Thus far I have been primarily concerned with how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might, or might not, be local. This question is traditionally not sharply distinguished from the question of whether quantum mechanics is consistent with the theory of relativity. However, the two questions are indeed quite distinct, and should be recognized as such explicitly. The theory of relativity What does relativity require? As a first approximation, we may make the distinction by noting that the requirements of the theory of relativity are themselves unclear. Minimally, relativity seems to require that there be no way to distinguish one reference frame from another – i.e., that there be no experimental procedure that can determine which of two inertial observers is ‘really’ moving, or more generally that there be no way to discover an observer's absolute velocity. Most authors are willing to find in (special) relativity a stronger requirement: namely, Lorentz-invariance. They say that relativity requires that in fact there is no such thing as absolute velocity. This requirement goes beyond the minimum – it might be that there is an absolute rest frame (so that absolute velocities are given by motion relative to this frame) while there is no way to find it. (As I will discuss in chapter 9, exactly this situation occurs in Bohm's theory.)
Thus far I have been primarily concerned with how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might, or might not, be local. This question is traditionally not sharply distinguished from the question of whether quantum mechanics is consistent with the theory of relativity. However, the two questions are indeed quite distinct, and should be recognized as such explicitly. The theory of relativity What does relativity require? As a first approximation, we may make the distinction by noting that the requirements of the theory of relativity are themselves unclear. Minimally, relativity seems to require that there be no way to distinguish one reference frame from another – i.e., that there be no experimental procedure that can determine which of two inertial observers is ‘really’ moving, or more generally that there be no way to discover an observer's absolute velocity. Most authors are willing to find in (special) relativity a stronger requirement: namely, Lorentz-invariance. They say that relativity requires that in fact there is no such thing as absolute velocity. This requirement goes beyond the minimum – it might be that there is an absolute rest frame (so that absolute velocities are given by motion relative to this frame) while there is no way to find it. (As I will discuss in chapter 9, exactly this situation occurs in Bohm's theory.)
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.
Abstract Although Bell’s theorem tells us that any interpretation of quantum mechanics must fail to satisfy Bell’s locality condition, the question of Lorentzinvariance is apparently left open by Bell’s theorem. In deed, it has been argued by many that nonlocality is compatible with Lorentzinvariance, given certain interpretations of the latter, or of the former. Some give a ‘weak’ interpretation of Lorentz invariance, compatible with a ‘strong’ violation of locality. For example, Bohm’s (1952) theory violates locality in a way that requires a preferred frame; but empirical Lorentzinvariance is preserved in the Bohm theory there is no experiment that could determine the preferred frame. (See, for example, Valentini (199la,b), Bohm and Hiley (1993), and Cushing (1994).) On the other hand, ‘orthodox’ interpretations of special relativity maintain a notion of ‘fundamental
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.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are signicant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benets of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantum-mechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic eects become observable, for which non-relativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.33) must be used. There are, however, more subtle eects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are significant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benefits of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantummechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic effects become observable, for which nonrelativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.34) must be used. There are, however, more subtle effects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
Special relativity is a fascinating and challenging branch of physics. It describes the physics of the high velocity/high energy regime, frequently turning up phenomena that appear paradoxical in view of our everyday experience. In this book we will be quite selective in our presentation of the theory of special relativity: we will concentrate on those features that we consider necessary for the later applications to relativistic quantum chemistry. We do this in good conscience, knowing that there is a vast literature on the subject, catering to a wide range of audiences—from the quite elementary to the very sophisticated. A few examples are listed in the reference list, but a visit to any nearby physics library will provide an ample selection of reading material for those wishing to delve deeper into the matter. In the present chapter we adopt a minimalist approach. We develop some of the basic concepts and formulas of special relativity, building on a rather elementary level of basic physics. The aim is to provide a sufficient foundation for those who want to proceed as quickly as possible to the more quantum chemical parts of the text. In later chapters we will introduce more advanced tools of physics and revisit some of the subjects treated here. The theory of special relativity deals with the description of physical phenomena in frames that move at constant velocity relative to each other. The classroom is one such frame, the car passing at constant speed outside the classroom is another. The trajectory of a ball being thrown up vertically in the car will look quite different whether we describe it relative to the interior of the car or relative to the interior of the classroom. In particular we will be concerned with inertial frames. We define an inertial frame as a frame where spatial relations are Euclidean and where there is a universal time such that free particles move with constant velocities. In classical Newtonian mechanics, relations between the spatial parameters and time in two inertial frames S and S’ are expressed in terms of the Galilean transformations.