# Solving the Paradox of Quantum Mechanics & Special Relativity

• chwie
In summary, the collapse of the state in quantum mechanics occurs when a measurement is made, but this raises a paradox when it comes to entangled particles. The paradox is that the collapse can be attributed to different measurements depending on the inertial reference frame, which violates the principle of cause and effect. Additionally, there is a contradiction when incompatible states are measured at the same time for two entangled particles. This raises the question of whether simultaneous measurements will always produce the same result. While some argue that this is a problem of interpretation, the non-local effects of a local measurement are widely accepted in quantum mechanics and raise concerns about causality.
chwie
Introduction: (can be skipped)

We know the problems around the collapse of the state (specially that we don't know how an outcome is selected from the preferred states). Now thousand of experiments shows us that this strange not unitary transformation of the states occurs when a measurement is made. Also Quantum mechanics is not local and there are many experiments of quantum entanglement that can argued in favor of this strange behavior (there is a debate about the validity of this experiments). The paradox between the intrinsic local nature of special relativity and the non-local nature of quantum mechanics is solved because a measurement will destroy the state. This mean that if a guy measure one of the entangle particle he will force the state of the other particle (we are assuming a collapse again) to some state, but the guy that have the other particle have no means to know in which state is his particle, then he will ignored the fact that the other particle was measured. No transfer the information, then no contradiction with special relativity. Now to the key point of this post.

Suppose that both entangled particles are measured and the differences between this events is spacelike. That mean that for some inertia frame both measurement were made a the same time. My question is which one of the measurement produce the collapse of the state? A person can answer that both measurement produced the collapse. That is wrong because in another inertia frame we can see that a measurement was made before the other and by conventional quantum mechanics was this measurement the one that produced the collapse. But in another inertia frame the order of the measurement is the other way around then the other measurement was the one that produced the collapse. The result of the experiment is the same and not information could be transferred, then in this sense there is not a violation to causality, except for the collapse. If we related the collapse as a effect of the measurement, then there is a problem here, causality is violated. I think that the reason of this paradox is that the collapse is not well defined. The paradox is that the collapse was produced by different measurements depending of the inertia reference frame, then we expect from a relation of cause and effect that the order of the events should be invariant, this is not the case. Then how can we said that the measurement cause a collapse?

I hope to see some replies.

Last edited:

Another argument that can be made is that a collapse in the case of entangled particles will happen in some inertia frame, before a measurement was made. The argument is the same. Suppose that you did a measurement of one of the entangled particles, then by the collapse postulate the state of the other particle collapsed. Now like these two events are simultaneously, then there is an inertia frame in which the particle collapse before the measurement and another in which the particle collapse was not simultaneously with the measurement. This is a problem because is impossible to define two events that are simultaneously in any inertial reference frame.

Now the collapse between entangled particles and the measurement should be simultaneously, because if not then we can measure the first particle and like the second will no collapse instantaneously we can measured the second particle before the collapsed happened and have another result. That is an horrible contradiction. Then both should be simultaneously, but at the same time they can't be simultaneous in any inertia reference frame.

another case that I can imagined and we don't need to go to the collapse to see a problem is the case in which to incompatible states are measured at the same time is two entangled particles. Suppose you have the case of a|up up>+|down down> in the z direction. Now you measurement the spin in the z direction of the first particle at the same time you measure the spin in the x direction of the second particle. Using einslection we have two different sets incompatible sets of results of the measurement and that is a contradiction.

Now returning to the collapse of the state we can see that |up up>+|down down> in the z direction can be written as |up up>+|down down> in the x direction. Now is both measurement are spacelike we have that in one inertial frame one is done before the other. Suppose in this inertia frame the particle one was measured first as was up, then both particle are are up in z and after that you measure the spin in the x direction of the second particle and was up and you have the result first particle up in z and second up in x. if we see this from other reference frame in which the second was measured before the first one we have the same result. now that implies that if we measure both particle at the same time we will have the same result?

I think that is a nice question.

Some people can argued that I am using the collapse of the state and related it to some interpretation. What I am using is that when we measure a observable the result is an eigen state of the observable. This is not an interpretation, this have been confirmed by thousands of experiments. Now what is part of interpretation is that this measurement will affect also the state of the other particle instantaneously (non locality of the collapse) that concept is the one that I argued is problematic in the sense of causality. Now that doesn't mean that entaglement cannot happen ( I believe it happen) and local unitary transforms can affect the global state and bla,bla,bla. Now the crucial problem about entanglement and the non-local effects of a local measurement are accepted by many in quantum mechanics and for me that is problematic.

The paradox is solvable by saying there is no real separation to begin with.

chwie said:
... I think that the reason of this paradox is that the collapse is not well defined. The paradox is that the collapse was produced by different measurements depending of the inertia reference frame, then we expect from a relation of cause and effect that the order of the events should be invariant, this is not the case. Then how can we said that the measurement cause a collapse?

I hope to see some replies.

I don't know about the paradox part, but I agree that collapse is not well-defined. Regardless of reference frame considerations, it is equally like that Alice causes the collapse as Bob does (in 2 particle entanglement) since the ordering of the observations does not change the results.

