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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Classical interventions in quantum systems. II. Relativistic Invariance’ ”

Asher Peres

Published Nov 9, 2001• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Contrary to the claim in the preceding Comment, the operators that describe the complete time evolution of a quantum system have a covariant transformation law, even though they are built from expressions that belong to separate subsystems and do not obey Lorentz transformations. The reason is that these are open subsystems, and different parts of the universe are excluded in their description. However, the complete system still obeys Lorentz covariance.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.64.066102

Related papers

Comment on “Classical interventions in quantum systems II. Relativistic invariance”

Hrvoje Nikolić

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 61, 022117 (2000)], A. Peres argued that quantum mechanics is consistent with special relativity by proposing that the operators that describe time evolution do not need to transform covariantly, although the measurable quantities need to transform covariantly. We discuss the weaknesses of this proposal.

arXiv:quant-ph/0109120•Physical Review A•Nov 9, 2001•2 citations

Lorentz transformations of open systems

Asher Peres, Daniel R. Terno

We consider open dynamical systems, subject to external interventions by agents that are not completely described by the theory (classical or quantal). These interventions are localized in regions that are relatively spacelike. Under these circumstances, no relativistic transformation law exists which relates the descriptions of the physical system by observers in relative motion. Still, physical laws are the same in all Lorentz frames.

arXiv:quant-ph/0106079•Journal of Modern Optics•Jul 1, 2002•17 citations

Classical interventions in quantum systems. II. Relativistic invariance

Asher Peres

If several interventions performed on a quantum system are localized in mutually spacelike regions, they will be recorded as a sequence of ``quantum jumps'' in one Lorentz frame, and as a different sequence of jumps in another Lorentz frame. Conditions are specified that must be obeyed by the various operators involved in the calculations, so that these two different sequences lead to the same observable results. These conditions are similar to the equal-time commutation relations in quantum field theory. They are sufficient to prevent superluminal signaling. (The derivation of these results does not require most of the contents of the preceding article [Peres, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022116 (2000)]. What is needed is briefly summarized here, so that the present article is essentially self-contained.)

arXiv:quant-ph/9906034•Physical Review A•Jan 18, 2000•49 citations

Reply to ‘Comment on “Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator”’

L. M. Arévalo Aguilar, P. C. Garcia Quijas

We contend that the statement attributing to us the implication that the wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are different cannot not be logically supported. On the contrary, throughout our paper ?Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator? (Garcia Quijas and Ar?valo Aguilar 2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 147) we constructed an argument to give support to the statement that the two wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are the same. In other words, in our paper we really did appreciate that methods I and II lead to identical results.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 22, 2013•4 citations

Comment on "Relativistic covariance and nonlinear quantum mechanics: Tomonaga-Schwinger analysis''

Lajos Diósi

Contrary to the central claim (Hsu, 2026) published in Physics Letters B, the Tomonaga--Schwinger equation remains covariant despite the nonlinear modification of it. The proof of covariance becomes simple after the loopholes and mistakes in Hsu's arguments are identified.

quant-pharXiv:2602.06845•Feb 9, 2026•0 citations

Is the usual notion of time evolution adequate for quantum-mechanical systems? II. Relativistic considerations

Yakir Aharonov, David Z. Albert

The measurement of nonlocal properties of relativistic quantum-mechanical systems, the compatibility (or lack of it) of two or more such measurements, and various other of their characteristics are considered; and with these notions in hand an old problem (which is to produce a covariant description of the state reduction associated with the measuring process) is attacked, and succumbs. The solution requires us to depart (not as we did in part I of the present work, but in an entirely different direction) from the usual picture of the time evolution of quantum states.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jan 15, 1984•103 citations
Contrary to the claim in the preceding Comment, the operators that describe the complete time evolution of a quantum system have a covariant transformation law, even though they are built from expressions that belong to separate subsystems and do not obey Lorentz transformations. The reason is that these are open subsystems, and different parts of the universe are excluded in their description. However, the complete system still obeys Lorentz covariance.
If several interventions performed on a quantum system are localized in mutually spacelike regions, they will be recorded as a sequence of ``quantum jumps'' in one Lorentz frame, and as a different sequence of jumps in another Lorentz frame. Conditions are specified that must be obeyed by the various operators involved in the calculations, so that these two different sequences lead to the same observable results. These conditions are similar to the equal-time commutation relations in quantum field theory. They are sufficient to prevent superluminal signaling. (The derivation of these results does not require most of the contents of the preceding article [Peres, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022116 (2000)]. What is needed is briefly summarized here, so that the present article is essentially self-contained.)
We contend that the statement attributing to us the implication that the wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are different cannot not be logically supported. On the contrary, throughout our paper ?Overcoming misconceptions in quantum mechanics with the time evolution operator? (Garcia Quijas and Ar?valo Aguilar 2007 Eur. J. Phys. 28 147) we constructed an argument to give support to the statement that the two wave functions ?I(x, t) and ?II(x, t) are the same. In other words, in our paper we really did appreciate that methods I and II lead to identical results.
The measurement of nonlocal properties of relativistic quantum-mechanical systems, the compatibility (or lack of it) of two or more such measurements, and various other of their characteristics are considered; and with these notions in hand an old problem (which is to produce a covariant description of the state reduction associated with the measuring process) is attacked, and succumbs. The solution requires us to depart (not as we did in part I of the present work, but in an entirely different direction) from the usual picture of the time evolution of quantum states.