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

A paradox in quantum measurement theory

Andrew Holster

Published Mar 1, 2004• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Coins and counterfactuals

Robert B. Griffiths

Quantum paradoxes The next few chapters are devoted to resolving a number of quantum paradoxes in the sense of giving a reasonable explanation of a seemingly paradoxical result in terms of the principles of quantum theory discussed earlier in this book. None of these paradoxes indicates a defect in quantum theory. Instead, when they have been properly understood, they show us that the quantum world is rather different from the world of our everyday experience and of classical physics, in a way somewhat analogous to that in which relativity theory has shown us that the laws appropriate for describing the behavior of objects moving at high speed differ in significant ways from those of pre-relativistic physics. An inadequate theory of quantum measurements is at the root of several quantum paradoxes. In particular, the notion that wave function collapse is a physical effect produced by a measurement, rather than a method of calculation, see Sec. 18.2, has given rise to a certain amount of confusion. Smuggling rules for classical reasoning into the quantum domain where they do not belong and where they give rise to logical inconsistencies is another common source of confusion. In particular, many paradoxes involve mixing the results from incompatible quantum frameworks. Certain quantum paradoxes have given rise to the idea that the quantum world is permeated by mysterious influences that propagate faster than the speed of light, in conflict with the theory of relativity. They are mysterious in that they cannot be used to transmit signals, which means that they are, at least in any direct sense, experimentally unobservable.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 29, 2001•0 citations

The Preferred Frame Problem of Bohmian Mechanics

Gao, Shan

Bohmian Mechanics (BM) posits a deterministic quantum framework where particle trajectories are guided by a wave function within a preferred Lorentz frame, a dependence starkly revealed by a novel EPR-Bohm experiment with reversible measurements. Unlike Bell tests, where BM’s predictions align with standard quantum mechanics regardless of frame, this experiment demonstrates that the Born rule’s application in the preferred frame determines whether Alice’s intermediate measurement statistics are random or deterministic. This reliance on a preferred frame—a measure-zero set in the continuum of Lorentz frames—exposes BM’s fundamental deficiency, as it is experimentally undetectable, lacks physical justification, and violates special relativity’s frame equivalence. Collapse theories, such as GRW and CSL, face analogous issues, requiring a preferred frame for non-local collapse events. This analysis highlights the inherent tension between single-world quantum theories and relativistic constraints, raising significant doubts about their viability as alternative quantum theories. The findings underscore the need for quantum interpretations that reconcile realism with relativity, suggesting that the Many-Worlds Interpretation, which provides a Lorentz-invariant framework without requiring a preferred frame, may offer a more robust and consistent foundation for quantum mechanics.

•Jun 19, 2025•0 citations

Bloch's paradox does not appear in quantum mechanics on phase space

Franklin E. Schroeck

It is shown that in the formalism of quantum mechanics on phase space with a purely quantum mechanical theory of measurement, Bloch's paradox does not appear.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Mar 19, 2009•2 citations

Consistent resolution of some relativistic quantum paradoxes

Robert B. Griffiths

A relativistic version of the (consistent or decoherent) histories approach to quantum theory is developed on the basis of earlier work by Hartle, and used to discuss relativistic forms of the paradoxes of spherical wave packet collapse, Bohm's formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and Hardy's paradox. It is argued that wave function collapse is not needed for introducing probabilities into relativistic quantum mechanics, and in any case should never be thought of as a physical process. Alternative approaches to stochastic time dependence can be used to construct a physical picture of the measurement process that is less misleading than collapse models. In particular, one can employ a coarse-grained but fully quantum-mechanical description in which particles move along trajectories, with behavior under Lorentz transformations the same as in classical relativistic physics, and detectors are triggered by particles reaching them along such trajectories. States entangled between spacelike separate regions are also legitimate quantum descriptions, and can be consistently handled by the formalism presented here. The paradoxes in question arise because of using modes of reasoning which, while correct for classical physics, are inconsistent with the mathematical structure of quantum theory, and are resolved (or tamed) by using a proper quantum analysis. In particular, there is no need to invoke, nor any evidence for, mysterious long-range superluminal influences, and thus no incompatibility, at least from this source, between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207015•Physical Review A•Dec 5, 2002•16 citations

A note on the quantum measurement problem

N. David Mermin

The idea that wave-function collapse is a physical process stems from a misunderstanding of probability and the role it plays in quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2206.10741•Jun 21, 2022•0 citations

Implications of Relativistically Consistent Wave Function Collapse

Allan Goff, Dale Lehmann, Joel Siegel

In the current formalism of quantum mechanics, collapse of the wave function is envisioned as occurring “instantaneously”. Since this is in conflict with the fact that “simultaneity” is not a relativistic invariant, quantum mechanics and relativity are in conflict with each another. This conflict is benign as long as faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena are disallowed. This paper explores this conflict and considers the implications if collapse can be specified to occur in a way that is consistent with relativity. In particular, relativistically consistent wave function collapse forces us to reconsider our preconceptions of causality. We are led to consider two cases; timelike and spacelike. For two events that are causally connected by a timelike interval, the earlier-in-time event is the cause in all reference frames, but the spatial ordering is not preserved. For two events that are causally connected by a spacelike interval, the temporal ordering is not preserved but the spatial ordering is, just the reverse. This is philosophically disturbing since for spacelike causes half the reference frames see the cause as proceeding backwards in time. However, in and of itself this is not logically inconsistent. Backwards-in-Time Causality (BTC) seems at first glance to permit temporal paradox, since two spacelike causal connections can be used to create a closed causal loop in spacetime. While temporal paradox is logically inconsistent, BTC can still be allowed if there is also a censor mechanism that prevents temporal paradox. In relativity, FTL and BTC are two sides of the same coin, so the major implication of relativistically consistent wave function collapse is that quantum systems should be able to support both FTL and BTC phenomena despite Eberhard’s “proof.”

