Relativistic corrections to CHSH vs. Preferred frame

In summary: The paper argues that there is a specific - and TESTABLE - difference in the quantum predictions (spin correlation of entangled pairs of electrons or protons moving in opposite directions at a very high velocity) between these 2 important scenarios:a) There IS a universal preferred reference frame (key to many non-local Bohmian type theories), and the standard CHSH inequalities hold (QM prediction of about 2.8 violates local realistic upper limit of 2.0 at all). If this were true, it would be powerful ammunition for Bohmian class theories and non-locality.b) There IS NO preferred frame - as expected per virtually all formulations of relativity, BUT the standard CHSH predictions of Q
  • #1
DrChinese
Science Advisor
Gold Member
8,128
1,878
OK, here is an interesting assertion I haven't seen before. Thought I would see what some of the folks here think. The paper is:

Quantum Preferred Frame: Does It Really Exist? by J. Rembielinski, K. A. Smolinski (2009)

Abstract: "The idea of the preferred frame as a remedy for difficulties of the relativistic quantum mechanics in description of the non-local quantum phenomena was undertaken by such physicists as J. S. Bell and D. Bohm. The possibility of the existence of preferred frame was also seriously treated by P. A. M. Dirac. In this paper, we propose an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type experiment for testing the possible existence of a quantum preferred frame. Our analysis suggests that to verify whether a preferred frame of reference in the quantum world exists it is enough to perform an EPR type experiment with pair of observers staying in the same inertial frame and with use of the massive EPR pair of spin one-half or spin one particles."

In essence, they argue that there is a specific - and TESTABLE - difference in the quantum predictions (spin correlation of entangled pairs of electrons or protons moving in opposite directions at a very high velocity) between these 2 important scenarios:

a) There IS a universal preferred reference frame (key to many non-local Bohmian type theories), and the standard CHSH inequalities hold (QM prediction of about 2.8 violates local realistic upper limit of 2.0 at all). If this were true, it would be powerful ammunition for Bohmian class theories and non-locality.

b) There IS NO preferred frame - as expected per virtually all formulations of relativity, BUT the standard CHSH predictions of QM require a relativistic correction which drops the predicted value below the local realistic upper limit of 2.0 when the associated velocity v exceeds about 80% of c. If this were true - you would expect it would be - it would lead to some very interesting ways to probe entanglement in the relativistic limit; and would rule out non-locality as described by most Bohmian theories.

The authors describe prior experiments in which entangled proton pairs have been observed at v of about .40 to .50 c, but these velocities are too low to see any measurable difference between a) and b) above. By increasing v, such experiments could distinguish between these scenarios and settle a very important point in quantum theory... assuming the authors' theoretical analysis is correct.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
It seems that they assume non-locality and then make speculations about different types of possible non-localities.
So performing proposed experiment can prove nothing if you do not assume non-locality. In that case scenario a) should be expected but not as a proof of universal preferred frame.
 
  • #3
Interesting, thanks for posting.

zonde said:
It seems that they assume non-locality and then make speculations about different types of possible non-localities.

Are you thinking about the MWI locality ?
 
  • #4
Pio2001 said:
Are you thinking about the MWI locality ?
No. I am thinking about locality you get when you conclude that fair sampling can not be assumed in photon entanglement experiments and consequently conclude that Bell's theorem is not applicable there. But not really like locality in usual LHV but more like context dependent variables.
 

1. What are relativistic corrections to CHSH vs. preferred frame?

Relativistic corrections to CHSH (Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt) refer to adjustments made to the CHSH inequality, which is a test used to determine if quantum mechanics violates local realism. Preferred frame, on the other hand, is a concept in relativity where an observer's frame of reference is considered to be special. When discussing CHSH and preferred frame together, it usually refers to the effects of special relativity on the CHSH inequality.

2. Why are relativistic corrections important in the context of CHSH vs. preferred frame?

Relativistic corrections are important because they allow for a more accurate interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the context of special relativity. Without these corrections, the results of the CHSH test may be skewed and not reflect the true nature of quantum mechanics and local realism.

3. How do relativistic corrections affect the CHSH inequality?

Relativistic corrections can affect the CHSH inequality in several ways. One of the main effects is that they can change the values of the CHSH parameters, which can ultimately impact the results of the test. Additionally, relativistic corrections can also introduce new terms and factors into the inequality, making it more complex.

4. Are there any experiments that have been done to test relativistic corrections to CHSH vs. preferred frame?

Yes, there have been several experiments conducted to test the effects of relativistic corrections on the CHSH inequality. One notable experiment was the Aspect experiment, which used entangled photons to test the CHSH inequality and its predictions in a relativistic context. The results of this and other experiments have shown that relativistic corrections do indeed play a significant role in the CHSH test.

5. What are the implications of relativistic corrections to CHSH vs. preferred frame?

The implications of relativistic corrections to CHSH vs. preferred frame are still a subject of debate in the scientific community. Some argue that these corrections reinforce the validity of quantum mechanics and its ability to explain phenomena, while others believe that they may point to a deeper understanding of the relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity. Further research and experiments are needed to fully understand the implications of these corrections.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
Replies
50
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
852
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
Back
Top