I think it is easiest to consider the overall "context" of an observation, which may involve spacelike or timelike separated components. I.e. the context itself is not restricted to what is local even though the individual components traverse a local timeline. You can see this with entanglement swapping, in which particles become entangled which have never existed in a common light cone.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201134

I know the concept of entanglement swapping and in general I am not attacking the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics. The reason is that this non-local behavior can be used to explain how classical mechanics can emerge from quantum mechanics and that topic is one of my favorites.

Now I am attacking with this paradox three features. First that the interpretation that a measurement produce a collapse instantaneously is contradictory because cause and effect relation cannot be sustained in spacelike separations (the better example is my second post). I know this also attack the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics and I am trying to seek how i can safe this by attacking the collapse. (any idea is appreciated). The paradox here is that a collapse can happen before the measurement. The paradox can be safe by saying that it doesn't matter because the result is the same. I can debate this concept, but for the moment I am more interested in the following concept.

The other point is what happen when we measure the two entangled particle at the same time. basically we have two collapse happening at the same time. Using lorentz invariance with respect to the result of the measurement I found out that is the local collapse (the one produced by the local measurement of each particle) the one that dominates. (this is my second post). This results can be derived also if we assume that there is not a non-local collapse. Now if we assume that there is non-local collapse, then why a measurement is preferred over the other. Quantum mechanics doesn't need to agree with special relativity. Quantum mechanics was created from a non-relativistic point of view, for example in QFT the interactions are local by default following relativity and in my experience with QFT I have never observe a non-local behavior as in traditional quantum mechanics.

My plan right now is to use premeasurement and eniselection to study formally these cases. Probably I am just confused, but I really don't see how can we ignore the last post that i did. Now is not something that is happening and we can't measure. Now we are measuring to stuff at the sametime and by relativity one of this measurement is preferred. I think this can solve by einselection and that is the apparatus the one that produce this. In that sense I probably can solve the last post, but anyway I have a lot of problem with the first two(not matter that the result is the same), but there somethings that we need to accept as weirdness of nature and other that are unacceptable as part of nature(mean the theory is wrong). I need to decide in what list i should put the firsts two posts.

chwie said:
I know the concept of entanglement swapping and in general I am not attacking the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics. The reason is that this non-local behavior can be used to explain how classical mechanics can emerge from quantum mechanics and that topic is one of my favorites.

Now I am attacking with this paradox three features. First that the interpretation that a measurement produce a collapse instantaneously is contradictory because cause and effect relation cannot be sustained in spacelike separations (the better example is my second post). I know this also attack the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics and I am trying to seek how i can safe this by attacking the collapse. (any idea is appreciated). The paradox here is that a collapse can happen before the measurement. The paradox can be safe by saying that it doesn't matter because the result is the same. I can debate this concept, but for the moment I am more interested in the following concept.

The other point is what happen when we measure the two entangled particle at the same time. basically we have two collapse happening at the same time. Using lorentz invariance with respect to the result of the measurement I found out that is the local collapse (the one produced by the local measurement of each particle) the one that dominates. (this is my second post). This results can be derived also if we assume that there is not a non-local collapse. Now if we assume that there is non-local collapse, then why a measurement is preferred over the other. Quantum mechanics doesn't need to agree with special relativity. Quantum mechanics was created from a non-relativistic point of view, for example in QFT the interactions are local by default following relativity and in my experience with QFT I have never observe a non-local behavior as in traditional quantum mechanics.

...

If you throw out the idea that the cause must precede the effect, I don't see a paradox. You cannot really separate one from the other. The context of a measurement involves multiple points in spacetime which are apparently linked without the constraint of the arrow of time, as the reference clearly shows.

yes I agree if we throw the concept that a cause precede a effect there is not paradox. Then if we do that special relativity is doom and our daily experience is just a huge coincident. I don't want to created example of how the word will be if the cause precede the effect, but some of them is the conversations laws(a particle doesn't need a force acting on it to change momentum), the principle of relativity (how can we define an inertial frame) and particle physics (we are going to have production of particle before the particle collided). That is not a solution, if that is the case what is the point to study physics.

chwie said:
yes I agree if we throw the concept that a cause precede a effect there is not paradox. Then if we do that special relativity is doom and our daily experience is just a huge coincident. I don't want to created example of how the word will be if the cause precede the effect, but some of them is the conversations laws(a particle doesn't need a force acting on it to change momentum), the principle of relativity (how can we define an inertial frame) and particle physics (we are going to have production of particle before the particle collided). That is not a solution, if that is the case what is the point to study physics.

I don't see how SR, GR, or any other physical law has an arrow of time embedded in it, so I would disagree with that assessment. We experience the arrow of time, but that seemingly has nothing to do with any of the underlying laws.

