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:1012.4447 · International Journal of Modern Physics B

OBSERVER INVARIANCE OF THE COLLAPSE POSTULATE OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

MILTON A. DA SILVA, ROBERTO M. SERRA, Lucas C. Céleri

Published Oct 19, 2012• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We analyze the wave function collapse as seen by two distinct observers (with identical detectors) in relative motion. Imposing that the measurement process demands information transfer from the system to the detectors, we note that although different observers will acquire different amount of information from their measurements due to correlations between spin and momentum variables, all of them will agree about the orthogonality of the outcomes, as defined by their own reference frame. So, in this sense, such a quantum mechanical postulate is observer invariant, however the effective efficiency of the measurement process differs for each observer.

DOI
10.1142/s0217979213450136

Related papers

Wave Function Collapse, Lorentz Invariance, and the Third Postulate of Relativity

Edward J. Gillis

The changes that quantum states undergo during measurement are both probabilistic and nonlocal. These two characteristics complement one another to insure compatibility with relativity and maintain conservation laws. The probabilistic nature of nonlocal effects prevents the superluminal transmission of information, while nonlocal entanglement relations provide a means to enforce conservation laws in a probabilistic theory. In order to explain measurement-induced changes in terms of fundamental physical processes it is important to take these two key characteristics into account. One way to do this is to modify the Schroedinger equation by adding stochastic, nonlinear terms. A number of such proposals have been made over the past few decades. A recently proposed equation based on the assumption that wave function collapse is induced by a sequence of correlating interactions of the kind that constitute measurements has been shown to maintain strict adherence to conservation laws in individual instances, and has also eliminated the need to introduce any new, ad hoc physical constants. In this work it is shone that the proposed stochastic modification to the Schroedinger equation is also Lorentz invariant, even though it is formulated in a preferred reference frame. It is further argued that the additional spacetime structure that the proposed modification requires provides a way to implement the assumption that spacelike-separated operators (and measurements) commute, and that this assumption of local commutativity should be regarded as a third postulate of relativity.

arXiv:2405.05335•May 8, 2024•0 citations

The Quantum Mechanical Frame of Reference

Andrew Soltau

Abstract: Everett demonstrates the appearance of collapse, within the context of the unitary linear dynamics. However, he does not state clearly how observers are to have determinate measurement records, hence 50 years of debate. This, however, is inherent. He defines the observer as the record of observations, which, naturally, is the record of correlations established with the physical environment. As in Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics, the correlations record is the sole determinant of the effective physical environment, here the quantum mechanical frame of reference: due to multiple realisation of the functional identity of the observer, the physical environment is a simultaneity of all the physical environments in which it is instantiated, a 'universe superposition', in which only the environment correlated with the observer by observations is determinate. This effects a discrete and idiosyncratic physical environment for each version of an observer, in which determinate measurement records are recorded. Quantum mechanics is on this view fully relational, demonstrated as not only viable but necessary by Rovelli & Laudisa. The quantum mechanical frame of reference is Everett's 'Relative State', and on Tegmark's 'inside view', the time evolution follows the standard von NeumannDirac formulation. Thus observers get precisely the measurement records predicted by the standard formulation, but since objectively there is only the appearance of collapse, there is neither a measurement problem nor a disparity with relativity. The linear dynamics and the collapse dynamics are directly experienced, as the passage of time and the making of observations, respectively. 1

•Jan 1, 2010•0 citations

On Quantum Mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

We reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of DERIVING the quantum mechanical formalism from a set of simple physical postulates. We suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature could derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer independent time. Following an an analysis of the measurement process as seen by different observers, we propose a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of INFORMATION THEORY. We propose three different postulates out of which the formalism of the theory can be reconstructed; these are based on the notion of information about each other that systems contain. All systems are assumed to be equivalent: no observer-observed distinction, and information is interpreted as correlation. We then suggest that the incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanichs is the notion of OBSERVER INDEPENDENT state of a system.

arXiv:hep-th/9403015•Mar 2, 1994•63 citations

A paradox in quantum measurement theory

Andrew Holster

This paper outlines a ‘paradox’ in quantum measurement theory, illustrated with two different types of systems. If this paradox cannot be resolved in ordinary quantum mechanics (as I currently think), it is alarming. If it can be resolved, it can be added to a long list of examples that show the internal consistency of quantum mechanics, and in this case I hope the correct analysis will be an interesting example for students. The immediate paradox involves a failure of Lorentz invariance for measurements on certain types of single particle systems. It seems to show that an absolute frame of reference is required to describe wave function collapse. But if the argument is correct, quantum measurement theory is not merely dependant on the frame of collapse - it is inconsistent, and experimental tests would have to be done to verify whether the apparent non-local effects predicted are real.

•Mar 1, 2004•0 citations

Quantum states and local projective measurement in a relativistic field

Shih-Yuin Lin

In an explicitly covariant system with point-like detectors coupled to a relativistic quantum field, the Gaussian states of the combined system and the reduced states of the detectors derived from them are consistent, but not have to be covariant, in different frames of different observers. Even in the presence of spatially local projective measurements, which result instantaneous wave functional collapses on different time-slices in different reference frames, the consistency still holds.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Dec 6, 2011•1 citation

