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:1002.1392

The Free Will Theorem, Stochastic Quantum Dynamics and True Becoming in Relativistic Quantum Physics

Nicolas Gisin

Published Feb 6, 2010• 13 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In Bell inequality tests, the evolution of the wavefunction is not covariant, i.e. not invariant under velocity boost that change the time ordering of events, but the laws that govern the probability distribution of possible results are. In this note I investigate what this could mean and whether there could be some covariant "real quantum stuff". This clarifies the implication of the Free Will Theorem and of relativistic spontaneous localization models based on the flash ontology (rGRWf). Some implications for the concept of time(s) are spelled out.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1002.1392

Related papers

Impossibility of covariant deterministic nonlocal hidden-variable extensions of quantum theory

Nicolas Gisin

Local variables cannot describe the quantum correlations observed in tests of Bell inequalities. Likewise, we show that deterministic nonlocal variables cannot describe quantum correlations in a relativistic time-order-invariant way.

arXiv:1002.1390•Physical Review A•Feb 28, 2011•58 citations

The Free Will Theorem and the Flash Ontology implicitly assume the Before-Before Experiment and thereby imply free will. Comment on a note by Nicolas Gisin in arXiv:1002.1392v1

Antoine Suárez

It is argued that both the "Free Will Theorem" (FWT) and the "relativistic GRW model with Flash Ontology" (rGRWf) hiddenly assume the result of the before-before experiment, and for this reason both FWT and rGRWf imply free will in the world outside free experimenters.

arXiv:1002.2697•Feb 13, 2010•2 citations

The GRW flash theory: a relativistic quantum ontology of matter in space-time?

Michaël Esfeld, Nicolas Gisin

John Bell proposed an ontology for the GRW modification of quantum mechanics in terms of flashes occurring at space-time points. The paper spells out the motivation for this ontology, enquires into the status of the wave-function in it, critically examines the claim of its being Lorentz-invariant and considers whether it is a parsimonious, but nevertheless physically adequate ontology.

arXiv:1310.5308•Oct 20, 2013•2 citations

The GRW Flash Theory: A Relativistic Quantum Ontology of Matter in Space-Time?

Michaël Esfeld, Nicolas Gisin

John Bell proposed an ontology for the GRW (Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber) modification of quantum mechanics in terms of flashes occurring at space-time points. This article spells out the motivation for this ontology, inquires into the status of the wave function in it, critically examines the claim of its being Lorentz invariant, and considers whether it is a parsimonious but nevertheless physically adequate ontology.

Philosophy of Science•Apr 1, 2014•52 citations

Cooperative dynamical processes: the emergence of relativistic quantum theory

Petr Jizba B, Fabio Scardigli

There is a theoretical evidence that relativistically invariant quantum dynamics at (enough) large space-time scales can result from a cooperative process of two inter-correlated non-relativistic stochastic dynamics, operating at different energy scales. We show that the Euclidean transition amplitude for a relativistic particle is identical to the transition probability of a Brownian particle propagating in a granular space. We discuss the issue of the robustness of the special-relativistic quantum mechanics thus obtained under small changes in the granular-space distribution. Experimental implications for early Universe cosmology are also briefly outlined.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Apr 14, 2014•0 citations

Quantum Free Particle, Stochastic Action and Its Link to Special Relativity

Francesco R. Ruggeri

In (1), the notion of a stochastic classical action is introduced and a probability is linked to exp( constant * action). The objective of (1) is not to derive quantum mechanics, but to derive stochastic dynamics based on maximum entropy in action space. We have argued in a number of previous notes (2) that one may use the classical action to create a quantum free particle probability. This classical action, however, is not chosen a priori, but rather arises due to other considerations. We suggest that stochasticity is present in Newtonian mechanics at some time scale because dt is finite in dp/dt= Force (Newton’s second law) and so postulate that force delivery at some x,t is probabilistic within some dt and dx. A priori, dt and dx are not known, but if there is stochasticity, there should be a free particle probability, i.e. a probability(x,t) where x,t represent an x, t interaction point. Furthermore, the notion of dx and dt should arise naturally. We note that the form exp(i function(x,t,p,E) may be introduced because free particles have no distributed variable (like energy in the Maxwell-Boltzmann case). exp(i function(x,t)) immediately introduces periodicity, but we have argued that stochasticity can only exist within tiny, fixed dx, dt linked to dp/dt=F. In particular, one classical Newtonian scales this stochasticity is not seen. The periodicity should be directly in x and t space, suggesting exp( i A1 t + i A2 x). This expression, however, should be Lorentz invariant, and A1 and A2 should be constants, at least for a fixed mo and v. The reason that the one must have periodicity is that the dx and dt ranges of stochasticity in dp/dt=Fr must appear naturally. At this point, one is led to exp(-iEt+ipx) with -Et+px being a Lorentz invariant which satisfies the above criteria. This Lorentz invariant happens to be the classical action in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases, hence giving rise to action as being a stochastic variable (of (1)) because it is a function of the two scholastic variables x and t. Alternatively, one may choose the exp(iA1x+iA2t) due to its conservation properties. One may then argue that A1 and A2 could also be conserved for x,t held constant, i.e. A1 and A2 could be linked to Newtonian energy and momentum in elastic collisions. This allows one to solve for the special relativistic g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). Given the idea of a conserved quantity form for a probability, one may argue that exp(i Action) satisfies a maximization of Shannon’s entropy subject to a conserved constraint (which is again a link with (1).) The question then becomes: Why should the Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px be the classical action.One may note that x,t usually refer to trajectory values and so for a free particle, one has x=vt. This means that one may factor out t, i.e. A= t( -E+pv), but this is automatically the form of the Lagrangian with E being the Hamiltonian. This holds relativistically and non-relativistically with the form: dL/dv partial = p. The remaining question is: Why should the classical action be Lorentz invariant? We consider E(v)-p(v) v = -L such that dE/dv - v dp/dv -p = -dL/dv partial. This means that dE/dv - v dpd/v = 0 ((1)). A Lorentz transformation, however, changes mo in a rest frame into p=mov/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and E=mocc/sqrt(1-vv/cc). One may see that this solution may be obtained from ((1)) showing a direct link between the classical action approach and special relativity. The connection may be carried further as Lt = -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant, but also the classical action (in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases). We argue that the use of the action in (1) as a stochastic variable is directly related to special relativity. In summary, from finite dt in dp/dt=F, t and x are stochastic variables within some naturally appearing dx and dt. One may write a linear combination of x and t and to create a stochastic Lorent invariant variable which should appear in exp(i Lorentz invariant) and create the dx and dt units. It may then be shown that this Lorentz invariant in E,p,x,t should be equivalent to the classical action.