Sorry you comment doesn't make sense. In special relativity the four space have embedding an arrow of time (really is an embedding from R to the four space) and this arrow of time is the time coordinate. Now is this embedding was not there then we don't need relativity because it mean the time is not a coordinate, but a parameter. In that case what we can have a is path (obviously is also an embedding). Now this features have nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is a relation between two events. Now one feature that we related to cause and effect is that the projection of the path to the time coordinate is monotonic increasing. That mean that preserve the given order. Now you are telling me that this is not necessary the case. No if you for example in QFT want to calculate the propagator you put a time ordering operator just to insure that this projection is monotonic increasing, now you are telling me that there is not reason for it. That mean that when we calculate a scattering amplitude the result will be wrong because we force an order in cause and effect. Now if a field in the past can affect a particle in the present then obviously the local conversations are wrong. The reason is that this conservation cannot be written in an simply deferential form as a continuity equation (or divergence of an energy-stress tensor) that is well know. That is exactly the reason that the concept of field is some important and is because of the local conservation. For example if we accept the non-local behavior of classical mechanics we will find that at considering electrodynamics the conservation of momentum is not true (the magnetic term is the one that is responsible). how the problem is solved considering locality of the field and assigning a momentum to this field. This is equivalent to assume cause and effect (by my comment before). Also if the order of cause and effect was not invariant for the trajectory of a particle, then need to correct calculate the effect of a field over it to integrate over all times. This is equivalent to put the green function and not the retarded green function (what is the point of the theta(step) function if you are.) We are assuming that the order of cause and effect doesn't change probably in any calculation in physics. If our calculations are not wrong then we are doing something right.

Now also apart that the monotonic behavior of cause and effect is used like one of the most sacred principles of physics (really this is in any area of science.) we have also that cause and effect is not symmetric. if A cause B then is not true in general that B cause A. This strange fact was discovered because of the CP violation and The CPT theorem. Then we have a T violation. From a mathematical point of view it means that the relation fo cause and effect is not a relation of equivalence (equivalence need symmetry) and for that reason cause and effect are not interchangeable.

Last edited:

chwie said:
Sorry you comment doesn't make sense. In special relativity the four space have embedding an arrow of time (really is an embedding from R to the four space) and this arrow of time is the time coordinate. Now is this embedding was not there then we don't need relativity because it mean the time is not a coordinate, but a parameter. In that case what we can have a is path (obviously is also an embedding). Now this features have nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is a relation between two events. Now one feature that we related to cause and effect is that the projection of the path to the time coordinate is monotonic increasing. That mean that preserve the given order. Now you are telling me that this is not necessary the case. No if you for example in QFT want to calculate the propagator you put a time ordering operator just to insure that this projection is monotonic increasing, now you are telling me that there is not reason for it. That mean that when we calculate a scattering amplitude the result will be wrong because we force an order in cause and effect. Now if a field in the past can affect a particle in the present then obviously the local conversations are wrong. The reason is that this conservation cannot be written in an simply deferential form as a continuity equation (or divergence of an energy-stress tensor) that is well know. That is exactly the reason that the concept of field is some important and is because of the local conservation. For example if we accept the non-local behavior of classical mechanics we will find that at considering electrodynamics the conservation of momentum is not true (the magnetic term is the one that is responsible). how the problem is solved considering locality of the field and assigning a momentum to this field. This is equivalent to assume cause and effect (by my comment before). Also if the order of cause and effect was not invariant for the trajectory of a particle, then need to correct calculate the effect of a field over it to integrate over all times. This is equivalent to put the green function and not the retarded green function (what is the point of the theta(step) function if you are.) We are assuming that the order of cause and effect doesn't change probably in any calculation in physics. If our calculations are not wrong then we are doing something right.

Now also apart that the monotonic behavior of cause and effect is used like one of the most sacred principles of physics (really this is in any area of science.) we have also that cause and effect is not symmetric. if A cause B then is not true in general that B cause A. This strange fact was discovered because of the CP violation and The CPT theorem. Then we have a T violation.

You seem to be confusing time ordering with time directionality. Events in time can be well-ordered and still flow in either direction. Dr. Chinese's use of "arrow of time" (which is the conventional one) was referring to the necessity for events to go in one direction only (forward in time), which seems to be only an artifact of our consciousness. There is no arrow of time that is *inherent* in GR or SR ... the only law that *might* necessarily imply an arrow of time is the second law of thermodynamics.

SpectraCat said:
You seem to be confusing time ordering with time directionality. Events in time can be well-ordered and still flow in either direction. Dr. Chinese's use of "arrow of time" (which is the conventional one) was referring to the necessity for events to go in one direction only (forward in time), which seems to be only an artifact of our consciousness. There is no arrow of time that is *inherent* in GR or SR ... the only law that *might* necessarily imply an arrow of time is the second law of thermodynamics.

Thanks, SpectraCat, that is exactly what I am saying! And if you will, allow me to speculate (gasp) on a couple of items:

a) I think it is something that is speculated by many that the arrow of time we see is a consequence of some initial conditions. In other words, the laws of physics are essentially symmetric with respect to the direction of time and there is nothing per se that prevents us from saying: would we notice any difference if the time direction was reversed for everyone? At any rate, I am not aware of any evidence either way on this.

b) Is there really a thermodynamic arrow of time? I would argue NO, and here is my reasoning. I completely agree that the evidence is that entropy increases to the future. But I would argue that entropy ALSO always increases to the past. In other words, any experiment measuring a thermodynamic state involves us starting at T=0 and moving to T=1. T=0 represents a local maximum of our knowledge to the state of the system (which is also to say that the number of possible states it could be in is a local minimum). What happens if you move from T=0 to T=-1? I think a careful analysis will demonstrate that the number of possible states (entropy) increases in BOTH directions from this minimum. The reason you never witness this is that the T=-1 to T=0 region is not a closed system, which it is from T=0 to T=1. On the other hand, I would not say this is a generally accepted viewpoint.

