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

WORLD SCIENTIFIC (EUROPE) eBooks

Quantum Principle of Relativity

Published Dec 1, 2021• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates.The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality.To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible.Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior.We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.

DOI
10.1142/9781800610811_0004

Related papers

Quantum principle of relativity

Andrzej Dragan, Artur Ekert

Abstract Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates. The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality. To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible. Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior. We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories. This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.

arXiv:1910.02780•New Journal of Physics•Feb 17, 2020•28 citations

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Ryszard Horodecki

Abstract Dragan and Ekert in the paper (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented ‘quantum principle of relativity’ (QPR) based on Galilean principle of relativity, which involves both superluminal GS and subluminal Gs families of observers and argue that then they are considered on the same footing it ‘implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.’ Here we discuss QPR in the context of Heisenberg’s classification of the fundamental physical theoretical models under the role universal constants of nature: Planck’s constant h and speed of light c. We point out that both the superluminal and subluminal branches are separable in the sense that there is no mathematical coherent formalism that connect both branches. This, in particular, implies that the QPR is incomplete.

arXiv:2301.07802•New Journal of Physics•Nov 30, 2023•7 citations

Quantum Theory finally reconciled with Special Relativity

Daniele Tommasini

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This paradox is supposed to be related to the probabilistic nature of the theory, but since deterministic alternatives involving "Hidden Variables" hardly agree with the experiments, the scientific community is now accepting this ``quantum nonlocality" as if it were a reality. However, I have argued recently that Quantum Electrodynamics is free from the EPR paradox, due to an indetermination on the number of the unobserved "soft photons" that can be present in any step of any experiment. Here, I will provide a more general proof, based on an approach to the "problem of measurement" that implies the full reconciliation of Quantum Field Theory with Special Relativity. I will then conclude with some considerations on the interpretation of the Quantum Theory itself.

arXiv:quant-ph/0111083•Nov 15, 2001•0 citations

Conditions for Lorentz-invariant superluminal information transfer without signaling

G Grössing, S Fussy, J Mesa Pascasio +1 more

We understand emergent quantum mechanics in the sense that quantum mechanics describes processes of physical emergence relating an assumed sub-quantum physics to macroscopic boundary conditions. The latter can be shown to entail top-down causation, in addition to usual bottom-up scenarios. With this example it is demonstrated that definitions of "realism" in the literature are simply too restrictive. A prevailing manner to define realism in quantum mechanics is in terms of pre-determination independent of the measurement. With our counter-example, which actually is ubiquitous in emergent, or self-organizing, systems, we argue for realism without pre-determination . We refer to earlier results of our group showing how the guiding equation of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can be derived from a theory with classical ingredients only. Essentially, this corresponds to a "quantum mechanics without wave functions" in ordinary 3-space, albeit with nonlocal correlations. This, then, leads to the central question of how to deal with the nonlocality problem in a relativistic setting. We here show that a basic argument discussing the allegedly paradox time ordering of events in EPR-type two-particle experiments falls short of taking into account the contextuality of the experimental setup. Consequently, we then discuss under which circumstances (i.e. physical premises) superluminal information transfer (but not signaling) may be compatible with a Lorentz-invariant theory. Finally, we argue that the impossibility of superluminal signaling - despite the presence of superluminal information transfer - is not the result of some sort of conspiracy (á la "Nature likes to hide"), but the consequence of the impossibility to exactly reproduce in repeated experimental runs a state's preparation, or of the no-cloning theorem, respectively.

arXiv:1603.02123•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Mar 1, 2016•2 citations

Comment on ‘Quantum principle of relativity’

Andrzej Grudka, Antoni Wójcik

Abstract Recently Dragan and Ekert (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented arguments that probabilistic dynamics inherent in the realm of quantum physics is related to the propagation of superluminal particles. Moreover they argue that existence of such particles is a natural consequence of the principle of relativity. We show that the proposed extension of the Lorentz transformation can be interpreted in a natural way without invoking superluminal phenomena.

arXiv:2112.05658•New Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2022•8 citations

Relativity Is Not About Spacetime

Edward J. Gillis

Quantum measurement predictions are consistent with relativity for macroscopic observations, but there is no consensus on how to explain this consistency in fundamental terms. The prevailing assumption is that the relativistic structure of spacetime should provide the framework for any microphysical account. This bias is due, in large part, to our intuitions about local causality, the idea that all physical processes propagate through space in a continuous manner. I argue that relativity is not a guarantor of local causality, and is not about ontological features of spacetime. It is, rather, an expression of the observational equivalence of spacetime descriptions of physical processes. This observational equivalence is due to the essentially probabilistic nature of quantum theory.