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (JPC)•Jul 9, 2006•7 citations
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.
Quantum paradoxes The next few chapters are devoted to resolving a number of quantum paradoxes in the sense of giving a reasonable explanation of a seemingly paradoxical result in terms of the principles of quantum theory discussed earlier in this book. None of these paradoxes indicates a defect in quantum theory. Instead, when they have been properly understood, they show us that the quantum world is rather different from the world of our everyday experience and of classical physics, in a way somewhat analogous to that in which relativity theory has shown us that the laws appropriate for describing the behavior of objects moving at high speed differ in significant ways from those of pre-relativistic physics. An inadequate theory of quantum measurements is at the root of several quantum paradoxes. In particular, the notion that wave function collapse is a physical effect produced by a measurement, rather than a method of calculation, see Sec. 18.2, has given rise to a certain amount of confusion. Smuggling rules for classical reasoning into the quantum domain where they do not belong and where they give rise to logical inconsistencies is another common source of confusion. In particular, many paradoxes involve mixing the results from incompatible quantum frameworks. Certain quantum paradoxes have given rise to the idea that the quantum world is permeated by mysterious influences that propagate faster than the speed of light, in conflict with the theory of relativity. They are mysterious in that they cannot be used to transmit signals, which means that they are, at least in any direct sense, experimentally unobservable.
Bohmian Mechanics (BM) posits a deterministic quantum framework where particle trajectories are guided by a wave function within a preferred Lorentz frame, a dependence starkly revealed by a novel EPR-Bohm experiment with reversible measurements. Unlike Bell tests, where BM’s predictions align with standard quantum mechanics regardless of frame, this experiment demonstrates that the Born rule’s application in the preferred frame determines whether Alice’s intermediate measurement statistics are random or deterministic. This reliance on a preferred frame—a measure-zero set in the continuum of Lorentz frames—exposes BM’s fundamental deficiency, as it is experimentally undetectable, lacks physical justification, and violates special relativity’s frame equivalence. Collapse theories, such as GRW and CSL, face analogous issues, requiring a preferred frame for non-local collapse events. This analysis highlights the inherent tension between single-world quantum theories and relativistic constraints, raising significant doubts about their viability as alternative quantum theories. The findings underscore the need for quantum interpretations that reconcile realism with relativity, suggesting that the Many-Worlds Interpretation, which provides a Lorentz-invariant framework without requiring a preferred frame, may offer a more robust and consistent foundation for quantum mechanics.
A relativistic version of the (consistent or decoherent) histories approach to quantum theory is developed on the basis of earlier work by Hartle, and used to discuss relativistic forms of the paradoxes of spherical wave packet collapse, Bohm's formulation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and Hardy's paradox. It is argued that wave function collapse is not needed for introducing probabilities into relativistic quantum mechanics, and in any case should never be thought of as a physical process. Alternative approaches to stochastic time dependence can be used to construct a physical picture of the measurement process that is less misleading than collapse models. In particular, one can employ a coarse-grained but fully quantum-mechanical description in which particles move along trajectories, with behavior under Lorentz transformations the same as in classical relativistic physics, and detectors are triggered by particles reaching them along such trajectories. States entangled between spacelike separate regions are also legitimate quantum descriptions, and can be consistently handled by the formalism presented here. The paradoxes in question arise because of using modes of reasoning which, while correct for classical physics, are inconsistent with the mathematical structure of quantum theory, and are resolved (or tamed) by using a proper quantum analysis. In particular, there is no need to invoke, nor any evidence for, mysterious long-range superluminal influences, and thus no incompatibility, at least from this source, between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.
In the current formalism of quantum mechanics, collapse of the wave function is envisioned as occurring “instantaneously”. Since this is in conflict with the fact that “simultaneity” is not a relativistic invariant, quantum mechanics and relativity are in conflict with each another. This conflict is benign as long as faster-than-light (FTL) phenomena are disallowed. This paper explores this conflict and considers the implications if collapse can be specified to occur in a way that is consistent with relativity. In particular, relativistically consistent wave function collapse forces us to reconsider our preconceptions of causality. We are led to consider two cases; timelike and spacelike. For two events that are causally connected by a timelike interval, the earlier-in-time event is the cause in all reference frames, but the spatial ordering is not preserved. For two events that are causally connected by a spacelike interval, the temporal ordering is not preserved but the spatial ordering is, just the reverse. This is philosophically disturbing since for spacelike causes half the reference frames see the cause as proceeding backwards in time. However, in and of itself this is not logically inconsistent. Backwards-in-Time Causality (BTC) seems at first glance to permit temporal paradox, since two spacelike causal connections can be used to create a closed causal loop in spacetime. While temporal paradox is logically inconsistent, BTC can still be allowed if there is also a censor mechanism that prevents temporal paradox. In relativity, FTL and BTC are two sides of the same coin, so the major implication of relativistically consistent wave function collapse is that quantum systems should be able to support both FTL and BTC phenomena despite Eberhard’s “proof.”