SpectraCat

I will try to understand what you are telling me (sorry for my ignorance). Are you telling me that the projection of a path of a particle over the time coordinate is not monotonic increasing?

Really I don't see how is that possible, but also my field is not GR. Mathematically time is a coordinate then obviously we can have any kind of path, but the constraints make by physics really permit to go backwards in time? Probably I am confusing it, but that doesn't implies that time reversal is a symmetry of nature (which is not the case, then one direction of the flow should not be prefered)? Now suppose that the backwards flow if possible the by time ordering it should be also monotonic decreasing? That mean we don't have a same particle going forward and backward in time or is possible?

The only thing that I need to know is if a effect can precede a cause (that's Drchinese argument). For example is an object will start moving in an inertia reference frame (SR) before a force act on it and is that is possible how this is not a violation of conservation of momentum. I mean we describe physics in terms of field to make sure that all the interaction are not spacelike and to preserve causality. My argument is that to have an interaction that is spacelike is against physics. Not only in classical mechanics(relativisctic) but also in QFT.
Now for what I understand the only thing that I need to preserve causality is an ordering of event and that this ordering should be lorentz invariant (reduce lorentz group (time reversal is not included)). Now the two most important question that I need the answer is:

Is physical possible an space-like interaction?

there is not contradiction with a space-like interaction?

That is the only thing that we need to preserve causality. Doesn't matter the direction of the time flow the ordering of cause and effect events should be lorentz invariant if the interaction is timelike. If you need to choose to answer one question please answer one of the two last question.

DRchinese

Well there is a theorem in QFT that said that CPT is a symmetric of physics. That mean that is there is a CP violation, then we have a Time reversal violation( physics is not the same to both flow of time) This violation is in the weak interaction and have been confirmed experimentally. Now if we limited ourselves to study gravity, electrodynamics and the strong force then there is not Time reversal violation, but there is one force that violates it (weak foce). if that not enough to said that time reversal is not a symmetry of nature? Also this time reversal violation theoretical are needed to explain what we observe more matter than anti-matter in the universe.

Last edited:

chwie said:
SpectraCat

I will try to understand what you are telling me (sorry for my ignorance). Are you telling me that the projection of a path of a particle over the time coordinate is not monotonic increasing?

Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying there. It sounds like you are describing the increase of an integrated quantity as you increase the time interval over which it is integrated. As far as I can tell, that is true independent of the directionality of the time ordering ... reversing the ordering isn't the same as decreasing the size of the time-interval of integration, which is what would cause the integrated quantity to decrease monotonically.

The only thing that I need to know is if a effect can precede a cause (that's Drchinese argument). For example is an object will start moving in an inertia reference frame (SR) before a force act on it and is that is possible how this is not a violation of conservation of momentum. I mean we describe physics in terms of field to make sure that all the interaction are not spacelike and to preserve causality. My argument is that to have an interaction that is spacelike is against physics. Not only in classical mechanics(relativisctic) but also in QFT.
Now for what I understand the only thing that I need to preserve causality is an ordering of event and that this ordering should be lorentz invariant (reduce lorentz group (time reversal is not included)).

Now the two most important question that I need the answer is:

Is physical possible an space-like interaction?

there is not contradiction with a space-like interaction?

That is the only thing that we need to preserve causality. Doesn't matter the direction of the time flow the ordering of cause and effect events should be lorentz invariant if the interaction is timelike.

To me, it seems this is a complete different question that the issues we were discussing above .. but since this is your thread, perhaps I have missed an important point somewhere.

Anyway, I am not sure what a "spacelike interaction" would be, other than some sort of FTL effect between light-cones. I am not an expert on this stuff, but I would tend to agree with you that such a thing is impossible according to relativity. Actually, this line of questioning makes clear to me in a new way why so many people have a problem accepting the non-locality implied by QM entanglement. However, as far as we can tell, the collapse of entangled states is a phenomenon that does not result in any violations of relativity that we can detect through experiments on entangled states. The best guess I can give for why this might be is that there ARE things that can propagate faster than light in physics. For example, the "FTL scissors problem" where the intersection point between two blades whose tips are approaching at near light speed can be made to "move" arbitrarily fast by increasing the lengths of the blades. Group velocity and phase velocities of propagating waves can also assume supraluminal velocities .. a list of allowable FTL phenomena that do not violate relativity is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light.

So, the preponderance of evidence suggests that collapse of entangled wavefunctions is another example of an allowable FTL phenomenon (i.e. one that does not allow FTL propagation of information), and as such, does not correspond to the kind of relativity-violating phenomenon implied by the "space-like interaction" you mentioned.

