrees of freedom. well-defined orientation with respect to another QRF Actually, the vectors {~e ,~e ,~e } are going to be always ~ ~ ~ 1 2 3 consists of three SCS |k1i, |k2i and |k3i oriented along those that indicate the direction of the three orthogonal ~ ~ ~ three orthogonal directions k1, k2 and k3, respectively axes for the reference frame in which we are situated at (see Figure2 ), in the limit of j → ∞. In such limit, the each moment (which in this case happens to be QRF C). 4

In particular, they can always be chosen as the “canoni- frame C as described in the reference frame A? In or- cal” ~e1 = (1, 0, 0),~e2 = (0, 1, 0),~e3 = (0, 0, 1). der to find this, we notice again that the matrix MC→A More generally, the state of a QRF for spin can be given (passively) transforms the orthogonal vectors describing by any quantum superposition or convex mixture of these reference frame A to the orthogonal vectors describing states with well-defined orientation. Since the extension reference frame C. Since in the reference frame A the or- to mixed states is trivial, we will only consider explicitly thogonal vectors describing reference frame A itself are pure states. Therefore, in general the systems A and B {~e1,~e2,~e3}, those describing reference frame C must be as described in the QRF C are given by {MC→A~e1, MC→A~e2, MC→A~e3}. In summary, we have that the classical transformation for systems A, B and C C C X |Ψi = c |f~ii ⊗ |f~ii ⊗ |f~ii |~n,mi , is AB i,~n,m 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B ~ ~ ~ C A i,~n,m A: ({f1, f2, f3}) → ({~e1,~e2,~e3}) , (3) B: (~n)C → (M~n)A, (5) where the notation used for the quantum superposition of C A C: ({~e1,~e2,~e3}) → ({M~e1, M~e2, M~e3}) ; different SCS of A and spin states of B is straightforward. Notice that the reference frame A and the system B can where M stands for MC→A in (4), and the superscripts be in an entangled state. indicate the reference frame in which each system is being Mathematically, the states of A belong to the Hilbert described. We notice that the final result of the change C spaces HA (the superscript denotes the QRF where we of reference frame is simply that all the vectors are ro- C C 1 tated with the matrix MC→A, as it should be the case. are located), where HA is a tensor products HA ⊗ C 2 C 3 We have nonetheless carefully discussed the action of the HA ⊗ HA of Hilbert spaces of spin-j particles. Each C i C transformation for each system individually since we be- SCS belongs to a corresponding subsystem HA of HA, with i = 1, 2, 3. The states of system B belong to the lieve it to be useful in the following. C Hilbert space HB, which depends on the nature of the Since we are considering that the two reference frames spin system B being described. With respect to the share the same chirality, we have that det MC→A = 1, QRF C, the states of the composite system A and B and the transformation can be decomposed in three ro- C C C belong to the Hilbert space HAB = HA ⊗ HB. tations along different axes, each of the rotations given by an Euler angle. In the most common zxz-convention for the Euler angles, which we will consider, the first and B. Interlude: Classical transformation between last rotations are taken along the third axis, while the reference frames for spin second one is taken along the second axis. If we call the Euler angles α, β and γ, these are given in terms of the Before constructing the transformation between QRF, entries of the matrix MC→A as let us briefly recall the properties of a transformation   ~ between two classical reference frames A and C, given by ~ f3 · ~e2 α = sign(f3 · ~e1) arccos −q  , the respective sets of orthonormal vectors {f~ , f~ , f~ } and ~ 2 1 2 3 1 − (f3 · ~e3) {~e ,~e ,~e }. The matrix that transforms any vector from 1 2 3 ~ its description in the reference frame C to its description β = arccos(f3 · ~e3), (6) in the reference frame A is given by   ~ ~ f2 · ~e3 γ = sign(f1 · ~e3) arccos   ; f~ · ~e f~ · ~e f~ · ~e  q 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 − (f~ · ~e )2 ~ ~ ~ 3 3 MC→A = f2 · ~e1 f2 · ~e2 f2 · ~e3 . (4) ~ ~ ~ f3 · ~e1 f3 · ~e2 f3 · ~e3 where the ranges considered for the angles are α ∈ [−π, π), β ∈ [0, π] and γ ∈ [−π, π), and where one shall Multiplication by the matrix in (4) transforms any vec- consider sign(0) = −1. We give the explicit construc- tor ~n, corresponding to the state of system B, from its tion of MC→A from the three successive rotations in description in the classical reference frame C to its de- AppendixA. The expressions for α and γ are not well ~ scription in the classical reference frame A. In partic- defined if f3 · ~e3 = ±1, what constitutes the so called ~ ~ ular, MC→Afi = ~ei; that is, the vectors fi described gimbal lock, which is a well-known problem within the in reference frame C correspond to the three orthogo- transformation between classical reference frames. We nal axes as described in reference frame A, as it must also address this problem for QRFs in AppendixA, while be the case. The transformation is therefore consistent from here on we will continue using the expressions above with the fact that the vectors {~e1,~e2,~e3} are always kept without discussing these not well-defined situations. as those providing the three orthogonal axes for the reference frame in which we are situated at each moment. The vectors describing the state of system B undergo C. Transformation between QRFs for spin a transformation which gives account of their description in the new reference frame. What remains to be In quantum mechanics, the operator giving the trans- considered is: What is the description now of reference formation of a spin state of the system B, |ψiB, under a 5 classical reference frame change given by the three Euler it is the cosine operator itself that we will use. We state angles in (6), can be decomposed into three successive the following proposition on this cosine operator acting iγJˆB iβJˆB iαJˆB rotation operators as Uˆ = e ~e3 · e ~e1 · e ~e3 , where on SCS states: ˆB J~n is the operator corresponding to the component of the angular momentum of the spin system B along the Proposition 1: direction ~n. Notice that the transformation is passive (description from one reference frame to another), hence cos θˆKi |~ni = ~n · ~l |~ni , for j → ∞. (8) the change of sign with respect to the active case in the ~l Ki Ki angles. Proof: We apply the operator JˆKi to the SCS in (1). In the spirit of the construction of QRFs for trans- ~l lational degrees of freedom in [22], we will extend We arbitrarily choose ~l = (0, 0, 1), so that ~n · ~l = cos θ. this transformation between classical reference frames to The application of the operator consists in this case just QRFs by raising the fixed values for the angles to opera- of the multiplication by m of each term. In the limit tors which act on the degrees of freedom of the QRF to j → ∞, the sum in m can be approximated by an which we wish to “jump”. In order to do so, we will use integral over m, where the binomial distribution is re- − 1 ( m−µ )2 the expressions in (6), just with some minor change, and placed by a Gaussian distribution √~ e 2 σ , with raise the scalar products f~ · ~e that appear in them to σ 2π i j q j operators. For this last task, let us define the following σ = 2 sin θ and µ = j cos θ (see [39]). Again, in the “cosine operator” [38] acting on the degrees of freedom limit j → ∞ this Gaussian tends itself to the Dirac delta of one of the orientations of a QRF K, namely Ki: ~ δ(m − j cos θ). Therefore, the action of the cosine operator in (7) in this limit is given by ˆKi ˆKi J~ J~ cos θˆKi := l = l , (7) ~ q p K j cos θ l ˆ ~ j(j + 1) lim cos θˆ i |~ni = lim |~ni J~2 j→∞ ~l Ki j→∞ pj(j + 1) Ki ~ Ki = cos θ |~ni = ~n · l |~ni . (9) where Jˆ is the operator corresponding to the compo- Ki Ki ~l nent of the angular momentum of the subsystem Ki along Because of rotational symmetry, this result is valid for ~ the direction ~l, and where we can write the last equal- any l. ity since we always consider states of total angular momentum j for the three subsystems of the QRF. If one Having constructed the cosine operator in (7), we are restricts the cosine function to the interval [0, π] this ex- in condition to raise the Euler angles in (6) to operators, pression defines the operator θˆKi uniquely [38]. However, which we do with the following definitions: ~l

