After a review of the problems induced by the Lorentz signature of Minkowski space-time, like the need of a clock synchronization convention for the definition of 3-space and the complexity of the notion of relativistic center of mass, there is the introduction of a new formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics compatible with the theory of relativistic bound states. In it the zeroth postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid and the physics is described in the rest frame by a Hilbert space containing only relative variables. The non-locality of the Poincare' generators imply a kinematical non-locality and non-separability influencing the theory of relativistic entanglement and not connected with the standard quantum non-locality.
After a review of the problems induced by the Lorentz signature of Minkowski space-time, like the need of a clock synchronization convention for the definition of 3-space and the complexity of the notion of relativistic center of mass, there is the introduction of a new formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics compatible with the theory of relativistic bound states. In it the zeroth postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid and the physics is described in the rest frame by a Hilbert space containing only relative variables. The non-locality of the Poincare' generators imply a kinematical non-locality and non-separability influencing the theory of relativistic entanglement and not connected with the standard quantum non-locality.
A review is given of a new relativistic classical mechanics for N-particle systems compatible with relativistic bound states. It is formulated in global non-inertial frames in Minkowski space-time by means of parametrized Minkowski theories and then restricted to the intrinsic inertial rest frame of the isolated system. There is a complete control on the relativistic collective variables (Newton-Wigner center of mass, Fokker-Pryce center of inertia, M/oller center of energy) and on the realization of the Poincare' algebra (with the explicit form of the interaction-dependent Lorentz boosts). The particle world-lines are found to correspond to the ones of predictive mechanics and localization problems are clarified. The model can be consistently quantized avoiding the instantaneous spreading of the center-of-mass wave packets (Hegerfeldt theorem), because the non-local non-covariant center of mass is a non-measurable quantity. This implies that the Hilbert space must be the tensor product of the center-of-mass Hilbert space with the one of relative motions. This spatial non-separability (due to the Lorentz signature of space-time) makes relativistic entanglement much more involved than the non-relativistic one.
A new formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics is proposed in the framework of the rest-frame instant form of dynamics, where the world-lines of the particles are parametrized in terms of the Fokker-Pryce center of inertia and of Wigner-covariant relative 3-coordinates inside the instantaneous Wigner 3-spaces, and where there is a decoupled (non-covariant and non-local) canonical relativistic center of mass. This approach: (a) allows us to make a consistent quantization in every inertial frame; (b) leads to a description of both bound and scattering states; (c) offers new insights on the relativistic localization problem; (d) leads to a non-relativistic limit with a Hamilton-Jacobi treatment of the Newton center of mass; (e) clarifies non-local aspects (spatial non-separability) of relativistic entanglement connected with Lorentz signature and not present in its non-relativistic treatment.
We make a critical comparison of relativistic and nonrelativistic classical and quantum mechanics of particles in inertial frames as well of the open problems in particle localization at both levels. The solution of the problems of the relativistic center-of-mass, of the clock synchronization convention needed to define relativistic 3-spaces and of the elimination of the relative times in the relativistic bound states leads to a description with a decoupled nonlocal (nonmeasurable) relativistic center-of-mass and with only relative variables for the particles (single particle subsystems do not exist). We analyze the implications for entanglement of this relativistic spatial nonseparability not existing in nonrelativistic entanglement. Then, we try to reconcile the two visions showing that also at the nonrelativistic level in real experiments only relative variables are measured with their directions determined by the effective mean classical trajectories of particle beams present in the experiment. The existing results about the nonrelativistic and relativistic localization of particles and atoms support the view that detectors only identify effective particles following this type of trajectories: these objects are the phenomenological emergent aspect of the notion of particle defined by means of the Fock spaces of quantum field theory.
The nonlocality of entangled quantum mechanical systems is incompatible with the standard interpretation of special relativity as a single 4D Minkowskian metric spacetime. The difficulty is that the definition of a spacetime interval between any pair of events precludes any form of nonlocal interaction, even the relatively benign non-signaling correlations. By an application of the relativity principle, and the use of the space ←→ time symmetry of the Lorentz boost I propose here a reinterpretation of special relativistic spacetime. This new ontology consists of a set of coexisting 3+1D spaces (‘framespaces’), each containing unique content in the form of a complex density. These spaces are related by the Lorentz boost, and coupled pairwise in a manner dictated by the Lorentz transformation. The inter-space coupling acting on the spacetime content gives rise to a nonlocal wave phenomenon, which is identified as quantum wave mechanics. The interspace coupling strength is then inversely proportional to Planck’s constant. The coexistence of multiple spaces is interpreted as momentum superposition, implying that momentum is the fundamental physical basis of quantum superposition. This new spacetime interpretation of quantum mechanics has many consequences, including explanations of quantum non-locality, the spacetime role of Planck’s constant, quantum measurement as a symmetry-breaking process and the redundancy of description of gauge theory.
