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:quant-ph/0109120 · Physical Review A

Comment on “Classical interventions in quantum systems II. Relativistic invariance”

Hrvoje Nikolić

Published Nov 9, 2001• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 61, 022117 (2000)], A. Peres argued that quantum mechanics is consistent with special relativity by proposing that the operators that describe time evolution do not need to transform covariantly, although the measurable quantities need to transform covariantly. We discuss the weaknesses of this proposal.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.64.066101

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Classical interventions in quantum systems. II. Relativistic Invariance’ ”

Asher Peres

Contrary to the claim in the preceding Comment, the operators that describe the complete time evolution of a quantum system have a covariant transformation law, even though they are built from expressions that belong to separate subsystems and do not obey Lorentz transformations. The reason is that these are open subsystems, and different parts of the universe are excluded in their description. However, the complete system still obeys Lorentz covariance.

Physical Review A•Nov 9, 2001•2 citations

Classical interventions in quantum systems. II. Relativistic invariance

Asher Peres

If several interventions performed on a quantum system are localized in mutually spacelike regions, they will be recorded as a sequence of ``quantum jumps'' in one Lorentz frame, and as a different sequence of jumps in another Lorentz frame. Conditions are specified that must be obeyed by the various operators involved in the calculations, so that these two different sequences lead to the same observable results. These conditions are similar to the equal-time commutation relations in quantum field theory. They are sufficient to prevent superluminal signaling. (The derivation of these results does not require most of the contents of the preceding article [Peres, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022116 (2000)]. What is needed is briefly summarized here, so that the present article is essentially self-contained.)

arXiv:quant-ph/9906034•Physical Review A•Jan 18, 2000•49 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

Lorentz Transformation in Quantum Mechanics

Marcello Baldo

The compatibility of special relativity and Quantum Mechanics has been questioned by several authors. The origin of this tension can be traced back mainly to the introduction of the measurement processes and the corresponding wave function reduction, which play a crucial role in Quantum Mechanics. We approach this problem with the help of a recent proposal for a model of Quantum Mechanics, where the measurement is explicitly described as a specific stochastic process. This implements ordinary Quantum Mechanics, where measurement and reduction are treated as phenomenological events of unknown origin without any physical justification. To state clearly the question in general, we first discuss and establish the effect of a Lorentz transformation on a generic wave function in space-time. Alongside the analysis we formulate the relativistic version of the model. We then consider few thought experiments in order to analyze to what extent Quantum Mechanics follows relativistic invariance and find the specific critical points where non invariance possibly occurs. The analysis can shade light to the interpretation of the existing experimental observations.

quant-pharXiv:2511.11342•Nov 17, 2025•0 citations

ELEMENTARY REMARKS ABOUT THE TIME, MASS AND RELATIVISTIC DYNAMICS OF QUANTUM SYSTEMS

I. Lazanu

One of the most profound and difficult problems of physics in the last century is the construction of a simple theory which unites the ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity. The concepts which are used in quantum mechanics related to the measurements of positions, momenta, energy and time, are the same concepts in terms of which the special relativistic postulates are formulated. Hence, it is at least possible to formulate the requirement of special relativistic invariance for quantum theories and to ascertain whether these requirements are satisfied. The fact that the answer is nearer to no than to yes, that quantum mechanics has not yet been fully adjusted to the postulates of the special theory, is perhaps irritating. In the general theory of relativity, the situation is different: the space-time coordinates are only auxiliary quantities to which arbitrary values for every event could be given. Hence, the measurement of position, that is, of the space coordin ates, is certainly not a significant measurement if the postulates of the general theory are adopted: any arbitrary value can be given to the coordinates. The same holds for momenta. The purpose of this brief paper is to make in principle some personal and particular remarks on the fundamental concepts of time and mass. Some comments about the consequences on the relativistic dynamics of quantum systems are also formulated.

•Jan 1, 2003•1 citation

Is the usual notion of time evolution adequate for quantum-mechanical systems? II. Relativistic considerations

Yakir Aharonov, David Z. Albert

The measurement of nonlocal properties of relativistic quantum-mechanical systems, the compatibility (or lack of it) of two or more such measurements, and various other of their characteristics are considered; and with these notions in hand an old problem (which is to produce a covariant description of the state reduction associated with the measuring process) is attacked, and succumbs. The solution requires us to depart (not as we did in part I of the present work, but in an entirely different direction) from the usual picture of the time evolution of quantum states.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jan 15, 1984•103 citations
If several interventions performed on a quantum system are localized in mutually spacelike regions, they will be recorded as a sequence of ``quantum jumps'' in one Lorentz frame, and as a different sequence of jumps in another Lorentz frame. Conditions are specified that must be obeyed by the various operators involved in the calculations, so that these two different sequences lead to the same observable results. These conditions are similar to the equal-time commutation relations in quantum field theory. They are sufficient to prevent superluminal signaling. (The derivation of these results does not require most of the contents of the preceding article [Peres, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022116 (2000)]. What is needed is briefly summarized here, so that the present article is essentially self-contained.)
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.
The compatibility of special relativity and Quantum Mechanics has been questioned by several authors. The origin of this tension can be traced back mainly to the introduction of the measurement processes and the corresponding wave function reduction, which play a crucial role in Quantum Mechanics. We approach this problem with the help of a recent proposal for a model of Quantum Mechanics, where the measurement is explicitly described as a specific stochastic process. This implements ordinary Quantum Mechanics, where measurement and reduction are treated as phenomenological events of unknown origin without any physical justification. To state clearly the question in general, we first discuss and establish the effect of a Lorentz transformation on a generic wave function in space-time. Alongside the analysis we formulate the relativistic version of the model. We then consider few thought experiments in order to analyze to what extent Quantum Mechanics follows relativistic invariance and find the specific critical points where non invariance possibly occurs. The analysis can shade light to the interpretation of the existing experimental observations.
One of the most profound and difficult problems of physics in the last century is the construction of a simple theory which unites the ideas of quantum mechanics and relativity. The concepts which are used in quantum mechanics related to the measurements of positions, momenta, energy and time, are the same concepts in terms of which the special relativistic postulates are formulated. Hence, it is at least possible to formulate the requirement of special relativistic invariance for quantum theories and to ascertain whether these requirements are satisfied. The fact that the answer is nearer to no than to yes, that quantum mechanics has not yet been fully adjusted to the postulates of the special theory, is perhaps irritating. In the general theory of relativity, the situation is different: the space-time coordinates are only auxiliary quantities to which arbitrary values for every event could be given. Hence, the measurement of position, that is, of the space coordin ates, is certainly not a significant measurement if the postulates of the general theory are adopted: any arbitrary value can be given to the coordinates. The same holds for momenta. The purpose of this brief paper is to make in principle some personal and particular remarks on the fundamental concepts of time and mass. Some comments about the consequences on the relativistic dynamics of quantum systems are also formulated.
The measurement of nonlocal properties of relativistic quantum-mechanical systems, the compatibility (or lack of it) of two or more such measurements, and various other of their characteristics are considered; and with these notions in hand an old problem (which is to produce a covariant description of the state reduction associated with the measuring process) is attacked, and succumbs. The solution requires us to depart (not as we did in part I of the present work, but in an entirely different direction) from the usual picture of the time evolution of quantum states.