Deﬁnition 1: Let K1, K2 and K3 be Hilbert spaces associated to the three directional degrees of freedom of a QRF K. We introduce the Euler angle operators αˆ, βˆ and γˆ as the operator-valued quantities ( ) 2 h i 2−1/2 αˆ := 1K1 ⊗ 1K2 ⊗ arctan j cos θˆK3 arccos − cos θˆK3 1 − cos θˆK3 , π ~e1 ~e2 ~e3 h i βˆ := 1K1 ⊗ 1K2 ⊗ arccos cos θˆK3 , (10) ~e3 ( ) 2 h i 2−1/2 γˆ := arctan j cos θˆK1 arccos cos θˆK2 1 − cos θˆK3 . π ~e3 ~e3 ~e3

We now prove that the above defined operators (10) classical Euler angles in the limit of large quantum num- acting on the state of the QRF A with well-defined ori- ber j → ∞. entations given in (2), as described in QRF C return the classical Euler angles given by (6) in the macroscopic Proof: Since all the functions involved in (10) are an- limit j → ∞. alytic for the range of possible values for the operators (except for the mentioned gimbal lock situation, see Ap- pendixA), it is legitimate to replace the operators in Proposition 2: The application of the Euler angle the functions for their eigenvalues in the limit j → ∞ as operators (10) on the state (|f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i )C given in (8), when they act on SCS. It is therefore quite 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 of the QRF A as described in the QRF C with fixed ori- straightforward to see that the operators in (10), applied entations {~e1,~e2,~e3} reduces to a multiplication by the to the corresponding SCS, reduce to the multiplication 6 by the quantities in (6) in the limit j → ∞. Only two need to explicitly construct an operator that acts on any non-trivial steps require a comment. First, notice that possible quantum state. Rather, we only need to opera- that the function (2/π) arctan(jx) tends to sign x in the tionally define how this operator acts on such family of limit j → ∞ (although is analytic for any finite value states. Also notice that we need to change the state of ˆK3 ˆK3 the QRF from describing the state of A in the QRF C of j). Second, notice that because cos(θ~ ) and cos(θ~ ) li lj to describing the state of C in the QRF A. Recalling the do not commute for i 6= j, there is an ambiguity in the classical transformation in (5), we see that the action of definition ofα ˆ regarding the order of the operators. How- the operator on the state describing the QRF must be ever, since we are working in the limit j → ∞ when we applyα ˆ on the SCS, both operators only yield numbers and hence their order becomes irrelevant. C Vˆ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |ψi = C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B C It is now rather straightforward to propose the trans- |M~e1iA ⊗ |M~e2iA ⊗ |M~e3iA ⊗ |ψiB . (12) formation of spin for a change from QRF C to QRF A by 1 2 3 ˆ an unitary transformation SC→A. This transformation In this expression, the operator needs to “read out” the will consist of three steps. First, we have the transfor- state of A in the QRF C in order to implement the cor- mation of the state of system B by the following unitary rect rotation M , which depends on the vectors f~ , to operator: C→A i the vectors ~ei. Of course, the way this reading of the en- ˆB ˆ ˆB ˆB tries of MC→A can be accomplished is, as for the entries ˆ iˆγJ~e iβJ~e iˆαJ~e UC→A := e 3 · e 1 · e 3 , (11) appearing in the Euler angles, through the use of the operator (7) and its property (8), although for the lack of ˆ where the operatorsα ˆ, β andγ ˆ are those defined in (10) simplicity we have not written down this step explicitly. and act on the state of A. Since acting over a state of A The third step of the transformation is trivial and con- with well-defined orientations (in the limit j → ∞) they sists only of an “operator” Pˆ that changes the labels consist just of the multiplication by the Euler angle, these A↔C A ↔ C of the two QRFs. Collecting all three steps, the operators do not transform such states of A. Rather, they operator implementing the transformation from QRF C “read-out” the Euler angles so that the operator Uˆ C→A to QRF A is produces the correct rotation on the state of B, which in general will be different for each term of a quantum ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ superposition (2) of states of A and B. SC→A := PA↔C VC→AUC→A. (13) Second, we need to transform the states of the QRF. Notice that, since we limit the possible states of the QRF Let us check that this operator acts as expected on a to SCS in the limit of infinitely large spin, we do not state with well defined orientations such as that in (2):

C Sˆ |ΨiC = Sˆ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n,mi C→A AB C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B C = Pˆ Vˆ Uˆ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n,mi A↔C C→A C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B C iˆγJˆB iβˆJˆB iˆαJˆB = Pˆ Vˆ e ~e3 · e ~e1 · e ~e3 |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n,mi A↔C C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B C iγJˆB iβJˆB iαJˆB = Pˆ Vˆ e ~e3 · e ~e1 · e ~e3 |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n,mi A↔C C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B C = Pˆ Vˆ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |M ~n,mi A↔C C→A 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 C→A B C = Pˆ |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~n,mi A↔C C→A 1 A1 C→A 2 A2 C→A 3 A3 C→A B A = |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~e i ⊗ |M ~n,mi . (14) C→A 1 C1 C→A 2 C2 C→A 3 C3 C→A B