arXiv:1210.3575•Oct 9, 2012•1 citation
Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates.The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality.To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible.Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior.We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.
Abstract Quantum mechanics is an incredibly successful theory and yet the statistical nature of its predictions is hard to accept and has been the subject of numerous debates. The notion of inherent randomness, something that happens without any cause, goes against our rational understanding of reality. To add to the puzzle, randomness that appears in non-relativistic quantum theory tacitly respects relativity, for example, it makes instantaneous signaling impossible. Here, we argue that this is because the special theory of relativity can itself account for such a random behavior. We show that the full mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, the one which includes the superluminal part, implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories. This indicates that the connections between the two seemingly different theories are deeper and more subtle than previously thought.
Abstract Dragan and Ekert in the paper (2020 New. J. Phys. 22 033038) presented ‘quantum principle of relativity’ (QPR) based on Galilean principle of relativity, which involves both superluminal GS and subluminal Gs families of observers and argue that then they are considered on the same footing it ‘implies the emergence of non-deterministic dynamics, together with complex probability amplitudes and multiple trajectories.’ Here we discuss QPR in the context of Heisenberg’s classification of the fundamental physical theoretical models under the role universal constants of nature: Planck’s constant h and speed of light c. We point out that both the superluminal and subluminal branches are separable in the sense that there is no mathematical coherent formalism that connect both branches. This, in particular, implies that the QPR is incomplete.
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) pointed out that Quantum Mechanics apparently implied some mysterious, instantaneous action at a distance. This paradox is supposed to be related to the probabilistic nature of the theory, but since deterministic alternatives involving "Hidden Variables" hardly agree with the experiments, the scientific community is now accepting this ``quantum nonlocality" as if it were a reality. However, I have argued recently that Quantum Electrodynamics is free from the EPR paradox, due to an indetermination on the number of the unobserved "soft photons" that can be present in any step of any experiment. Here, I will provide a more general proof, based on an approach to the "problem of measurement" that implies the full reconciliation of Quantum Field Theory with Special Relativity. I will then conclude with some considerations on the interpretation of the Quantum Theory itself.
We understand emergent quantum mechanics in the sense that quantum mechanics describes processes of physical emergence relating an assumed sub-quantum physics to macroscopic boundary conditions. The latter can be shown to entail top-down causation, in addition to usual bottom-up scenarios. With this example it is demonstrated that definitions of "realism" in the literature are simply too restrictive. A prevailing manner to define realism in quantum mechanics is in terms of pre-determination independent of the measurement. With our counter-example, which actually is ubiquitous in emergent, or self-organizing, systems, we argue for realism without pre-determination . We refer to earlier results of our group showing how the guiding equation of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation can be derived from a theory with classical ingredients only. Essentially, this corresponds to a "quantum mechanics without wave functions" in ordinary 3-space, albeit with nonlocal correlations. This, then, leads to the central question of how to deal with the nonlocality problem in a relativistic setting. We here show that a basic argument discussing the allegedly paradox time ordering of events in EPR-type two-particle experiments falls short of taking into account the contextuality of the experimental setup. Consequently, we then discuss under which circumstances (i.e. physical premises) superluminal information transfer (but not signaling) may be compatible with a Lorentz-invariant theory. Finally, we argue that the impossibility of superluminal signaling - despite the presence of superluminal information transfer - is not the result of some sort of conspiracy (á la "Nature likes to hide"), but the consequence of the impossibility to exactly reproduce in repeated experimental runs a state's preparation, or of the no-cloning theorem, respectively.
Quantum measurement predictions are consistent with relativity for macroscopic observations, but there is no consensus on how to explain this consistency in fundamental terms. The prevailing assumption is that the relativistic structure of spacetime should provide the framework for any microphysical account. This bias is due, in large part, to our intuitions about local causality, the idea that all physical processes propagate through space in a continuous manner. I argue that relativity is not a guarantor of local causality, and is not about ontological features of spacetime. It is, rather, an expression of the observational equivalence of spacetime descriptions of physical processes. This observational equivalence is due to the essentially probabilistic nature of quantum theory.