I argue in the dissertation that there exists a fundamental contradiction between quantum theory and the special theory of relativity and that most of the well-known arguments to the contrary suffer from internal inconsistencies that render them ineffective in resolving the conflict...
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
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.
AbstractLoophole-free Bell experiments have conclusively demonstrated that non-local correlations are a fundamental property of physical reality. Within the Minkowskian framework of Special Relativity (SRT), the relativity of simultaneity renders the temporal ordering of spacelike-separated events inherently frame-dependent. This creates a conceptual inconsistency for any ontologically realist interpretation of quantum mechanics: if measurement outcomes correspond to objective physical events, then the absence of a preferred foliation leads unavoidably to contradictory causal histories or retrocausal influences. In this work, we formulate a Conditional No-Go Theorem showing that Ontological Realism, Linear Causality, and Fundamental Lorentz Invariance cannot all hold simultaneously. Preserving a coherent causal structure therefore requires relinquishing Lorentz invariance as a primitive spacetime symmetry. We propose Absolute Simultaneity Theory (AST), a framework in which Lorentz covariance emerges thermodynamically from a quantum vacuum treated as a structured medium in equilibrium. Drawing on analogies with condensed-matter systems—particularly Volovik’s superfluid vacuum paradigm—we show that a preferred rest frame, plausibly identified with the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) frame, is fully compatible with the empirical success of SRT. In AST, local Lorentz symmetry arises as a stability condition of the underlying vacuum dynamics rather than as a fundamental geometric postulate. This reconceptualization allows quantum non-locality and relativistic kinematics to coexist within a unified, time-ordered ontology.