By linearity of the operator, we can apply it also to D. Invariance of Hamiltonian under quantum any general state of a QRF A and a system B, such as reference frame transformations the quantum superpositions in (3). After the transformation, the three vectors {~e1,~e2,~e3} become the directions in space for the QRF A, and the state of A is not con- In physics, a transformation that leaves the Hamilto- sidered as a degree of freedom any more [40]. nian invariant is called a symmetry. When we describe 7 dynamics from QRFs, the Hamiltonian as seen from one III. EXAMPLES QRF includes not only the system B but also the other QRF A. In Ref [22], a symmetry was deﬁned as a map- Let us now continue with the application of transfor- ping that leaves the functional form of the Hamiltonian C mation (13) to some physically relevant states |ψiAB. We invariant, i.e. the Hamiltonian of A and B is the same choose B to be a spin-1/2-particle and give three exam- function of operators as the Hamiltonian of C and B. It ples of representative initial states and their transformed is known that the Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg inter- counterparts. action between two spins (here in the role of the QRF a. Rotated QRFs Let us ﬁrst look at the case in and the spin) is invariant under rotations of (classical) which A’s and C’s SCS are just rotated with respect to reference frames. In AppendixB we will show that it is each other, analogously to two classical reference frames invariant under a larger group of the QRF transforma- with right-handed bases {~e ,~e ,~e } and {f~ , f~ , f~ }, re- tions (13). 1 2 3 1 2 3 spectively (see Figure3 ) . In QRF C, A and B are given We consider the Heisenberg-type interaction Hamilto- by the state nian between the system B and the QRF A, as described C in the QRF C: |ψiC = |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~n, 1/2i , (17) AB 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B

ˆ sin θ cos φ J~ ˆ C A1 ˆ HAB = · ~sB, (15) where ~n = sin θ sin φ describes an arbitrary spin-1/2- j(j + 1) cos θ state parametrized by two angles θ and φ. After the transformation to QRF A, the new state of B and C seen ~ˆ where, without loss of generality, we choose spin JA1 of in A is given by ˆ subsystem A1 of the QRF A to interact with spin ~sB of B. A We do not consider the action of the Hamiltonian on the A |ψi = |~k i ⊗ |~k i ⊗ |~k i ⊗ |~n0, 1/2i (18) C CB 1 C1 2 C2 3 C3 B entire Hilbert space HAB but only onto the semi-classical states of the form (3) and we prove the invariance of the Hamiltonian only on these states. with C’s new SCS orientations   When we change to the description of QRF A, the cos α cos γ − sin α cos β sin γ ~ Hamiltonian preserves its form (see AppendixB): k1 = MC→A~e1 = − cos α sin γ − sin α cos β cos γ , sin α sin β (19) ˆ J~   Hˆ A = C1 · ~sˆ . (16) sin α cos γ + cos α cos β sin γ BC B ~ j(j + 1) k2 = MC→A~e2 = − sin α sin γ + cos α cos β cos γ , − cos α sin β This shows that the Heisenberg model has a larger (20) symmetry than rotational invariance. Moreover, the sin β sin γ ~ Schroedinger equation with the Hamiltonian exhibits k3 = MC→A~e3 = sin β cos γ , (21) generalized covariance of dynamical laws [22], since the cos β laws preserve their form not only under rotations but also under “superposition of rotations”. and the new spin-1/2-orientation

 2 β 2 β  sin β sin γ cos θ + sin θ[cos(α + γ − φ) cos ( 2 ) + cos(α − γ − φ) sin ( 2 )] ~n0 = 2 β 2 β (22) sin β cos γ cos θ − sin θ[sin(α + γ − φ) cos ( 2 ) − sin(α − γ − φ) sin ( 2 )] cos β cos θ + sin θ sin(α − φ) sin β

in QRF A. Here, α, β and γ name the three Euler angles tude of A the x axis coincides with the one of C, but their (6) occurring in the QRF transformation. y and z axes are swapped (see Figure4 ). Such a state is b. Superposed QRF We continue with the case where QRF A is a superposition with respect to QRF C, such that the right-handed amplitude of A and frame C are equally oriented, while for the left-handed ampli- 8

FIG. 3. Illustration of Example a: Rotated QRFs a) The SCS of QRF A form a right-handed system whose axes FIG. 4. Illustration of Example b: Superposed QRF are oriented along arbitrary directions f~1, f~2 and f~3 with re- a) QRF A is in a superposition of two amplitudes correspond- spect to QRF C in the limit j → ∞. The spin-1/2-particle ing to two oppositely handed frames with respect to QRF C. B is depicted by a general Bloch state ~n. b) After the trans- The spin-1/2-particle B is described by an arbitrarily oriented formation to QRF A, both C’s SCS and B’s spin-1/2-state Bloch vector ~n. b) Switching perspective to QRF A, the state 0 of system C ⊗ B becomes an entangled state. possess new orientations ~k1,~k2,~k3 and ~n in A.

given by After the change of perspective, in QRF A system B appears in an entangled state with QRF C:

