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

Springer eBooks

Relativistic Invariance in Quantum Theory

Nikolay N. Bogolubov, А. А. Логунов, A. I. Oksak, Ivan T. Todorov, G. G. Gould

Published Jan 1, 1990• 5 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-94-009-0491-0_7

Related papers

On Relativistic Invariance in Quantum Theory

Iu. M. Shirokov

Soviet physics. Doklady•Sep 1, 1957•0 citations

What Explains CPT Invariance and the Spin–Statistics Connection?

Jonathan Bain

Chapter 5 addresses the question, “What explains CPT invariance and the spin–statistics connection (SSC)?” It first considers why we should care about explaining CPT invariance and the SSC. It then argues that the CPT and spin–statistics theorems cannot be said to provide the sought after explanations. It offers instead an explanation of the SSC in interacting non-relativistic theories. This explanation explains by virtue of a derivation from non-fundamental principles in non-interacting relativistic quantum field theories (RQFTs), and an explication of intertheoretic relations between interacting RQFTs, non-interacting RQFTs, and interacting non-relativistic theories. The chapter ends by arguing that the presence of both the SSC and CPT invariance in realistic interacting RQFTs cannot be explained by even this type of explanation, and that currently, the existence problem precludes a full understanding of these properties in realistic interacting RQFTs.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 1, 2016•0 citations

Relativistic Invariance in Quantum Mechanics

Eugene Paul Wigner

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1997•0 citations

On Substantive Lorentz Invariance and Quantum Theory

Ward Struyve

Lorentz invariance is considered a fundamental property of relativistic quantum theory. However, in standard quantum theory this invariance is only partially realized: while relativistic wave equations like the Dirac equation are Lorentz invariant, the collapse postulate is not. In the non-relativistic domain, alternative theories have been formulated, like Bohmian mechanics and spontaneous collapse theories, which dispense with the problematic collapse postulate. Extending these theories to the relativistic domain appears challenging, particularly with respect to implementing Lorentz invariance, mainly due to the unavoidable non-locality implied by Bell’s theorem. However, space-time theories can also trivially be formulated in a Lorentz-invariant way. If Lorentz invariance is to impose a genuine constraint on the content of a physical theory, one should aim for what can be called substantive Lorentz invariance. However, articulating a precise definition of this notion is notoriously difficult. This paper investigates two candidate criteria: Anderson’s criterion based on the identification of absolute objects, and a relativity principle for isolated subsystems. These criteria are applied to evaluate several Lorentz-invariant Bohmian models, a spontaneous collapse model, and a version of the Many-Worlds theory. With the exception of two Bohmian approaches, these models satisfy both criteria. Nevertheless, some Bohmian models that meet these conditions still do not appear to be substantively Lorentz-invariant, suggesting that the proposed criteria may not fully capture the intended concept. Nevertheless, they help clarify what aspects of relativity theory may need to be given up in passing from classical to quantum theory.

arXiv:2402.15881•Philosophy of Physics•Jan 1, 2026•2 citations

Non-RQFT Derivations of CPT Invariance and the Spin–Statistics Connection

Jonathan Bain

Chapter 4 evaluates attempts to derive CPT invariance and the spin–statistics connection (SSC) outside the framework of relativistic quantum theories. It first considers attempts at non-relativistic quantum mechanical derivations of the SSC. These attempts split into those that adopt the framework of finite-dimensional (i.e., non-field-theoretic) non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and fall under the general heading of “configuration space approaches,” and an approach that adopts the framework of non-relativistic quantum field theory. The chapter indicates how recent work in the philosophy of physics literature on the relation between permutation invariance and indistinguishability sheds light on the limitations of the former, while the discussion in Chapter 3 demonstrates where the latter fails. The chapter then considers attempts to derive CPT invariance in relativistic classical field theories from both a pragmatist (Lagrangian) and a purist (algebraic) perspective.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Apr 1, 2016•0 citations

Relativistic invariance in quantum mechanics

Eugene Paul Wigner

Il Nuovo Cimento•Mar 1, 1956•44 citations
Chapter 5 addresses the question, “What explains CPT invariance and the spin–statistics connection (SSC)?” It first considers why we should care about explaining CPT invariance and the SSC. It then argues that the CPT and spin–statistics theorems cannot be said to provide the sought after explanations. It offers instead an explanation of the SSC in interacting non-relativistic theories. This explanation explains by virtue of a derivation from non-fundamental principles in non-interacting relativistic quantum field theories (RQFTs), and an explication of intertheoretic relations between interacting RQFTs, non-interacting RQFTs, and interacting non-relativistic theories. The chapter ends by arguing that the presence of both the SSC and CPT invariance in realistic interacting RQFTs cannot be explained by even this type of explanation, and that currently, the existence problem precludes a full understanding of these properties in realistic interacting RQFTs.
Lorentz invariance is considered a fundamental property of relativistic quantum theory. However, in standard quantum theory this invariance is only partially realized: while relativistic wave equations like the Dirac equation are Lorentz invariant, the collapse postulate is not. In the non-relativistic domain, alternative theories have been formulated, like Bohmian mechanics and spontaneous collapse theories, which dispense with the problematic collapse postulate. Extending these theories to the relativistic domain appears challenging, particularly with respect to implementing Lorentz invariance, mainly due to the unavoidable non-locality implied by Bell’s theorem. However, space-time theories can also trivially be formulated in a Lorentz-invariant way. If Lorentz invariance is to impose a genuine constraint on the content of a physical theory, one should aim for what can be called substantive Lorentz invariance. However, articulating a precise definition of this notion is notoriously difficult. This paper investigates two candidate criteria: Anderson’s criterion based on the identification of absolute objects, and a relativity principle for isolated subsystems. These criteria are applied to evaluate several Lorentz-invariant Bohmian models, a spontaneous collapse model, and a version of the Many-Worlds theory. With the exception of two Bohmian approaches, these models satisfy both criteria. Nevertheless, some Bohmian models that meet these conditions still do not appear to be substantively Lorentz-invariant, suggesting that the proposed criteria may not fully capture the intended concept. Nevertheless, they help clarify what aspects of relativity theory may need to be given up in passing from classical to quantum theory.
Chapter 4 evaluates attempts to derive CPT invariance and the spin–statistics connection (SSC) outside the framework of relativistic quantum theories. It first considers attempts at non-relativistic quantum mechanical derivations of the SSC. These attempts split into those that adopt the framework of finite-dimensional (i.e., non-field-theoretic) non-relativistic quantum mechanics, and fall under the general heading of “configuration space approaches,” and an approach that adopts the framework of non-relativistic quantum field theory. The chapter indicates how recent work in the philosophy of physics literature on the relation between permutation invariance and indistinguishability sheds light on the limitations of the former, while the discussion in Chapter 3 demonstrates where the latter fails. The chapter then considers attempts to derive CPT invariance in relativistic classical field theories from both a pragmatist (Lagrangian) and a purist (algebraic) perspective.