Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0912.0177 · Foundations of Physics

Does Quantum Nonlocality Irremediably Conflict with Special Relativity?

GianCarlo Ghirardi

Published Dec 8, 2009• 17 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10701-009-9391-9

Related papers

Quantum nonlocality and preferred frames of reference: A return to a Lorentzian interpretation of the special theory of relativity

Lilianne Rivka Mujica-Parodi

I argue in the dissertation that there exists a fundamental contradiction between quantum theory and the special theory of relativity and that most of the well-known arguments to the contrary suffer from internal inconsistencies that render them ineffective in resolving the conflict...

•Jan 1, 1998•0 citations

Nonlocality and Relativity in Various Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Roderich Tumulka

•Jul 1, 2014•0 citations

Quantum Nonlocality Explained by the Theory of Relativity.

Avtar Singh

Physics Essays•Mar 1, 2006•0 citations

Bloch's Paradox and the Nonlocality of Chance

Brian Allan Woodcock

I show how an almost exclusive focus on the simplest case—the case of a single particle—along with the commonplace conception of the single‐particle wave function as a scalar field on spacetime contributed to the perception, first brought to light by I. Bloch, that there existed a contradiction between quantum theory with instantaneous state collapses and special relativity. The incompatibility is merely apparent since treating wave‐function values as hypersurface dependent avoids the contradiction. After clarifying confusions which fueled the perception of a paradox, I elaborate on an analysis of the wave function due to Wayne Myrvold to show that nothing special, or ad hoc, is required in treating wave‐function values, even in the single‐particle case, as hypersurface–dependent; rather, the hypersurface dependence of these values is the natural development of nonlocal entanglement in the context of the relativity of simultaneity. Properly understood, what Bloch’s paradox reveals is that the combination of nonlocal entanglement together with a hypersurface‐dependent process of state collapse conflicts with the thesis of spatiotemporal separability and, in particular, with the idea that chances are local matters of fact.

International Studies in the Philosophy of Science•Jul 1, 2007•3 citations

The fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Could the problem be considered universal?

А. В. Никулов

The contemporary controversy about the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics keeps on the old one about the aim of science, which was between the founders of the quantum theory. The orthodox quantum mechanics could be created only at the cost of renunciation of reality as the aim of natural science. The description only of phenomena, i.e. results of observation, should not be universal if no one believes that these phenomena are manifestation of a unique reality. Such belief concerning quantum mechanics is quite unacceptable because of irremediably conflict with special relativity. Nevertheless the quantum mechanics was developed and apprehended by most physicists as a universal theory of a quantum world. This fundamental discrepancy between the essence of the orthodox quantum mechanics and its history of development and studying has resulted both to an illusion about the aim of its description among most physicists and to the consideration of its fundamental obscurity as a universal problem among experts in quantum foundation. The aim of this paper is to show that quantum phenomena can not be described universally. It is indicated that rather the Schrodinger's than Born's interpretation of the wave function is valid for description of many quantum phenomena. The fundamental obscurity with which we are faced at the description, for example, macroscopic quantum phenomena differs fundamentally from the one with which the founders of the quantum theory were faced on atomic level.

arXiv:1012.4413•Dec 20, 2010•0 citations

On the relationship between quantum mechanics and special relativity

Andreas Schlatter

Physics Essays•Jun 1, 2012•0 citations
I show how an almost exclusive focus on the simplest case—the case of a single particle—along with the commonplace conception of the single‐particle wave function as a scalar field on spacetime contributed to the perception, first brought to light by I. Bloch, that there existed a contradiction between quantum theory with instantaneous state collapses and special relativity. The incompatibility is merely apparent since treating wave‐function values as hypersurface dependent avoids the contradiction. After clarifying confusions which fueled the perception of a paradox, I elaborate on an analysis of the wave function due to Wayne Myrvold to show that nothing special, or ad hoc, is required in treating wave‐function values, even in the single‐particle case, as hypersurface–dependent; rather, the hypersurface dependence of these values is the natural development of nonlocal entanglement in the context of the relativity of simultaneity. Properly understood, what Bloch’s paradox reveals is that the combination of nonlocal entanglement together with a hypersurface‐dependent process of state collapse conflicts with the thesis of spatiotemporal separability and, in particular, with the idea that chances are local matters of fact.
The contemporary controversy about the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics keeps on the old one about the aim of science, which was between the founders of the quantum theory. The orthodox quantum mechanics could be created only at the cost of renunciation of reality as the aim of natural science. The description only of phenomena, i.e. results of observation, should not be universal if no one believes that these phenomena are manifestation of a unique reality. Such belief concerning quantum mechanics is quite unacceptable because of irremediably conflict with special relativity. Nevertheless the quantum mechanics was developed and apprehended by most physicists as a universal theory of a quantum world. This fundamental discrepancy between the essence of the orthodox quantum mechanics and its history of development and studying has resulted both to an illusion about the aim of its description among most physicists and to the consideration of its fundamental obscurity as a universal problem among experts in quantum foundation. The aim of this paper is to show that quantum phenomena can not be described universally. It is indicated that rather the Schrodinger's than Born's interpretation of the wave function is valid for description of many quantum phenomena. The fundamental obscurity with which we are faced at the description, for example, macroscopic quantum phenomena differs fundamentally from the one with which the founders of the quantum theory were faced on atomic level.