C 1 |ψi =√ |~e1i ⊗ |~e2i ⊗ |~e3i AB 2 A1 A2 A3 A 1 0 C |ψi =√ |~e1i ⊗ |~e2i ⊗ |~e3i ⊗ |~n , 1/2i + eiΦ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~n, 1/2i , CB C1 C2 C3 1 B 1 A1 3 A2 2 A3 B 2 A (23) + eiΦ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~n0 , 1/2i , 1 C1 3 C2 2 C3 2 B (26) ~ ~ ~ with A’s axes {f1, f2, f3} oriented along {~e1,~e2,~e3} and {~e1,~e3,~e2} for the two superposed amplitudes, respec-     tively, and eiΦ is an arbitrary complex phase. In this case, sin θ cos φ sin θ cos φ π Here, ~n0 = sin θ sin φ and ~n0 = cos θ are the the Euler angles (α, β, γ) are (0, 0, 0) and (−π, 2 , 0) for 1   2   the two superposed orientations of A with respect to C. cos θ sin θ sin φ ~ ~ ~ However, the second amplitude of QRF A is oppositely new spin-1/2-orientations in A and C’s axes {k1, k2, k3} handed to QRF C and therefore experiences also a reﬂec- are oriented along {~e1,~e2,~e3} and {~e1,~e3,~e2}, respec- tion during the transformation (see AppendixA). The tively. This example illustrates the fact that superpo- impr corresponding matrices MC→A and MC→A are given by sition and entanglement are QRF-dependent notions. c. Entangled QRF Let us ﬁnally consider the op-

MC→A(0, 0, 0) = 1, (24) posite case in which A and B form an entangled state   in QRF C. We choose two amplitudes of A in the entan- π 1 0 0 gled state to correspond to two oppositely handed frames. Mimpr (−π, , 0) = 0 0 1 . (25) C→A 2   These states are correlated to spin states of B, which are 0 1 0 aligned along the z axes of the two frames of A (see Fig- 9

In this work we extend the formalism of QRFs [22] to spin, and establish a method to promote certain spin quantum systems to reference frames for spin. We propose the construction of such “quantized” spin frames by compositions of three spin coherent states. The resulting quantized description enables the consideration of QRFs whose spin degrees of freedom are in a superposition or an entangled states. We find unitary transformations that map quantum descriptions from different QRFs. To this end, we follow an operational approach uplifting the Euler angles that occur in a classical spin transformation mathematically to the rank of operators. This procedure preserves the quantum nature of the frames and adds a direct physical meaning to the switch of perspective between them. We consider dynamics of spin systems from different QRFs and find the Hamiltonian of the Heisenberg interaction to be invariant under the change of QRFs. This extends the group of symmetry of the Hamiltonian beyond the rotational invariance. The invariance might be of practical importance when one wants to determine how spin evolves in an external magnetic field that is in a non- classical state. The form of the Hamiltonian is preserved when one “jumps” to the QRF of the magnetic field. FIG. 5. Illustration of Example c: Entangled QRF Finally, we apply our formalism to three physically in- a) QRF A and spin-1/2-particle B are in an entangled state in teresting cases, including superposition states as well as which the two different orientations of B are aligned to the z entangled ones; and consequently find that, analogously axes of two oppositely handed frames A in QRF C. b) As ex- to position and momentum variables [22], spin superpo- pected, after a jump to QRF A, B reduces to a pure state with sition and entanglement are observer-dependent notions. 0 0 orientation along A’s z axis, i.e. ~n1 = ~n2 = ~e3, leaving only C We comment on possible extensions of our work. First, in a superposition state. Here, it becomes apparent, that su- the techniques introduced here together with the formal- perposition and entanglement are frame-dependent concepts. ism provided in Refs. [22, 25] could be used to describe measurement procedures including Stern-Gerlach appa- ratuses. Instead of being considered to have a fixed orien- ure5 ): tation with respect to the laboratory reference frame, the apparatus can be prepared in a superposition therefrom. C 1 Second, our methods works in the semi-classical limit |ψiAB =√ |~e1iA ⊗ |~e2iA ⊗ |~e3iA ⊗ |~e3, 1/2iB) 2 1 2 3 of large angular momentum in which the Euler angle op- iΦ C erators have continuous spectra [38]. It would be inter- + e |~e1i ⊗ |~e3i ⊗ |~e2i ⊗ |~e2, 1/2i . A1 A2 A3 B esting to go beyond infinite spins and develop a formal- (27) ism for QRFs with finite dimensions in which the mathe- After the transformation to frame QRF A’s perspective, matical structure of the underlying Hilbert space is fun- the spin-1/2-state factorizes and only C appears to be in damentally different. In this case, the quantized trans- a superposition state formation might not be unitary [30]. This would have far-reaching consequences for the description of physical 1 A realities, since the choice of a reference frame would ac- |ψiCB =√ |~e1iC ⊗ |~e2iC ⊗ |~e3iC 2 1 2 3 cordingly impact the evolution of the involved systems A + eiΦ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~e i ⊗ |~e , 1/2i . itself. 1 C1 3 C2 2 C3 3 B (28)

