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

arXiv:gr-qc/0111037

A note on the foundation of relativistic mechanics. I: Relativistic observables and relativistic states

Carlo Rovelli C

Published Nov 13, 2001• 16 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Is there a version of the notions of "state" and "observable" wide enough to apply naturally and in a covariant manner to relativistic systems? I discuss here a tentative answer.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.gr-qc/0111037

Related papers

On the Probabilistic Compatibility of Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Thomas Marlow

In this paper we introduce the three main notions of probability used by physicists and discuss how these are to be used when invoking spacelike separated observers in a relativistic format. We discuss a standard EPRB experiment and concentrate upon problems of the interpretation of probabilities. We promote a particularly conservative interpretation of this experiment (which need not invoke an objective notion of collapse) where probabilities are, tentatively, passively Lorentz invariant. We also argue that the Heisenberg picture is preferable in relativistic situations due to a conflict between the Schrodinger picture and passive Lorentz transformations of probabilities. Throughout most of this paper we discuss the relative frequency interpretation of probability as this is most commonly used. We also introduce the logically necessary notion of `prior-frequency' in discussing whether the choice by an observer can have any causal effect upon the measurement results of another. We also critically examine the foundational use of relative frequency in no-signalling theorems. We argue that SQT and SR are probabilistically compatible, although we do not discuss whether they are compatible on the level of individual events.

arXiv:quant-ph/0501131•Jan 24, 2005•0 citations

On the definition and evolution of states in relativistic classical and quantum mechanics

Lawrence Paul Horwitz

Foundations of Physics•Mar 1, 1992•31 citations

The Relativistic Transactional Interpretation and The Quantum Direct-Action Theory

Ruth E. Kastner

This paper presents key aspects of the quantum relativistic direct-action theory that underlies the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation. It notes some crucial ways in which traditional interpretations of the direct-action theory have impeded progress in developing its quantum counterpart. Specifically, (1) the so-called 'light tight box' condition is re-examined and it is shown that the quantum version of this condition is much less restrictive than has long been assumed; and (2) the notion of a 'real photon' is disambiguated and revised to take into account that real (on-shell) photons are indeed both emitted and absorbed and therefore have finite lifetimes. Also discussed is the manner in which real, physical non-unitarity naturally arises in the quantum direct-action theory of fields, such that the measurement transition can be clearly defined from within the theory, without reference to external observers and without any need to modify quantum theory itself. It is shown that field quantization arises from the non-unitary interaction.

arXiv:2101.00712•Jan 3, 2021•2 citations

Definition and evolution of states in relativistic classical and quantum mechanics

Lawrence Paul Horwitz

•Sep 1, 1991•0 citations

The quest for understanding in relativistic quantum physics

Detlev Buchholz A, Rudolf Haag

We discuss the status and some perspectives of relativistic quantum physics.

arXiv:hep-th/9910243•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jun 1, 2000•34 citations

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations
In this paper we introduce the three main notions of probability used by physicists and discuss how these are to be used when invoking spacelike separated observers in a relativistic format. We discuss a standard EPRB experiment and concentrate upon problems of the interpretation of probabilities. We promote a particularly conservative interpretation of this experiment (which need not invoke an objective notion of collapse) where probabilities are, tentatively, passively Lorentz invariant. We also argue that the Heisenberg picture is preferable in relativistic situations due to a conflict between the Schrodinger picture and passive Lorentz transformations of probabilities. Throughout most of this paper we discuss the relative frequency interpretation of probability as this is most commonly used. We also introduce the logically necessary notion of `prior-frequency' in discussing whether the choice by an observer can have any causal effect upon the measurement results of another. We also critically examine the foundational use of relative frequency in no-signalling theorems. We argue that SQT and SR are probabilistically compatible, although we do not discuss whether they are compatible on the level of individual events.
This paper presents key aspects of the quantum relativistic direct-action theory that underlies the Relativistic Transactional Interpretation. It notes some crucial ways in which traditional interpretations of the direct-action theory have impeded progress in developing its quantum counterpart. Specifically, (1) the so-called 'light tight box' condition is re-examined and it is shown that the quantum version of this condition is much less restrictive than has long been assumed; and (2) the notion of a 'real photon' is disambiguated and revised to take into account that real (on-shell) photons are indeed both emitted and absorbed and therefore have finite lifetimes. Also discussed is the manner in which real, physical non-unitarity naturally arises in the quantum direct-action theory of fields, such that the measurement transition can be clearly defined from within the theory, without reference to external observers and without any need to modify quantum theory itself. It is shown that field quantization arises from the non-unitary interaction.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.