•Jan 26, 2026•0 citations
In Bell inequality tests, the evolution of the wavefunction is not covariant, i.e. not invariant under velocity boost that change the time ordering of events, but the laws that govern the probability distribution of possible results are. In this note I investigate what this could mean and whether there could be some covariant "real quantum stuff". This clarifies the implication of the Free Will Theorem and of relativistic spontaneous localization models based on the flash ontology (rGRWf). Some implications for the concept of time(s) are spelled out.
There is a theoretical evidence that relativistically invariant quantum dynamics at (enough) large space-time scales can result from a cooperative process of two inter-correlated non-relativistic stochastic dynamics, operating at different energy scales. We show that the Euclidean transition amplitude for a relativistic particle is identical to the transition probability of a Brownian particle propagating in a granular space. We discuss the issue of the robustness of the special-relativistic quantum mechanics thus obtained under small changes in the granular-space distribution. Experimental implications for early Universe cosmology are also briefly outlined.
In (1), the notion of a stochastic classical action is introduced and a probability is linked to exp( constant * action). The objective of (1) is not to derive quantum mechanics, but to derive stochastic dynamics based on maximum entropy in action space. We have argued in a number of previous notes (2) that one may use the classical action to create a quantum free particle probability. This classical action, however, is not chosen a priori, but rather arises due to other considerations. We suggest that stochasticity is present in Newtonian mechanics at some time scale because dt is finite in dp/dt= Force (Newton’s second law) and so postulate that force delivery at some x,t is probabilistic within some dt and dx. A priori, dt and dx are not known, but if there is stochasticity, there should be a free particle probability, i.e. a probability(x,t) where x,t represent an x, t interaction point. Furthermore, the notion of dx and dt should arise naturally. We note that the form exp(i function(x,t,p,E) may be introduced because free particles have no distributed variable (like energy in the Maxwell-Boltzmann case). exp(i function(x,t)) immediately introduces periodicity, but we have argued that stochasticity can only exist within tiny, fixed dx, dt linked to dp/dt=F. In particular, one classical Newtonian scales this stochasticity is not seen. The periodicity should be directly in x and t space, suggesting exp( i A1 t + i A2 x). This expression, however, should be Lorentz invariant, and A1 and A2 should be constants, at least for a fixed mo and v. The reason that the one must have periodicity is that the dx and dt ranges of stochasticity in dp/dt=Fr must appear naturally. At this point, one is led to exp(-iEt+ipx) with -Et+px being a Lorentz invariant which satisfies the above criteria. This Lorentz invariant happens to be the classical action in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases, hence giving rise to action as being a stochastic variable (of (1)) because it is a function of the two scholastic variables x and t. Alternatively, one may choose the exp(iA1x+iA2t) due to its conservation properties. One may then argue that A1 and A2 could also be conserved for x,t held constant, i.e. A1 and A2 could be linked to Newtonian energy and momentum in elastic collisions. This allows one to solve for the special relativistic g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). Given the idea of a conserved quantity form for a probability, one may argue that exp(i Action) satisfies a maximization of Shannon’s entropy subject to a conserved constraint (which is again a link with (1).) The question then becomes: Why should the Lorentz invariant A= -Et+px be the classical action.One may note that x,t usually refer to trajectory values and so for a free particle, one has x=vt. This means that one may factor out t, i.e. A= t( -E+pv), but this is automatically the form of the Lagrangian with E being the Hamiltonian. This holds relativistically and non-relativistically with the form: dL/dv partial = p. The remaining question is: Why should the classical action be Lorentz invariant? We consider E(v)-p(v) v = -L such that dE/dv - v dp/dv -p = -dL/dv partial. This means that dE/dv - v dpd/v = 0 ((1)). A Lorentz transformation, however, changes mo in a rest frame into p=mov/sqrt(1-vv/cc) and E=mocc/sqrt(1-vv/cc). One may see that this solution may be obtained from ((1)) showing a direct link between the classical action approach and special relativity. The connection may be carried further as Lt = -Et+px is a Lorentz invariant, but also the classical action (in both the relativistic and nonrelativistic cases). We argue that the use of the action in (1) as a stochastic variable is directly related to special relativity. In summary, from finite dt in dp/dt=F, t and x are stochastic variables within some naturally appearing dx and dt. One may write a linear combination of x and t and to create a stochastic Lorent invariant variable which should appear in exp(i Lorentz invariant) and create the dx and dt units. It may then be shown that this Lorentz invariant in E,p,x,t should be equivalent to the classical action.