One of the concepts of Relativity theory that challenges conventional intuition the most is time dilation and length contraction. Usual approaches for describing relativistic effects in quantum systems merely postulate the consequences of these effects as physical constraints. Here, we propose to rebuild Special Relativity from quantum mechanical considerations. This is done by dropping one of its fundamental postulates: the universality of the speed of light. Lorentz transformations are obtained by a quantum mechanism. We use the fact that quantum states depend on the Galilean reference frame where they are defined. In other words, quantum states outside an observer's Galilean reference frame are distorted. Then, we show in a theorem the existence of time-dependent observables that are sensible to this distortion in such a way that their expectation value is a Lorentz-covariant function of time. We then postulate this mechanism as the source of the phenomena of Special Relativity. As a corollary of the main theorem, we show the existence of a Lorentz covariant momentum and mass operators which yield the relativistic momentum and mass. In this theory, the fundamental limit of the speed of light imposes a transparency condition for faster-than-light particles: they are allowed but they are not observable. The transparency effect could explain dark matter in a more general theory following this quantum formalism.
One of the concepts of Relativity theory that challenges conventional intuition the most is time dilation and length contraction. Usual approaches for describing relativistic effects in quantum systems merely postulate the consequences of these effects as physical constraints. Here, we propose to rebuild Special Relativity from quantum mechanical considerations. This is done by dropping one of its fundamental postulates: the universality of the speed of light. Lorentz transformations are obtained by a quantum mechanism. We use the fact that quantum states depend on the Galilean reference frame where they are defined. In other words, quantum states outside an observer's Galilean reference frame are distorted. Then, we show in a theorem the existence of time-dependent observables that are sensible to this distortion in such a way that their expectation value is a Lorentz-covariant function of time. We then postulate this mechanism as the source of the phenomena of Special Relativity. As a corollary of the main theorem, we show the existence of a Lorentz covariant momentum and mass operators which yield the relativistic momentum and mass. In this theory, the fundamental limit of the speed of light imposes a transparency condition for faster-than-light particles: they are allowed but they are not observable. The transparency effect could explain dark matter in a more general theory following this quantum formalism.
Since their first introduction, Quantum Reference Frame (QRF) transformations have been extensively discussed, generalising the covariance of physical laws to the quantum domain. Despite important progress, a formulation of QRF transformations for Lorentz symmetry is still lacking. The present work aims to fill this gap. We first introduce a reformulation of relativistic quantum mechanics independent of any notion of preferred temporal slicing. Based on this, we define transformations that switch between the perspectives of different relativistic QRFs. We introduce a notion of ''quantum Lorentz transformations'' and ''superposition of Lorentz boosts'', acting on the external degrees of freedom of a quantum particle. We analyse two effects, superposition of time dilations and superposition of length contractions, that arise only if the reference frames exhibit both relativistic and quantum-mechanical features. Finally, we discuss how the effects could be observed by measuring the wave-packet extensions from relativistic QRFs.
The progress of physics in the twentieth century is deeply associated with the discovery of the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. Relativistic and quantum theories form the basis of modern understanding of the surrounding world. The dependence of space distances between events on the frame of reference is usually called the relativistic length contraction or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of a moving body. In transition from one reference frame to another by Galilean transformations, the time interval between any two events remains the same as well as the distance between the space points where the events occurred. One photon of a sufficient energy can generate an electron-positron pair only in the presence of some other particle that would provide the fulfillment of the law of momentum conservation. In the latter case the energy and the momentum conservation laws for an act of a photon emission by a free moving atom.
Abstract This paper present a unified theoretical framework connecting relativistic time dilation, time–state correlation, and quantum superposition. The physical state of an object is modeled as an objective, continuous time-series function s = f(t). In the unobserved regime, the proper timeline of an object is independent of the observer’s reference frame; during observation, relativistic time dilation induces a corresponding state dilation effect, and the observed value represents the projection of the intrinsic state onto the observer’s timeline. Under elementary observation, classical behavior corresponds to a one-to-one state mapping (1 ≤ n < 2), while quantum behavior arises from a many-to-one relation (n ≥ 2) accompanied by state superposition, probabilistic outcomes, and the loss of temporal order. This paper derive formal superposition-projection formulas for time and state and apply the framework to interpret the double-slit interference experiment. The observed randomness of photon detection originates from unit-time projective sampling rather than fundamental indeterminacy, while the photon maintains a deterministic intrinsic wave function along its proper timeline. This paper predict a stepwise increase in discrete observable states as particle velocity approaches critical relativistic thresholds, supporting a continuous transition from classical to quantum behavior. This framework establishes a consistent bridge between special relativity, classical mechanics, probability theory, and quantum mechanics.