TOWARDS A MORE FUNDAMENTAL THEORY BEYOND QUANTUM MECHANICS, AVOIDING THE SCHRÖDINGER PARADOX

F. Caravaglios

The main distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is the lack in the latter of a full mechanical determinism: different final states can arise from the same physical state, after the measurement. No hidden variable is supposed to exist, nothing can discriminate two apparently identical states even if they give a different result. In this paper we try to put the basis for a more fundamental theory that (approximately) coincides with quantum mechanics when comparing statistics, but it is more fundamental, since it mathematically describes measurement processes giving an explicit time evolution of the wave function during the collapse. The theory is deterministic even if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still valid. The theory distinguishes physical states that collapse and physical states that do not collapse. The theory can be made compatible with all experiments done in the past, but new phenomena such as violations of the Born law or the superposition principle could transpire. However, even if we have probably shown that it is possible to build ad hoc a theory that can describe both the wave function collapse and the Schrödinger linear evolution, a simple and unified construction is still missing.

arXiv:0907.0125•International Journal of Modern Physics A•Dec 20, 2009•2 citations
We analyze the wave function collapse as seen by two distinct observers (with identical detectors) in relative motion. Imposing that the measurement process demands information transfer from the system to the detectors, we note that although different observers will acquire different amount of information from their measurements due to correlations between spin and momentum variables, all of them will agree about the orthogonality of the outcomes, as defined by their own reference frame. So, in this sense, such a quantum mechanical postulate is observer invariant, however the effective efficiency of the measurement process differs for each observer.
The changes that quantum states undergo during measurement are both probabilistic and nonlocal. These two characteristics complement one another to insure compatibility with relativity and maintain conservation laws. The probabilistic nature of nonlocal effects prevents the superluminal transmission of information, while nonlocal entanglement relations provide a means to enforce conservation laws in a probabilistic theory. In order to explain measurement-induced changes in terms of fundamental physical processes it is important to take these two key characteristics into account. One way to do this is to modify the Schroedinger equation by adding stochastic, nonlinear terms. A number of such proposals have been made over the past few decades. A recently proposed equation based on the assumption that wave function collapse is induced by a sequence of correlating interactions of the kind that constitute measurements has been shown to maintain strict adherence to conservation laws in individual instances, and has also eliminated the need to introduce any new, ad hoc physical constants. In this work it is shone that the proposed stochastic modification to the Schroedinger equation is also Lorentz invariant, even though it is formulated in a preferred reference frame. It is further argued that the additional spacetime structure that the proposed modification requires provides a way to implement the assumption that spacelike-separated operators (and measurements) commute, and that this assumption of local commutativity should be regarded as a third postulate of relativity.
Abstract: Everett demonstrates the appearance of collapse, within the context of the unitary linear dynamics. However, he does not state clearly how observers are to have determinate measurement records, hence 50 years of debate. This, however, is inherent. He defines the observer as the record of observations, which, naturally, is the record of correlations established with the physical environment. As in Rovelli's Relational Quantum Mechanics, the correlations record is the sole determinant of the effective physical environment, here the quantum mechanical frame of reference: due to multiple realisation of the functional identity of the observer, the physical environment is a simultaneity of all the physical environments in which it is instantiated, a 'universe superposition', in which only the environment correlated with the observer by observations is determinate. This effects a discrete and idiosyncratic physical environment for each version of an observer, in which determinate measurement records are recorded. Quantum mechanics is on this view fully relational, demonstrated as not only viable but necessary by Rovelli & Laudisa. The quantum mechanical frame of reference is Everett's 'Relative State', and on Tegmark's 'inside view', the time evolution follows the standard von NeumannDirac formulation. Thus observers get precisely the measurement records predicted by the standard formulation, but since objectively there is only the appearance of collapse, there is neither a measurement problem nor a disparity with relativity. The linear dynamics and the collapse dynamics are directly experienced, as the passage of time and the making of observations, respectively. 1
We reformulate the problem of the "interpretation of quantum mechanics" as the problem of DERIVING the quantum mechanical formalism from a set of simple physical postulates. We suggest that the common unease with taking quantum mechanics as a fundamental description of nature could derive from the use of an incorrect notion, as the unease with the Lorentz transformations before Einstein derived from the notion of observer independent time. Following an an analysis of the measurement process as seen by different observers, we propose a reformulation of quantum mechanics in terms of INFORMATION THEORY. We propose three different postulates out of which the formalism of the theory can be reconstructed; these are based on the notion of information about each other that systems contain. All systems are assumed to be equivalent: no observer-observed distinction, and information is interpreted as correlation. We then suggest that the incorrect notion that generates the unease with quantum mechanichs is the notion of OBSERVER INDEPENDENT state of a system.
This paper outlines a ‘paradox’ in quantum measurement theory, illustrated with two different types of systems. If this paradox cannot be resolved in ordinary quantum mechanics (as I currently think), it is alarming. If it can be resolved, it can be added to a long list of examples that show the internal consistency of quantum mechanics, and in this case I hope the correct analysis will be an interesting example for students. The immediate paradox involves a failure of Lorentz invariance for measurements on certain types of single particle systems. It seems to show that an absolute frame of reference is required to describe wave function collapse. But if the argument is correct, quantum measurement theory is not merely dependant on the frame of collapse - it is inconsistent, and experimental tests would have to be done to verify whether the apparent non-local effects predicted are real.
The main distinction between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is the lack in the latter of a full mechanical determinism: different final states can arise from the same physical state, after the measurement. No hidden variable is supposed to exist, nothing can discriminate two apparently identical states even if they give a different result. In this paper we try to put the basis for a more fundamental theory that (approximately) coincides with quantum mechanics when comparing statistics, but it is more fundamental, since it mathematically describes measurement processes giving an explicit time evolution of the wave function during the collapse. The theory is deterministic even if the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is still valid. The theory distinguishes physical states that collapse and physical states that do not collapse. The theory can be made compatible with all experiments done in the past, but new phenomena such as violations of the Born law or the superposition principle could transpire. However, even if we have probably shown that it is possible to build ad hoc a theory that can describe both the wave function collapse and the Schrödinger linear evolution, a simple and unified construction is still missing.