In this part we will consider recent attempts to get a relativistic CSL theory. The problem of getting such a generalization, or at least of making plausible that it exists, is of great interest. J. Bell (1990), after having expressed his dissatisfaction with the fundamental lack of precision of the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and the opinion that the only available acceptable alternatives are the Pilot Wave and the Spontaneous Localization schemes has stated: The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way. The point of view of this paper is that what is most interesting is not a detailed exposition of the formal aspects of the generalization, but some crucial conceptual points which have come into focus in this attempt.
In this part we will consider recent attempts to get a relativistic CSL theory. The problem of getting such a generalization, or at least of making plausible that it exists, is of great interest. J. Bell (1990), after having expressed his dissatisfaction with the fundamental lack of precision of the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and the opinion that the only available acceptable alternatives are the Pilot Wave and the Spontaneous Localization schemes has stated: The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way. The point of view of this paper is that what is most interesting is not a detailed exposition of the formal aspects of the generalization, but some crucial conceptual points which have come into focus in this attempt.
In this paper I will present conceptions of state reduction and particle and/or system localization which render these subjects fully compatible with the general requirements of a relativistic, i.e. Lorentz invariant, quantum theory. In the case of state reduction, the concept presented has, in it's main features, been advanced by several investigators in recent years, (Giovannini 1983), (Aharonov and Albert 1984), (Malin 1984), (Dieks 1985). My own contribution to this topic has been to elaborate the concept in question and examine, in some detail, the often counterintuitive but never causally anomalous or internally inconsistent consequences that emerge from taking the concept seriously (Fleming 1985,1986). In the case of particle and system localization, the concepts are more nearly my own and have been pursued by me for some time (Fleming 1964, 1965, 1966) as a way of freeing the subject of localization in relativistic quantum systems from the conceptual problems pointed out by Newton and Wigner (1949) myself (Fleming 1965) and extensively studied by Hegerfeldt et. al. (1974, 1980) and Ruijsenaars (1981).
Several experiments have suggested that the complete indistinguishability of quantum systems is to be considered a real phenomenon. Experiments such as the HOM effect, the existence of BECs, the path identity cases, and many others are physical realities of today. Physicists `explain’ these phenomena using different models, such as Bohmian mechanics, relational quantum mechanics or the QBism approach. Most of these models are constructed within a standard mathematical framework, meaning standard mathematics, where all things can, even if only in principle, be distinguished from one another, so complete indistinguishability can only be mimicked. These approaches may work for physical purposes but are debatable regarding logical and metaphysical questions. If we accept that such questions are at least part of the philosophical aspect of quantum physics, then we are authorised to analyse them and try to offer an alternative. Looking for an alternative, we consider Alain Aspect’s and Anton Zeilinger’s views about quantum realism, opting for Aspect’s acceptance of some kind of reality behind the wave-function, while Zeilinger suggests that everything comes from information. In our opinion, the case is the opposite: it is information that comes from the existence of things. The aim of this paper is to justify why we think that the underlying reality (in Aspect’s sense) can be seen as a quantum ontology of non-individuals.
A Lorentz invariant model for gravity-induced quantum state reduction is presented, which is mainly developed from Penrose's argument that the time translation operator in a superposition of macroscopic states is ill-defined. The problem to define a Lorentz invariant stochastic dynamics for the wave-function is solved by assuming that the stochastic time flow is running orthogonal to the deterministic, unitary time evolution inside the four-dimensional space-time, which makes the direction of causality independent from the chosen reference frame. This new view allows to accept Bell's position on the implication of quantum non-locality on relativity, without having to give up the Lorentz invariance of the specified dynamics. It is shown that it is possible to formulate on the basis of this new view a meaningful physical model. The model is also checked for possible higher order effects, which provide new starting points for experimental research.
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.