Thank You for the advice I will check the list.

I know I am hunting ghost here, but if quantum mechanics is based in a non-relativistic classical mechanics then is surprising that the non-locality of quantum mechanics cause not problem with relativity. now the assumptions that came from directly from classical mechanics (as symmetries and non-local potential) are a problem and the no conservation of particle number. The quantum mechanic in general is not a relativistic theory and doesn't need to agree with relativity (it doesn't) but this peculiar features does. I think that the non-local behavior of quantum mechanics can be constrained in some way (not eliminated) by examining it carefully which at the moment is impossible because the collapse is just a crazy non-unitary evolution that during a century have not shown their cards. I will try to work some of this using decoherence (decoherence need entanglement, but entanglement and non-locality are not equivalent, that's something that many people ignore).

Also returned to the last topic. To have flow of time in any direction then we are saying that the system is invariant with respect to time reversal. Now nature in general is not invariant with time reversal, for example the weak interaction. Gravity, ED and CD are invariant under T, but that doesn't mean that nature is. Then you think that still accurate to say that the flow of time can be in any direction or is not related at all to T symmetry.

Last edited:

Now I am seeing it from a different point of view. First the result will not present difference in the experiments and that can be shown using quantum mechanics (not matter space-like interaction), the real contradiction is that there are instantaneous transfer of information. That is exactly what a change in state means. The basics features that permit entanglement is the superposition and the tensor product. This features are basics in any quantum theory including QFT. Now there is two ways to solve the problem. First to assume that non-locality is true in QM and latter to show that locality is because of decoherence (I am currently working in it). Second to show that the collapse can be constrained by relativistic consideration. The question here which of the two theories is more fundamentally. Originally is was guessing that was SR, but now I will try to guess the other way around. I think this paragraph is incomprehensible, but really there is hope. Now the problem of the non unitary and not deterministic transformation that we call collapse still present and until it is not solve or understood in a scientific way, then there is not a completely satisfactory explanation.

chwie said:
Introduction: (can be skipped)

We know the problems around the collapse of the state (specially that we don't know how an outcome is selected from the preferred states). Now thousand of experiments shows us that this strange not unitary transformation of the states occurs when a measurement is made. Also Quantum mechanics is not local and there are many experiments of quantum entanglement that can argued in favor of this strange behavior (there is a debate about the validity of this experiments). The paradox between the intrinsic local nature of special relativity and the non-local nature of quantum mechanics is solved because a measurement will destroy the state. This mean that if a guy measure one of the entangle particle he will force the state of the other particle (we are assuming a collapse again) to some state, but the guy that have the other particle have no means to know in which state is his particle, then he will ignored the fact that the other particle was measured. No transfer the information, then no contradiction with special relativity. Now to the key point of this post.

Suppose that both entangled particles are measured and the differences between this events is spacelike. That mean that for some inertia frame both measurement were made a the same time. My question is which one of the measurement produce the collapse of the state? A person can answer that both measurement produced the collapse. That is wrong because in another inertia frame we can see that a measurement was made before the other and by conventional quantum mechanics was this measurement the one that produced the collapse. But in another inertia frame the order of the measurement is the other way around then the other measurement was the one that produced the collapse. The result of the experiment is the same and not information could be transferred, then in this sense there is not a violation to causality, except for the collapse. If we related the collapse as a effect of the measurement, then there is a problem here, causality is violated. I think that the reason of this paradox is that the collapse is not well defined. The paradox is that the collapse was produced by different measurements depending of the inertia reference frame, then we expect from a relation of cause and effect that the order of the events should be invariant, this is not the case. Then how can we said that the measurement cause a collapse?

I hope to see some replies.

chwie said:
Now I am seeing it from a different point of view. First the result will not present difference in the experiments and that can be shown using quantum mechanics (not matter space-like interaction), the real contradiction is that there are instantaneous transfer of information. That is exactly what a change in state means. The basics features that permit entanglement is the superposition and the tensor product. This features are basics in any quantum theory including QFT. Now there is two ways to solve the problem. First to assume that non-locality is true in QM and latter to show that locality is because of decoherence (I am currently working in it). Second to show that the collapse can be constrained by relativistic consideration. The question here which of the two theories is more fundamentally. Originally is was guessing that was SR, but now I will try to guess the other way around. I think this paragraph is incomprehensible, but really there is hope. Now the problem of the non unitary and not deterministic transformation that we call collapse still present and until it is not solve or understood in a scientific way, then there is not a completely satisfactory explanation.
collapse via EPR correlation:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.5092v2.pdfand the conflict between decoherence and special relativity

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09500340108230961.

Last edited:

thank you for the reference, but my university have not account with the last one. I will try with a friend in Berkeley to see if he can download, but just in case if you can send me it as attachment to the e-mail please pm.

I read the first paper and is not what I am seeking for, but thanks anyway. Really i want a paper that can show that special relativity can emerge from a quantum theory and what conditions this quantum theory needs to satisfy it.

chwie said:
I... a measurement is made.
... a measurement will destroy the state. This mean that if a guy measure one of the entangle particle he will force the state of the other particle (we are assuming a collapse again) to some state, but the guy that have the other particle have no means to know in which state is his particle, then he will ignored the fact that the other particle was measured.

