Summary
This paper is an expanded version of one recently published in Foundations of Physics and is a continuation of previous works devoted to the EPR correlation.
The leading idea remains that the EPR correlation (either in its well-known form of nonseparability of future measurements, or in its less known time-reversed form of nonseparability of past preparations) displays the intrinsic time symmetry existing in almost all physical theories at the elementary level. But, as explicit Lorentz invariance has been an essential requirement in both the formalization and the conceptualization of my papers, the noninvariant concept of T symmetry has to yield in favor of the invariant concept of PT symmetry, or even (as C symmetry is not universally valid) to that of CPT invariance.
A distinction is then drawn between “macro” special relativity, defined by invariance under the orthochronous Lorentz group and submission to the retarded causality concept, and “lmicro” special relativity, defined by invariance under the full Lorentz group and including CPT symmetry. The CPT theorem clearly implies that “micro special relativity” is relativity theory at the quantal level. It is thus of fundamental significance not only in the search of interaction Lagrangians etc., but aJso in the basic interpretation of quantum mechanics, including the understanding ot the EPR correlation.
While the experimental existence of the EPR correlations is manifestly incompatible with macro relativity, it is fully consistent with micro relativity. It goes without saying that going from a retarded concept of causality to one that is CPT invariant has very radical consequences, which are briefly discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Notes
O. Costa de Beauregard, “Time Symmetry and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Found. Phys. 6, 539 (1976).
The following discussions will show that CPT invariance is the covariant (and very legitimate) heir of the classical T symmetry.
State vector collapse is taken by some as a more rigorous wording. We express here this concept by the shorter and more intuitive wording of wave collapse.
We are using Dirac’s notation together with his remark that an expansion \( \psi {\rm{a}}\left( {\rm{x}} \right)\; = \;\sum c _i^a{\phi _{\rm{i}}}\left( {\rm{x}} \right)\) (x. can be written (summation sign omitted), \( \left\langle {{\rm{a}}} \mathrel{\left | {\vphantom {{\rm{a}} {\rm{x}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\rm{x}}} \right\rangle \; = \;\left\langle {{\rm{a}}} \mathrel{\left | {\vphantom {{\rm{a}} {\rm{i}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\rm{i}}} \right\rangle \;\left\langle {{\rm{i}}} \mathrel{\left | {\vphantom {{\rm{i}} {\rm{x}}}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {{\rm{x}}} \right\rangle\) where ψ; and the ϕ’s are interpreted as transition amplitudes.
P. A. M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1948), p. 79
A. Lande, New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1965), p. 83.
J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948). See p. 1451.
O. Costa de Beauregard, Précis de mécanique quantique reJativiste (Dunod, Paris, 1967). See also Synthese 35, 129 (1977), p. 143, reprinted in Hans Reichenbach, Logical Empiricist ,W. C. Salmon, editor (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979), p. 341–.
As, in the formalism of Ref. 6, the Jordan-Pauli propagator is the Fourier transform of the Fourier nucleus, the position operator associated with the Klein-Gordon equation is the 4-vector x modulo that it ends on σ (that is, 3 degrees of freedom and not 4; for example, the components of x). This statement does not contradict the more complicated expression of the Newton-Wigner position operator, where by definition only positive frequencies are accepted, because my formalism essentially requires both the positive and the negative frequencies on an equal footing (private correspondence with R. F. O’Connell).
A. Einstein, in Rapports et Discussions du 5e ConseiJ Solvay (Gauthier Villars, Paris, 1928), p. 253–256. In this early intuitive discussion of the paradox, Einstein incidentally referred to an apparent conflict with his special relativity theory.
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935). The analysis is in terms of the nonrelativistic Schrödinger formalism; the sting of the paradox is still more painful in relativistic quantum mechanics.
S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972)
J. F. Clauser, ibid. 36, 1223 (1976);
E. S. Fry and R. C. Thompson, Ibid. 37, 465 (1976).
A. Aspect, Phys. Lett. 54A, 117 (1975)
A. Aspect, Phys. Rev. D 14, 1944 (1976).
O. Costa de Beauregard, Nuovo Cimento 42B, 41 (1977)
O. Costa de Beauregard, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 19, 113 (1977)
O. Costa de Beauregard, Phys. Lett. 60A, 93 (1977)
The Wigner motion reversal is not defined as geometrical reversal of the time axis, whereas the Racah time reversal is. This point will be discussed in the fourth section. In fact, it was already PT symmetry that Loschmidt and Zermelo were stressing in the framework of the Galileo-Newton mechanics.
S. I. Tomonaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 1, 27 (1946)
J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 74, 1439 (1948)
F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 75, 486 (1949)
R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 749, 769 (1949).
B. D’Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Ed. (Benjamin, New York, 1976), pp. 90, 119, 238, 265, and 281.
J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881 (1978); see p. 1920.
