I visited this web site; http://www.electrodynamics-of-special-relativity.com [Broken] that suggests that there is no contradiction between quantum mechanics and special relativity. The argument is that the full implications of the Lorentz Transformation have never been fully developed. The basic theory seems to say that events on spatially separated quantum systems become super-positioned in space-time if the proper interval of separation has zero magnitude. This allows quantum systems to interact directly without the need of an intermediary carrier particle; the “photon”. The site claims that this interpretation of the consequences of the Lorentz transformation generate a description of quantum electromagnetism which is fully consistent with the presence of the violation of Bell’s inequality, Heisenburg’s Uncertainty principle and interference and diffraction effects.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

In General the conclusions are.

1 Quantum Systems become super-positioned where events are separated by a proper interval of zero magnitude and may interact directly without the need of a photon.

2.WRT HUP. Any event experienced by a quantum system cannot have an exact location on a conventional space-time diagram, it exists roughly on a light cone with the highest probability of interactions occurring close to the apex.

3. The state of any event on a space-time becomes a microcosm of the state of space-time as a whole

4.WRT the violation of Bell’s inequality; in light correlation experiments both sides of the experiment absorb momentum from a single event; in Aspects experiment the cascade of the calcium atom. It is only the state of the calcium atom at the moment of cascading that determines the outcome on either side of the experiment. There are no particles in flight during the experiment. This leaves the angle between the polarisers as the only factor influencing the degree of correlation between the two branches of the experiment. Hence Bell’s inequality will be violated whilst special relativity is not.

5. WRT interference; in let’s say Young’s double slit experiment there is more than one path linking the light source to any point on the screen. Since these paths are normally of different lengths this will lead to any event at a given position on the screen being super-positioned with the source at different times wrt the source! The multiple presences of the source on the screen interfere with each other to produce the interference of light.

6. The electrodynamics of this approach is equivalent to QED.

The maths associated with this approach seems pretty elementary and personally I can find no reason to dispute the logic of the argument, other than it appears to deny the existence of the photon. Perhaps the contradiction comes from trying to fit the photon into our description of the world and not from special relativity? Remove the photon and things get much simpler?

Anyway I would like to see your thoughts on the matter.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Is the Lorentz Transformation responsible for Quantum Weirdness

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**