Suppose that both entangled particles are measured
both measurement ... the measurement produce the collapse of the state?
both measurement produced the collapse.
a measurement
this measurement the one that produced the collapse.
the measurement ... the other measurement was the one that produced the collapse.
... the measurement cause a collapse?

I doubt very much that such an anthropocentrism should be the right way to apprehend the impersonnal laws of physics, in the field of microphysics.
Of course we are very concerned by the informations we obtain during our career in the laboratory. But are really the laws of physics concerned by our egocentrism ?

The two centuries during which naturalists had to struggle against the dominant animism - of the church, mainly - to obtain the freedom to study nature without the ominous domination of the Noah's Arch, and of the "will of god", merit some respect. But since 1927, under the domination of the Copenhagen pack, the theoritical physics had plunged again in an animism, the animism of Niels Bohr.

Our position as macroscopical animals exists, and is respectible, but it remains to be proved that such a point of view has some competence for the centering and the scaling of the physical laws, in the field of microphysics.

The impersonnal physical laws are not concerned by our information, nor by the ways we instrumentalize sensors. They are concerned by which quantic reaction absorbs each particular quantons, and how much the thermalization occurs after the capture. Whether we instrumentalize the sensor with amplifiers is our business, not the business of the physical laws in microphysics.

And between our scale of macroscopical animals and the scale of microphysic phenomena, there is terrible barrier : the theorem of the requisite Variety, from William Ross Ashby, which put a stop to our panoptical fantasies.

Last edited:

Seriously I understood nothing of what u were saying. But i will try to made an impression.Compehagen interepretation was create to safe QM from the attack of differents physicist as Einstein. This interpretation is dying in modern times, but there are also some attempts to keep it alive. (I don't believe in it)

There is not a barier between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics (following the ideas of decoherence). Then there is not need to make a reference to scale. There is a different in stuying quantum mechanics of closed system and quantum mechanics of open system and that is the crucial idea.

Now the word measurement can be replaced with interaction if you want it and use von neumann premeasurement. The point is that none of these ideas is complete in the sense that doesn't explain why is there non-unitary and non deterministic transformation. In other words the solution of the interaction should be one of the prererred state (this is based on experiments), but how is it selected? That is the question. Then I use the word measurement to include this last step that is experimental verify, but is not clear form the theory.

Last edited:

chwie said:
Compehagen interepretation was create to safe QM from the attack of differents physicist as Einstein...
Just open the letters from W. Heisenberg, in S. Rozenthal, ed. : Niels Bohr. North Holland, Amsterdam 1968, pages 103-104, and you'll see that the "ennemy" to shoot down at any cost and by any way in 1926 and 1927, was surely not Albert Einstein, but Erwin Schrödinger. They have written that his wave equation was "disgusting". So are the delicate customs among these territorial animals, just as territorial as the other apes...

chwie said:
...
There is not a barier between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics (following the ideas of decoherence). Then there is not need to make a reference to scale. There is a different in stuying quantum mechanics of closed system and quantum mechanics of open system and that is the crucial idea.

So you use a lot of surrepticious postulates, that are never been experimentally validated :
...
2. In microphysics, the space is autosimilar at all scales.
3. In microphysics, the space has an infiniteley fine topology, just as the ensemble R used in the classrooms of mathematics.
4 and 5 : idem for the time.
6. As in macrophysics the time is irreversible for statistical reasons, so it is in microphysics, and we are right of exempting us from any experimental validation of this extrapolation.
...
18. It is logical to put the human observer in the center of the picture for every description of quantic or subquantic phenomena.
...(extracted from http://deonto-ethique.eu/quantic/index.php?title=Microphysique_:_ondulatoire_ou_poltergeist_%3F" )

Last edited by a moderator:

Jacques_L said:
So you use a lot of surrepticious postulates, that are never been experimentally validated :

Which postulates have not been experimentally verify? Decoherence have been experimentally verify. To give you an example:(you can find a lot of paper of experiment that show experimental evidence of decoherence and einselection. If needed i can send you more experiment that have been done.)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0307/0307238v1.pdf

Also quantum Darwinism ( the theory of how objective classical reality can emerge from quantum mechanics)have been experimentally verify:

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v104/i17/e176801

Decoherence is a real effect that have been verify in hundreds of experiments. The ideas of einselection is also a principle that can be used to predict situation and to explain experiments. Then I am not talking about possibilities here. There is not boundary between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. the difference is that we study in college including graduate courses the quantum mechanics of closed systems. Now when the environment interact with a system a suppression of coherence in some set states occur (have been confirmed experimentally a lot of times) and this effect from a point of view of quantum mechanics is worst than dissipation (faster and more effective). Decoherence have not special postulates is just quantum mechanics of open system and is incredible that if we study the quantum mechanics of open system a set of states start acquiring locally because of the interaction with the environment the properties that we assign to classical states. A nice review paper by Zurek is the following:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0105/0105127v3.pdf

Also there are several books of this subject I recommend for person with not enough quantum mechanics background the book of Maximilian A. Schlosshauer (is a great book), for a more advance the book Erich Joos, H. Dieter Zeh, Claus Kiefer, Domenico J. W. Giulini.