One of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics is entanglement. It describes an inseparable connection between quantum systems, and properties thereof. In a quantum mechanical description even systems far apart from each other can share a common state. This entanglement of the subsystems, although arising from mathematical principles, is no mere abstract concept, but can be tested in experiment, and be utilized in modern quantum information theory procedures, such as quantum teleportation. In particular, entangled states play a crucial role in testing our understanding of reality, by violating Bell inequalities. While the role of entanglement is well studied in the realm of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, its significance in a relativistic quantum theory is a relatively new field of interest. In this work the consequences of a relativistic description of quantum entanglement are discussed. We analyze the representations of the symmetry groups of special relativity, i.e. of the Lorentz group, and the Poincaré group, on the Hilbert space of states. We describe how unitary, irreducible representations of the Poincaré group for massive spin 1/2 particles are constructed from representations of Wigner's little group. We then proceed to investigate the role of the Wigner rotations in the transformation of quantum states under a change of inertial reference frame. Considering different partitions of the Hilbert space of 2 particles, we find that the entanglement of the quantum states appears different in different inertial frames, depending on the form of the states, the chosen inertial frames, and the particular choice of partition. It is explained, how, despite of this, the maximally possible violation of Bell inequalities is frame independent, when using appropriate spin observables, which are related to the Pauli-Ljubanski vector, a Casimir operator of the Poincaré group.
Special relativity seems to be associated with linking physical relations as seen in one frame with those as seen in a frame moving at a speed relative to such a frame. A constant speed is often used for the moving frame. This suggests that classically there is a special frame for a particle with rest mass called a rest frame. In such a case, one simply introduces a parameter for rest mass and does not worry about the complicated motion and interactions which actually create the rest mass. It seems that even quantum mechanics, which considers a particle to be moving as one does not know its location, one uses the idea of a potential V(x) which in principle is associated with a very large rest mass, presumably at rest as no variables of such a rest mass appear in the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. It seems that one uses a preferred frame when solving relativistic quantum mechanical equations. Furthermore, given V(x) and a bound state with exp(-i E bound t), E applies to the overall bound system, not to a possible exp(ipx) constituent. The special relativistic invariant equation seems to exist at the system level, like with the rest mass and one may apparently calculate E in the special rest frame of the large mass and hence find a rest mass of the bound system, i..e large rest mass*cc + mo cc + E, mo is the rest mass of the single bound particle. As a result of the use of the special rest mass frame for the V(x) producing large rest mass, it seems that one does not have to worry about special relativistic constraints on the interaction with V(x), as only one frame is involved. In other words, a bound calculation is about finding a new rest mass for an overall new system. Then this system may be used in Lorentz boosts. One simplifies by working in the rest frame of the mass creating V(x). Perhaps surprisingly then, we note that exp(-iEt+ipx) for a free particle is Lorentz invariant and in fact must be Lorentz invariant for the following reason. Imagine that one wishes to create a probability for free particles which is linked with conservation of momentum. Any p must have the same real value weight because for free particles there is no bias for one p or the other. There is, however, a bias for a p1 and p2. It should have the same probability as a p3 and p4, if p1+p2 = p3+p4. (We use one dimension for simplicity.) As a result, exp(ip) seems to be a probability which respects these conditions. The problem is that one may have p=m1v1=m2v2 hence (E1,p) and (E2,p). With respect to momentum, it is irrelevant if one particle has E1 and the other E2, but not if one does a Lorentz boost. Then, in one case: p→ g(v) p + g(v) v E1 and in the second, p→ g(v) p + g(v)vE2. Here g(v) =1/sqrt(1-vv/cc). In other words, p is the same for each particle in one frame and not in the other which violates conservation of momentum because in frame 1 both particles can complete the same conservation of momentum equation, but in the second frame this is not the case, because each has a different momentum. Thus, exp(ip) cannot hold. One requires a linear form in p which is Lorentz invariant, i.e. exp(-iEt+ipx), we argue (and have done so in previous notes). We see now that momentum probability is linked with space in exp(ipx). The idea seems to be that for free colliding particles there is no preferred frame and the probabilities used must reflect this Lorentz invariance. As a result, we argue that a free particle probability in E,p arises because of Lorentz invariance, but then apply it to a V(x) problem and no longer worry about Lorentz invariance at the interaction level. V(x) with no associated rest mass variables assumes a rest frame for the V(x) producing mass. A Lorentz boost which then invalidates exp(ip), would only apply to the total rest mass of the bound particle system which has no overall momentum. It seems that one does apply the Lorentz transformation to the interaction of exp(ipx)’s with V(x). One is only interested in the overall bound system as a single entity for special relativity. As a result, one may only impose momentum considerations as V(x) is a spatial function and one must link it with exp(ipx). In fact, one may write V(x) = Sum over k Vk exp(ikx) to associate it with momentum hits linked with Vk energies, which already moves away from the idea of special relativity as Vk and k are not linked as a 4-vector. The idea of exp(ip1x)exp(i k1x) = exp(ip2x)exp(ik2x), however, seems to still hold (as it does for free particles), linking these two values (i.e. Vk1 and Vk2) with (p1+k)(p1+k) exp(i (p1+k)x). Lorentz invariance for a particle with rest mass seems to be linked with the idea that one ultimately has a rest frame for the particle. One then establishes a relation between the rest mass in one frame and its new E and p as seen by another frame. One does not, however, need to impose Lorentz invariance conditions on the interaction which creates the rest mass it seems. For example, exp(-iEt+ipx) is the Lorentz form used to describe a free particle, but exp(ipx) is the only portion used to describe its interaction with V(x) in the rest frame of the large mass creating V(x). Furthermore, exp(-iEt+ipx) ensures conservation of energy and p for a free particle, but in an interaction case, that does not happen as the potential may absorb energy.