IV. DISCUSSION ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The formalism of QRFs has been implemented within The authors want to thank Esteban Castro, Thomas the framework of quantum mechanics and features an D. Galley, Flaminia Giacomini and Anne-Catherine de approach that is categorically relational by construction, la Hamette. L.C.B. acknowledges the support from i.e. all physical information is encoded in relative vari- the research platform TURIS, from the OAW¨ through ables. the project “Quantum Reference Frames for Quantum 10

Fields” (ref. IF 2019 59 QRFQF) and from the European pressed in this publication are those of the author(s)and Commission via Testing the Large-Scale Limit of Quan- do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the John Temple- tum Mechanics (TEQ) (No. 766900) project. The au- ton Foundation. thors were also supported by the Austrian-Serbian bilat- eral scientiﬁc cooperation no. 451-03-02141/2017-09/02, and by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) through the SFB project BeyondC (sub-project F7103) and a grant Appendix A: Rotation matrix and special cases from the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) Fund. This publication was made possible through the support of the ID61466 grant from the John Templeton Founda- For transformations between reference frames with the tion, as part of the The Quantum Information Structure same chirality, the construction of the matrix MC→A of Spacetime (QISS) Project (qiss.fr). The opinions ex- reads

 cos γ sin γ   1   cos α sin α  MC→A =  − sin γ cos γ   cos β sin β   − sin α cos α  . (A1) 1 − sin β cos β 1

Let us consider the case of reference frames with op- site chirality, while the dependence of the Euler angles posite chirality, which clearly requires an improper or- with respect to the matrix entries will not be affected ~ ~ thogonal transformation. The dependences of the Euler (since such reflection does not modify f2 or f3) except angles with respect to the matrix entries, given in (6), are for a change of the sign of γ. But, since the rotation ~ ~ obtained from the components of the axes f2 and f3 of with the angle γ is taken after the reflection, this fact reference frame A in the old reference frame C (see [41]); also flips the sense in which rotations with positive and except for the sign of γ, which is determined by the third negative angles must be considered, and compensates for ~ component of f1. Clearly, if we introduce a reflection the sign flip. Therefore, if we use the same definitions along the ~e1-direction between the second and the third for the Euler angles in (6) also for the case of opposite rotation, this will produce a reference frame with oppo- chirality, the transformation matrix would read

 cos γ sin γ   −1   cos α sin α  impr MC→A =  − sin γ cos γ   cos β sin β   − sin α cos α  , (A2) 1 − sin β cos β 1

where the reﬂection along the ~e1-direction is introduced These expressions can be used in the general deﬁnitions with the “-1” element of the second matrix. Accordingly, of the rotation operations for both chiralities. the most general quantum transformation is given by

iˆγJˆB (1−|M|ˆ )/2 iβˆJˆB iˆαJˆB Appendix B: Proof of the invariance of the UˆC→A := e ~e3 · Rˆ · e ~e1 · e ~e3 ; (A3) ~e1 Heisenberg model under QRF transformations where |M|ˆ is an operator reading out the determinant of We apply the Hamiltonian (15) on the SCS |f~ i ⊗ the matrix M as deﬁned in (4) for each quantum 1 A1 C→A ~ ~ ˆ |f2iA2 ⊗ |f3iA3 of QRF A and on arbitrary spin states state of the reference frame A, and R~e1 is the reﬂection |~niB of spin B as follows: along the ~e1-axis. As for the problem with the gimbal lock, we shall give Hˆ C (|f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |f~ i ⊗ |~ni ) = explicit alternative expressions for the Euler angles when AB 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 B ~ ~ ˆ ~ ~ ~ f3 · ~e3 = ±1. One possibility is (f1 · ~sB) |f1iA1 ⊗ |f2iA2 ⊗ |f3iA3 ⊗ |~niB . (B1) This immediately implies α = 0, ~ 0 ˆ C ~ ~ ~ β = (1 − f3 · ~e3)π/2, (A4) h~n |HAB(|f1iA1 ⊗ |f2iA2 ⊗ |f3iA3 ⊗ |~niB) = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ˆ ~ ~ ~ γ = sign[(f3 · ~e3)(f1 · ~e2)] arccos[(f3 · ~e3)(f2 · ~e2)]. (A5) (f1 · h~n |~sB|~niB) |f1iA1 ⊗ |f2iA2 ⊗ |f3iA3 . (B2) 11

