The coexistence between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity is usually formulated in terms of the no-signaling condition. Several authors have even suggested that this condition should be included between the basic postulates of Quantum Theory. However, there are several scenarios where signaling is, in principle, possible: based on previous results and the analysis of the relation between unitarity and signaling we present an example of a two-particle interferometric arrangement for which the dynamics is, in principle, compatible with superluminal transmission of information. This type of non-locality is not in the line of Bell's theorem, but closer in spirit to the one-particle acausality studied by Hegerfeldt and others. We analyze in this paper the meaning of this non-locality and how to preserve the coexistence of the two fundamental theories in this signaling scenario.
The coexistence between Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity is usually formulated in terms of the no-signaling condition. Several authors have even suggested that this condition should be included between the basic postulates of Quantum Theory. However, there are several scenarios where signaling is, in principle, possible: based on previous results and the analysis of the relation between unitarity and signaling we present an example of a two-particle interferometric arrangement for which the dynamics is, in principle, compatible with superluminal transmission of information. This type of non-locality is not in the line of Bell's theorem, but closer in spirit to the one-particle acausality studied by Hegerfeldt and others. We analyze in this paper the meaning of this non-locality and how to preserve the coexistence of the two fundamental theories in this signaling scenario.
Does "epistemic non-signalling" ensure the peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum nonlocality? The possibility of an affirmative answer is of great importance to deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics given recent developments towards generalizations of Bell's theorem. By generalizations of Bell's theorem we here mean efforts that seek to demonstrate the impossibility of any deterministic theories to obey the predictions of Bell's theorem, including not only local hidden-variables theories (LHVTs) but, critically, of nonlocal hidden-variables theories (NHVTs) also, such as de Broglie-Bohm theory. Naturally, in light of the well-established experimental findings from quantum physics, whether or not a deterministic approach to quantum mechanics, including an emergent quantum mechanics, is logically possible, depends on compatibility with the predictions of Bell's theorem. With respect to deterministic NHVTs, recent attempts to generalize Bell's theorem have claimed the impossibility of any such approaches to quantum mechanics. The present work offers arguments showing why such efforts towards generalization may fall short of their stated goal. In particular, we challenge the validity of the use of the non-signalling theorem as a conclusive argument in favor of the existence of free randomness, and therefore reject the use of the non-signalling theorem as an argument against the logical possibility of deterministic approaches. We here offer two distinct counter-arguments in support of the possibility of deterministic NHVTs: one argument exposes the circularity of the reasoning which is employed in recent claims, and a second argument is based on the inconclusive metaphysical status of the non-signalling theorem itself. We proceed by presenting an entirely informal treatment of key physical and metaphysical assumptions, and of their interrelationship, in attempts seeking to generalize Bell's theorem on the basis of an ontic, foundational interpretation of the non-signalling theorem. We here argue that the non-signalling theorem must instead be viewed as an epistemic, operational theorem i.e. one that refers exclusively to what epistemic agents can, or rather cannot, do. That is, we emphasize that the non-signalling theorem is a theorem about the operational inability of epistemic agents to signal information. In other words, as a proper principle, the non-signalling theorem may only be employed as an epistemic, phenomenological, or operational principle. Critically, our argument emphasizes that the non-signalling principle must not be used as an ontic principle about physical reality as such, i.e. as a theorem about the nature of physical reality independently of epistemic agents e.g. human observers. One major reason in favor of our conclusion is that any definition of signalling or of non-signalling invariably requires a reference to epistemic agents, and what these agents can actually measure and report. Otherwise, the non-signalling theorem would equal a general "no-influence" theorem. In conclusion, under the assumption that the non-signalling theorem is epistemic (i.e. "epistemic non-signalling"), the search for deterministic approaches to quantum mechanics, including NHVTs and an emergent quantum mechanics, continues to be a viable research program towards disclosing the foundations of physical reality at its smallest dimensions.
We understand emergent quantum mechanics in the sense that quantum mechanics describes processes of physical emergence relating an assumed sub-quantum physics to macroscopic boundary conditions. The latter can be shown to entail top-down causation, in addition to usual bottom-up scenarios. With this example it is demonstrated that definitions of "realism" in the literature are simply too restrictive. A prevailing manner to define realism in quantum mechanics is in terms of pre-determination independent of the measurement. With our counter-example, which actually is ubiquitous in emergent, or self-organizing, systems, we argue for realism without pre-determination . We refer to earlier results of our group showing how the guiding equation of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can be derived from a theory with classical ingredients only. Essentially, this corresponds to a "quantum mechanics without wave functions" in ordinary 3-space, albeit with nonlocal correlations. This, then, leads to the central question of how to deal with the nonlocality problem in a relativistic setting. We here show that a basic argument discussing the allegedly paradox time ordering of events in EPR-type two-particle experiments falls short of taking into account the contextuality of the experimental setup. Consequently, we then discuss under which circumstances (i.e. physical premises) superluminal information transfer (but not signaling) may be compatible with a Lorentz-invariant theory. Finally, we argue that the impossibility of superluminal signaling - despite the presence of superluminal information transfer - is not the result of some sort of conspiracy (á la "Nature likes to hide"), but the consequence of the impossibility to exactly reproduce in repeated experimental runs a state's preparation, or of the no-cloning theorem, respectively.
This paper shall define and discuss two types of quantum process - Disentangling and Entangling. The first type will be shown to contradict Unitarity and is therefore ruled out as a possible signalling process within standard linear Quantum Mechanics. The paper will argue that the second type - the entangling process - is both allowed by the principles of Quantum Mechanics, and can transmit superluminal signals. A proposal will be made for addressing the objection to superluminal signalling by the Special Theory of Relativity.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.
What guarantees the "peaceful coexistence" of quantum nonlocality and special relativity? The tension arises because entanglement leads to locally inexplicable correlations between distant events that have no absolute temporal order in relativistic spacetime. This paper identifies a relativistic consistency condition that is weaker than Bell locality but stronger than the no-signaling condition meant to exclude superluminal communication. While justifications for the no-signaling condition often rely on anthropocentric arguments, relativistic consistency is simply the requirement that joint outcome distributions for spacelike separated measurements (or measurement-like processes) must be independent of their temporal order. This is necessary to obtain consistent statistical predictions across different Lorentz frames. We first consider ideal quantum measurements, derive the relevant consistency condition on the level of probability distributions, and show that it implies no-signaling (but not vice versa). We then extend the results to general quantum operations and derive corresponding operator conditions. This will allow us to clarify the relationships between relativistic consistency, no-signaling, and local commutativity. We argue that relativistic consistency is the basic physical principle that ensures the compatibility of quantum statistics and relativistic spacetime structure, while no-signaling and local commutativity can be justified on this basis.
Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates.The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality.To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible.Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior.We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.