Gravitational entropy is observer-dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract In quantum gravity, it has been argued that a proper accounting of the role played by an observer promotes the von Neumann algebra of observables in a given spacetime subregion from Type III to Type II. While this allows for a mathematically precise definition of its entropy, we show that this procedure depends on which observer is employed. We make this precise by considering a setup in which many possible observers are present; by generalising previous approaches, we derive density operators for the subregion relative to different observers (and relative to arbitrary collections of observers and for arbitrary global physical states), and we compute the associated entropies in a semiclassical regime, as well as in some specific examples that go beyond this regime. We find that the entropies seen by distinct observers can drastically differ. Our work makes extensive use of the formalism of quantum reference frames (QRF); indeed, as we point out, the ‘observers’ considered here and in the previous works are nothing but QRFs. In the process, we demonstrate that the description of physical states and observables invoked by Chandrasekaran et al. [1] is equivalent to the Page-Wootters formalism, leading to the informal slogan “PW = CLPW”. It is our hope that this paper will help motivate a long overdue union between the QRF and quantum gravity communities. Further details will appear in a companion paper.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".