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.
Classical mechanics of a free particle is based on Newtonian mechanics and Lagrangian/Hamilton theories. A single frame of reference is chosen (the lab) and particles with the same mass mo (for example) moving at different velocities are considered in the free particle scenario (i.e in the absence of force (potentials)). We argue that the above is identical to considering a single particle with mass mo at time=to and x=0 viewed by various frames moving at different constant velocities -v. From the point of view of each frame, the particle moves at a velocity v. Thus the Newtonian picture of an mo particle moving at different speeds may be considered as a problem of special relativity. We argue (as in (1)) that (x,t)=(0,t) transforms to (x’,t’) such that x’/t’=v. If one uses a metric (1 0) (first row) (0 -1) second row, one may derive special relativistic relationships. In particular, one may obtain the Lorentz invariant -Et + px if (p,E) and (x,t) transform in the same manner. We argue that the relationships obtained from special relativity pertain to classical mechanics and so one may mathematically obtain a function L(v) such that p=dL/dv and E=pv - L for a free particle. In other words, special relativity governs Lagrangian results in the free particle case and is not really needed (in this special case). More importantly, it is special relativity which links E with t and p with x. As noted above, if one considers Netwonian mechanics in a single frame, the notion of special relativity does not arise, but the scaling of time by E and of x by p does i.e. A= -Et+px is the classical action both relativistically and nonrelativistically. It is just not written in this way usually (i.e. A = -mo t sqrt(1-vv) (c=1) relatiivstically and A =t .5mo vv nonrelativistically) We argued in (2) that scaling must manifest itself physically and that it accounts for the physical wavelength in quantum mechanics. We argue that the quantum mechanics of a free particle ultimately follows from special relativity. As a result, ideas of quantum mechanics would not have appeared in Newtonian mechanics nor Lagrangian or Hamiltonian theories. When special relativity was developed it focused on transformations related to different frames, but these are equivalent to describing one frame with many different velocities (same mo). Thus the physics in one frame is governed by special relativity even if it is nonrelativistic. We argue that the notion of the wavelength which appears even in the Schrodinger formalism follows from scaling of x by p which ultimately originates from special relativity. In other words, both the Lagrangian formalism and quantum mechanics follow from special relativity in the free particle case. We argue that free particle quantum mechanics is the starting point of overall quantum mechanics.
Abstract Maxwell unified the disparate concepts of electric and magnetic fields with one theory (electromagnetism) and Einstein then unified the disparate theories of electromagnetism and mechanics with one kinematics (Minkowski space of special relativity). In this talk, we will briefly explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) and special relativity can be unified with one principle (relativity principle). This result follows from the axiomatic reconstruction of quantum mechanics via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast quantum mechanics as a principle theory a la Einstein, i.e., the formalism of the theory follows from an empirically discovered fact, just like special relativity. According to the quantum reconstruction program, the empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity. Of course, the empirically discovered fact whence the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Obviously, the light postulate can be justified by the relativity principle—the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames—because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s electromagnetism. [We label this “NPRF + c” for short, where NPRF stands for “no preferred reference frame.”] As we will show, Information Invariance & Continuity can also be justified by the relativity principle by first spatializing the quantum reconstruction program’s operational notion of measurement. In that case, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincar’e transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, and h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) just like it justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c). Thus, the kinematics of quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in that both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle in the adynamical global constraints NPRF + h and NPRF + c. This approach provides a principle solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement that does not violate locality, statistical independence, intersubjective agreement, or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes and it does not alter quantum mechanics as a principle theory. An ontology consistent with this unification is introduced and we deflate both the ‘big’ and ‘small’measurement problems.