ˆ A Next we transform the Hamiltonian to QRF A: HBC = of B: ˆ ˆ C ˆ† SHABS and let it acts on SCS of QRF C and spin states

ˆ A HBC (|~g1iC1 ⊗ |~g2iC2 ⊗ |~g3iC3 ⊗ |~miB) ˆ ˆ C ˆ† = SHABS (|~g1iC1 ⊗ |~g2iC2 ⊗ |~g3iC3 ⊗ |~miB) Z ~ ~ ~ ˆ ˆ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ˆ† = df1df2df3d~n SHAB|f1, f2, f3, ~niABhf1, f2, f3, ~n|S |~g1,~g2,~g3, ~miCB Z ~ ~ ~ ˆ ˆ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = df1df2df3d~n SHAB|f1, f2, f3, ~niABh Mf1, Mf2, Mf3, M~n|~g1,~g2,~g3, ~mi Z ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ = df1df2df3d~n SˆHˆ |f1, f2, f3, ~niAB δ δ δ δ , AB Mf~1,~g1 Mf~2,~g2 Mf~3,~g3 M~n,~m ˆ ˆ C −1 −1 −1 −1 = SHAB (|M ~g1, M ~g2, M ~g3, M ~miAB), (B3)

where in the third raw we introduce |~g1,~g2,~g3, ~miCB. By introducing another decomposition the identity operator decomposition 1 = of the identity operator acting in the Hilbert space of B R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ df1df2df3d~n |f1, f2, f3, ~niABhf1, f2, f3, ~n| and short- we obtain from Eq. (B3) the following hand notation |~g1iC1 ⊗ |~g2iC2 ⊗ |~g3iC3 ⊗ |~miB =

−1 ˆ −1 = (M ~g1 · Mˆ ~sBMˆ )(|~g1iC1 ⊗ |~g2iC2 ⊗ |~g3iC3 ⊗ |~miB) ˆ = (~g1 · ~sB)(|~g1iC1 ⊗ |~g2iC2 ⊗ |~g3iC3 ⊗ |~miB)

Here in the third raw we make use of Eq. (B2), and we of the invariance of the inner product under (common) make a substitution of the integral variable M~k = ~l in the rotations. Hence we arrive at the same functional form fourth line. The matrix Mˆ is the unitary representation of the Hamiltonian as in Eq. (B1), which is equivalent to of the rotation map M. In the last row we make use expression (16) when the domain of the Hamiltonian is restricted to SCS.

[1] Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, Charge Superselection Turner, Degradation of a quantum reference frame, New Rule, Physical Review 155, 1428 (1967). Journal of Physics 8, 58 (2006). [2] Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr, Quantum frames of refer- [5] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, Refer- ence, Physical Review D 30, 368 (1984). ence frames, superselection rules, and quantum informa- [3] A. Kitaev, D. Mayers, and J. Preskill, Superselection tion, Reviews of Modern Physics 79, 555 (2007). rules and quantum protocols, Physical Review A 69, [6] D. Poulin and J. Yard, Dynamics of a quantum reference 052326 (2004). frame, New Journal of Physics 9, 156 (2007). [4] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. [7] G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, The resource theory of 12