Also just in case the non unitary and non deterministic result that i mentioned before is true in any experiment. There is no doubt about it, just about it's interpretation.

chwie said:
There is not a barier between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics
...
Which postulates have not been experimentally verify? Decoherence have been experimentally verify.
So you are convinced that the decoherence proves the postulates quoted above ? I do not think so.
Obviously you have not begun to examine the surrepticious postulates your teachers have surrepticiously taught.

Ruth Kastner began. Read her at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=380128 Feb23-10, 05:41 AM.

What teacher are you talking about? Did you know the quantum effect of decoherence? How is that is a postulated if an experiment can measured it? Now dissipation is also a postulate?

Also Ruth Kastner is just doing something that people have been doing for more than 70th years. What happen when six or more interpretation of the same theory result in the same postulates, with any mean of seeing a different between them. That is a problem. I think that quantum mechanics doesn't matter the interpretation (mWi, many minds, campehagen, non local hidden theory, vacuum fluctuations, esenmble theory, whatever you can imagine and is not testable theory,..) should recognize the power of quantum mechanics in predict an calculated experiments. If I will try to solve this problem I will use only experimental facts as decoherence (just a pure quantum effect) to attack problems. Quantum mechanics have problems that can be solved by a correct interpretation (but how will ever know, for example WMI what is the point of an interpretation that i can't test). More easy is to solve the problem using what we know of nature and not what we know of quantum mechanics and want nature to be.

If you have doubts in the postulates of quantum mechanics and want to know the real problem in each postulates and the possibles alternative to solve it I can recommend a lot of literature is this topics. People have been working in this during decades, nothing new , same ... Why today this is a hot topic, the importance is quantum information and for this the issue have been of importance in applications. Now is the time to experimentally solve this issues, because people want to use quantum mechanics as the new frame of communication and information. For a fundamental physicist like me quantum information is just cool, but a great opportunity to solve this problems (more funds and people working in it). Then I suppose that is time to deal with the ambiguities of quantum mechanics.

chwie said:
Which postulates have not been experimentally verify? Decoherence have been experimentally verify.

nobody deny decoherence,

but decoherence does not solve the measurement problem...

.-M. Schlosshauer, “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and
interpretations of quantum mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2004).

.-G. Bacciagaluppi, “The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechan-
ics”, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-decoherence/

.-S. L. Adler,“Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem: A Re-
sponse to P. W. Anderson”, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys., 34, 135 (2003).

.

You are right!

Decoherence doesn't solve the measurement problem, but the interpretations of quantum mechanics are not testable (except the local hidden variables and also there is some debate about the experiments) and for that reason are not solutions to the measurement problem. Are just cool stuff to read. The wave function is real? How many people ask about the reality of the Lagrangian in classical mechanics? What secret of the universe is encoded in the Hamilton principle? I never read a post that was dedicated to it. I mean quantum mechanics is non-intuitive and for that reason people star speculating and creating ideas that are out of the reach of science until the day that each one start contradicting each other in a testable way (I am waiting for that day, if it ever happen).

Now if I want to attack some of the issue of quantum mechanics I want to keep at the level of experiments. Decoherence for example cannot solve the measurement problem in the sense that i doesn't explain how a pointer state is selected during a measurement. Now what is important of decoherence a the moment to examine the interpretation of quantum mechanics is that decoherence can show that there is not need for a boundary between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. That mean that any interpretation that start with in the microrealm and in the macrorealm like different stuff will need to incorporate decoherence and it will present a problem. This is an advance in quantum mechanics that can show a new requisite for an interpretation of quantum mechanics, as the same way that bell inequality have been used as a requisite.

To show the power of this I want to discuss the non-locality of quantum mechanics and the locality of special relativity. How can i start?

First we need to be sure that both theories are experimentally true in their original context.
For example quantum mechanics was developed as a theory of closed system and for that reason the non-locality can be true in a closed system (not reason to be true in open systems). For the other hand special relativity was discovered in a macro system (following the theory of decoherence in a highly interacting open quantum system and for that reason doesn't need to be true in the quantum mechanics of closed systems).

Now if we want to check if special relativity and quantum mechanics are consisted, then I will recommend to use transitions from quantum to classical using decoherence. I will use this transition to understand the requisite that are needed for quantum mechanics to be consisted with classical special relativity.

First to check if the correlation of the pointers states are classical (I mean that if for example the bi-entangled state reduce to a classical correlation (local) when we include the environment. This concept probably is true and is based in quantum discord).

Second what kind of interaction (I mean interaction in the sense of dynamics,(potentials, fields, ect.) are permitted in quantum mechanics. The interaction term should be local because decoherence cannot affect for example potential at distance, it can only suppress locally superpositions and this potential at distance will be a problem in the transition for quantum to classical because of the relativistic causality. The I will ask for local interactions.

