It is argued that the standard quantum mechanical description of the Bell correlations between entangled subsystems is in conflict with relativistic space-time symmetry. Proposals to abandon relativistic symmetry, in the sense of explicitly returning to an absolute time and preferred frame, are rejected on the grounds that the preferred frame is not empirically detectable, so the asymmetry is an unsatisfactory feature in physical theory. A "symmetric view" is proposed in which measurement events on space-like separated entangled subsystems are connected by a symmetric two-way mutual influence. Because of this reciprocity, there is complete symmetry of the description: Einsteinian relativity of simultaneity and space-time symmetry are completely preserved. The nature of the two-way influence is considered, as well as the possibility of an empirical test.
It is argued that the standard quantum mechanical description of the Bell correlations between entangled subsystems is in conflict with relativistic space-time symmetry. Proposals to abandon relativistic symmetry, in the sense of explicitly returning to an absolute time and preferred frame, are rejected on the grounds that the preferred frame is not empirically detectable, so the asymmetry is an unsatisfactory feature in physical theory. A "symmetric view" is proposed in which measurement events on space-like separated entangled subsystems are connected by a symmetric two-way mutual influence. Because of this reciprocity, there is complete symmetry of the description: Einsteinian relativity of simultaneity and space-time symmetry are completely preserved. The nature of the two-way influence is considered, as well as the possibility of an empirical test.
One of the most fundamental phenomena of quantum physics is entanglement. It describes an inseparable connection between quantum systems, and properties thereof. In a quantum mechanical description even systems far apart from each other can share a common state. This entanglement of the subsystems, although arising from mathematical principles, is no mere abstract concept, but can be tested in experiment, and be utilized in modern quantum information theory procedures, such as quantum teleportation. In particular, entangled states play a crucial role in testing our understanding of reality, by violating Bell inequalities. While the role of entanglement is well studied in the realm of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, its significance in a relativistic quantum theory is a relatively new field of interest. In this work the consequences of a relativistic description of quantum entanglement are discussed. We analyze the representations of the symmetry groups of special relativity, i.e. of the Lorentz group, and the Poincaré group, on the Hilbert space of states. We describe how unitary, irreducible representations of the Poincaré group for massive spin 1/2 particles are constructed from representations of Wigner's little group. We then proceed to investigate the role of the Wigner rotations in the transformation of quantum states under a change of inertial reference frame. Considering different partitions of the Hilbert space of 2 particles, we find that the entanglement of the quantum states appears different in different inertial frames, depending on the form of the states, the chosen inertial frames, and the particular choice of partition. It is explained, how, despite of this, the maximally possible violation of Bell inequalities is frame independent, when using appropriate spin observables, which are related to the Pauli-Ljubanski vector, a Casimir operator of the Poincaré group.
Abstract Quantum mechanics and relativity are two of the most successful theoretical frameworks in modern physics, yet their conceptual foundations remain difficult to reconcile at the deepest level. Quantum theory describes physical systems through states, observables, probabilities, measurement contexts, superposition, entanglement, and nonclassical correlations. Relativity describes physical processes through space-time structure, causal order, invariant physical law, observer-dependent decomposition of time and space, and constraints on signal propagation. This article examines the conceptual relationship between quantum measurement, relativistic causality, and space-time description. The purpose is not to present a mathematical unification but to analyze how the two frameworks organize physical explanation differently and where their interpretive tensions arise. Special attention is given to the measurement problem, the status of quantum states, the role of observers and reference frames, the meaning of locality, the distinction between correlation and causal influence, and the challenge of describing quantum processes without privileging a single global time. The article argues that many apparent conflicts between quantum theory and relativity result from importing classical intuitions into domains where they no longer apply. Quantum entanglement does not permit controllable faster-than-light communication, yet it challenges classical separability. Relativity forbids superluminal signaling, yet it does not require that all physically meaningful correlations be reducible to local classical properties. Measurement introduces another difficulty because standard quantum theory often describes state update in a way that appears instantaneous, while relativistic space-time does not provide a universal present. The discussion develops a conceptual framework in which quantum measurement is treated as a physical interaction, relativistic causality as a constraint on operational influence, and space-time description as an organizing structure for events rather than a simple background stage. This analysis is relevant for quantum field theory, quantum information, relativistic quantum foundations, and future approaches to quantum gravity.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.
An unconventional outlook on relationship between the quantum mechanics and special relativity is proposed. We show that the two fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics of Planck and de Broglie combined with the idea of comparison scale (explained in the paper), are enough to introduce relativistic description. We argue that Lorentz group is the symmetry group of quantum, preferred frame description. We indicate that the departure from the orthodox relativity postulate allows us, in easy way, to make special relativity and quantum mechanics indivisible whole.
After a review of the problems induced by the Lorentz signature of Minkowski space-time, like the need of a clock synchronization convention for the definition of 3-space and the complexity of the notion of relativistic center of mass, there is the introduction of a new formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics compatible with the theory of relativistic bound states. In it the zeroth postulate of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not valid and the physics is described in the rest frame by a Hilbert space containing only relative variables. The non-locality of the Poincare' generators imply a kinematical non-locality and non-separability influencing the theory of relativistic entanglement and not connected with the standard quantum non-locality.
It has often been suggested that retrocausality offers a solution to some of the puzzles of quantum mechanics: e.g., that it allows a Lorentz-invariant explanation of Bell correlations, and other manifestations of quantum nonlocality, without action-at-a-distance. Some writers have argued that time-symmetry counts in favour of such a view, in the sense that retrocausality would be a natural consequence of a truly time-symmetric theory of the quantum world. Critics object that there is complete time-symmetry in classical physics, and yet no apparent retrocausality. Why should the quantum world be any different? This note throws some new light on these matters. I call attention to a respect in which quantum mechanics is different, under some assumptions about quantum ontology. Under these assumptions, the combination of time-symmetry without retrocausality is unavailable in quantum mechanics, for reasons intimately connected with the differences between classical and quantum physics (especially the role of discreteness in the latter). Not all interpretations of quantum mechanics share these assumptions, however, and in those that do not, time-symmetry does not entail retrocausality.