quantum reference frames: manipulations and mono- [26] A. R. H. Smith and M. Ahmadi, Quantizing time: inter- tones, New Journal of Physics 10, 033023 (2008). acting clocks and systems, Quantum 3, 160 (2019). [8] S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. [27] E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and Turner, Quantum communication using a bounded-size C.ˇ Brukner, Quantum clocks and the temporal localis- quantum reference frame, New Journal of Physics 11, ability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum 063013 (2009). systems, Nature communications 11, 1 (2020). [9] M. Skotiniotis, B. Toloui, I. T. Durham, and B. C. [28] P. A. Höhnand A. Vanrietvelde, How to switch between Sanders, Quantum frameness for cpt symmetry, Physi- relational quantum clocks, New Journal of Physics 22, cal review letters 111, 020504 (2013). 123048 (2020). [10] M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, and S. D. Bartlett, Changing [29] F. Giacomini and C.ˇ Brukner, Einstein’s equivalence quantum reference frames, Physical Review A 89, 052121 principle for superpositions of gravitational fields, arXiv (2014). preprint arXiv:2012.13754 (2020). [11] A. R. H. Smith, M. Piani, and R. B. Mann, Quantum ref- [30] A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, Quantum reference erence frames associated with noncompact groups: The frames for general symmetry groups, Quantum 4, 367 case of translations and boosts and the role of mass, (2020). Physical Review A 94, 012333 (2016). [31] M. Krumm, P. A. Höhn, and M. P. Müller, Quan- [12] D. Poulin, Toy model for a relational formulation of quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries tum theory, International Journal of Theoretical Physics and the paradox of the third particle, arXiv preprint 45, 1189 (2006). arXiv:2011.01951 (2020). [13] F. Girelli and D. Poulin, Quantum reference frames and [32] A. Ballesteros, F. Giacomini, and G. Gubitosi, The group deformed symmetries, Physical Review D 77, 104012 structure of dynamical transformations between quan- (2008). tum reference frames, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15769 [14] T. Miyadera, L. Loveridge, and P. Busch, Approximating (2020). relational observables by absolute quantities: a quantum [33] M. L. Dalla Chiara, Logical self reference, set theoreti- accuracy-size trade-off, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- cal paradoxes and the measurement problem in quantum ical and Theoretical 49, 185301 (2016). mechanics, Journal of Philosophical Logic 6, 331 (1977). [15] J. Pienaar, A relational approach to quantum refer- [34] T. Breuer, The impossibility of accurate state self- ence frames for spins, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07320 measurements, Philosophy of Science 62, 197 (1995). (2016). [35] J. M. Radcliffe, Some properties of coherent spin states, [16] L. Loveridge, P. Busch, and T. Miyadera, Relativity of Journal of Physics A: General Physics 4, 313 (1971). quantum states and observables, EPL (Europhysics Let- [36] J. P. Gazeau, Coherent States in Quantum Physics (John ters) 117, 40004 (2017). Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2010) Chap. 6, pp. 79–95. [17] L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch, Symmetry, ref- [37] S. Popescu, A. B. Sainz, A. J. Short, and A. Winter, Ref- erence frames, and relational quantities in quantum me- erence frames which separately store noncommuting con- chanics, Foundations of Physics 48, 135 (2018). served quantities, Physical Review Letters 125, 090601 [18] C. Rovelli, Quantum reference systems, Classical and (2020). Quantum Gravity 8, 317 (1991). [38] G. Nienhuis and S. J. Van Enk, Spherical angle opera- [19] R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, tors for quantum-mechanical angular momentum, Phys- and P. Skrzypczyk, Physics within a quantum reference ica scripta 1993, 87 (1993). frame, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- [39] J. Kofler and C.ˇ Brukner, Classical world arising out ical 44, 145304 (2011). of quantum physics under the restriction of coarse- [20] R. M. Angelo and A. D. Ribeiro, Kinematics and dynam- grained measurements, Physical Review Letters 99, ics in noninertial quantum frames of reference, Journal 180403 (2007). of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45, 465306 [40] We notice again that each of the three rotations with (2012). the respective Euler angles are passive transformation. [21] S. T. Pereira and R. M. Angelo, Galilei covariance and This means that every time we perform one of the rota- Einstein’s equivalence principle in quantum reference tions, we also change the reference frame. In our conven- frames, Physical Review A 91, 022107 (2015). tion, this reference frame is always by definition called [22] F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and C.ˇ Brukner, Quantum {~e1, ~e2, ~e3}, and thus when the process finishes these mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum three vectors have changed from denoting the three direc- reference frames, Nature communications 10, 1 (2019). tions in space of QRF C to denoting the three directions [23] A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, F. Giacomini, and in space of QRF A. But conceptually it is important to E. Castro-Ruiz, A change of perspective: switching quan- notice that, for example, the second rotation along the tum reference frames via a perspective-neutral frame- ~e1-axis is not taken along such original axis of QRF-C, work, Quantum 4, 225 (2020). but along the new axis after the first rotation has already [24] A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn,and F. Giacomini, Switch- taken place. This is of course correctly implemented by ing quantum reference frames in the n-body problem the expressions given in (14), since they correspond to and the absence of global relational perspectives, arXiv passive transformations. preprint arXiv:1809.05093 (2018). [41] Wikipedia contributors, Euler angles — Wikipedia, the [25] F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and C.ˇ Brukner, Relativis- free encyclopedia (2020), [Online; accessed 23-November- tic quantum reference frames: the operational meaning 2020]. of spin, Physical review letters 123, 090404 (2019).