Now in general the idea is that the principle of relativity doesn't need to be true for quantum mechanics, but should be true for the preferred (pointers) state after decoherence if this states represent the emergence of classical world as the experimental evidence show. I found that the only real condition at the moment is locality of interaction (by coincidence a requisite of relativistic quantum field theory). Now covariance in the sense of QFT probably can emerge as a consequence of the pointer states (I am working in it also). That mean I don't need an interpretation here, just to check how the theories were created experimentally and use a connection between them that are experimental. That is to limit our self to data and we can say a lot.

chwie said:
interpretations of quantum mechanics are not testable.
creating ideas that are out of the reach of science until the day that each one start contradicting each other in a testable way (I am waiting for that day, if it ever happen).

maybe this year or the next...

testing objective collapse models:

ongoing experiment.
Keith Schwab, Anton Zeilinger, and Markus Aspelmeyer.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/103
-----------------
planed:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.4081v1.pdf
O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac.

"Preparing quantum superpositions of even larger objects is considered to be extremely challenging due to the decoherence caused by interaction with the environment [2]. However, succeeding in this task would allow completely new tests of quantum mechanics: this includes experiments in a hitherto unachieved parameter regime where collapse theories predict quantum mechanics to fail [3, 4],or even more general tests of quantum theory against full classes of macrorealistic theories"http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1236v1.pdf
Stefan Nimmrichter, Klaus Hornberger, Philipp Haslinger, and Markus Arndt.

"they have the clear advantage that they can be tested in principle. This way they bring back to physics what is otherwise an issue of logical consistency and epistemology. Another motivation to consider the possibility that quantum physics is only an approximation to a deeper underlying theory".

Last edited by a moderator:

yoda jedi said:
maybe this year or the next...

testing objective collapse models:

ongoing experiment.
Keith Schwab, Anton Zeilinger, and Markus Aspelmeyer.
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/103

-----------------
planed:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.4081v1.pdf
O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac.

"Preparing quantum superpositions of even larger objects is considered to be extremely challenging due to the decoherence caused by interaction with the environment [2]. However, succeeding in this task would allow completely new tests of quantum mechanics: this includes experiments in a hitherto unachieved parameter regime where collapse theories predict quantum mechanics to fail [3, 4],or even more general tests of quantum theory against full classes of macrorealistic theories"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1236v1.pdf
Stefan Nimmrichter, Klaus Hornberger, Philipp Haslinger, and Markus Arndt.

"they have the clear advantage that they can be tested in principle. This way they bring back to physics what is otherwise an issue of logical consistency and epistemology. Another motivation to consider the possibility that quantum physics is only an approximation to a deeper underlying theory"

.

As I read these, the test is of objective collapse theories of which the GRW type is the main one. Is that about right?

Last edited by a moderator:

Sincerely my knowledge about experimental techniques and mesophysics is limited, then I didn't follow completely the papers and also I am not familiar with GRW theory and other variations of collapse theories. For this reason i can't argument in favor or against the proposed experiments. Now the results of the experiments can be interesting and can eliminate a vast possibilities of interpretations if it have positive results. Now collapse theories are hard to deal in the sense that they can always find a collapse that can form a loophole in the whole experiment. Like I don't understand the experiments in the sense that I have not study these effects and models before, then I don't know if the experiment is free from this loopholes. Probably you have a better picture than me about this point.

Just to hear some comments. The propagators of a free particle in quantum mechanics and in QFT predicts that there is a probability that a particle can travels faster than light. What it mean from the non locality point of view?

DrChinese said:
As I read these, the test is of objective collapse theories

right, grw, csl, trace dynamics.

.

## 1. What is the paradox of quantum mechanics and special relativity?

The paradox of quantum mechanics and special relativity refers to the discrepancy between the two theories in explaining the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. Quantum mechanics explains the behavior of particles in terms of probabilities and wave functions, while special relativity describes the behavior of objects in motion. These two theories seem to contradict each other in certain situations, leading to a paradox.

## 2. How can the paradox be solved?

There is no one definitive solution to the paradox, but there are several proposed theories and interpretations that attempt to reconcile quantum mechanics and special relativity. Some theories suggest that there may be a deeper underlying theory that unifies these two theories, while others propose modifications to either quantum mechanics or special relativity to make them compatible.

## 3. What is the role of time in the paradox?

Time plays a crucial role in both quantum mechanics and special relativity, and it is one of the key factors that contribute to the paradox. In quantum mechanics, time is treated as a parameter that is separate from space, while in special relativity, time is considered as a dimension that is intertwined with space. This difference in the treatment of time is one of the main sources of the paradox.

## 4. Can the paradox be solved through experimental evidence?

While experiments have played a crucial role in developing both quantum mechanics and special relativity, they have not been able to provide a definitive solution to the paradox. However, experiments continue to be conducted to test various theories and interpretations, and they may eventually lead to a resolution of the paradox.

## 5. What are the implications of solving the paradox?

Solving the paradox of quantum mechanics and special relativity would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it. It could potentially lead to the development of a unified theory that explains the behavior of particles at both the quantum and macroscopic levels, and it could also have practical applications in fields such as technology and space exploration.

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
685
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
911
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
31
Views
2K