H. P. Stapp, Found. Phys. 7, 313 (1977).
B. D’Espagnat and J. S. Bell, private communications.
N. Cufaro Petroni and J. P. Vigier, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 25, 151 (1979).
P. A. M. Dirac, Nature 168, 906 (1951).
A. R. Wilson, J. Lowe, and D. K. Butt, J. Phys. G 2 613 (1976)
M. Bruno, M. d’Agostino, and C. Maroni, Nuovo Cimento 40B, 143 (1977).
R. L. Pflegor and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. 159, 1084 (1967)
R. L. Pflegor and L. Mandel, Jn. Opt. Soc. Am. 58, 946 (1968).
P. Eberhard, Nuovo Cimento 46B, 392 (1978).
G. Lüders, K. Dansk Videns. Selsk. 28, 5 (1954)
G. Lüders, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 2, 1 (1957)
W. Pauli, Niels Bohr and the development of physics ,W. Pauli, L. Rosenfeld, and V. Weisskopf, editors (Pergamon, New York, 1955), p. 30.
A. D. Fokker, Time and Space ,Weight and inertia (Pergamon, New York, 1965).
G. Racah, Nuovo Cimento 14, 322 (1937).
E. Wigner, Gott. Nachr. 31, 546 (1932).
It should be noted that the Feynman propagator DF (-) ≡ D -½ (D+ + D_) is PT invariant, as is also the anti-Feynman propagator DF (+) ≡ D + ½ (D+ + D-) obtained by sidestepping the two poles the other way around. As is well known, use of the Feynman propagator ensures automatically an exponential decay if used in prediction (but, symmetrically, an exponential build-up if used in retrodiction). The opposite would follow from use of the anti-Feynman propagator. See Ref. 46, p. 408.
T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962; 2nd ed, 1970).
P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory ,Part II, Chaps. 4 and 6 (Princeton Univ. Press) translated after the French 1913 edition by P. P. Wiener.
See P. F. Liao and G. C. Bjorklund, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 584 (1976), for an anticascade experiment with polarizers.
S. Watanabe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 179 (1955).
V. Fock, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 60, 1157 (1948).
O. Costa de Beauregard, Cah. Phys. 2, 317 (1958)
Y. Aharonov, P. G. Bergmann, and Y. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. 134B, 1410 (1964)
F. J. Belinfante, Measurements and Time Reversal in Objective Quantum Theory (Pergamon, New York, 1975)
P. C. W. Davies, The physics of time asymmetry (Surrey Univ. Press, 1974).
This is d’Espagnat’s (Ref. 15) very appropriate wording, following Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (Ref. 9).
Of course, absolutely speaking, this is not the end of the story, as the optical nerve and brain area belong to the picture; and where should we stop and say “here and now I have seen the photon”? J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantum Mechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932), Chap. VI.
O. Costa de Beauregard, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 236, 1632 (1953).
C. von Weiszäcker, Z. Phys. 70, 114 (1931).
J. A. Wheeler, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory ,J. A. Marlow, editor (Academic Press, New York, 1977), p. 9.
N. Bohr, Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
W. Renninger, Physik 158, 417 (1960)
W. Renninger, Phys. Z. 136, 251 (1963).
“Your theory is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true” (N. Bohr). “For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no chance” (F. J. Dyson).
O. Costa de Beauregard, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 26, 135 (1979).
R. Payen and J. M. Vigoureux, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 20, 263 (1977).
Suppose some archaeologists discover that similar cultures have developed along two converging rivers running through barren country. Will they assume that there has been some direct interaction between any site on one river and any site on the other? Or rather, that the influence has traveled up and down, via navigation on the rivers?
S. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. 84, 1008 (1951).
J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of photons and electrons ,(Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1955); see pp. 88–96.
Jauch and Rohrlich, Ref. 46, make the surprising statement that it does not; this is because they do not reverse (as they should) the sign of the 3-volume element.
R. Mignani and E. Recami, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 11, 421 (1974)
E. Recami and G. Zumino, Nuovo Cim. 33A, 205 (1976).
E. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections (M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1967), pp. 171–184.
In almost all textbooks on quantum mechanics it is stated that there is a reaction of the measuring apparatus upon the observed system. It is very queer that a necessary consequence of this statement is not drawn, namely, the reaction of the observer upon the so-called observed system-because, where is the severance between the observer and the measuring apparatus?
R. Descartes, Lettres (Adam-Tannery eds.) 1, 222 (letter 525) and III, 663 (letter 302).
H. Mehlberg, Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science ,H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, editors (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York, 1961), p. 105.
E. H. Walker, in Quantum Physics and Parapsychology ,L. Oteri, editor (Parapsychology Foundation, 1975), p. 1
R. D. Mattuck and E. H. Walker, The Iceland Papers ,A. Puharitch, editor. Foreword by B. Josephson (Essential Research Associates, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1979), p. 111.
H. Schmidt, Found. Phys. 8, 464 (1978).
H. Schmidt, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 24, 38 (1978).
H. Schmidt, Proc. Intern. Conf. Cybernetics and Society (IEEE, New York, 1977), p. 535.
J. Hall, C. Kim, B. McElroy, and A. Shimony, Found. Phys. 7, 759 (1977).
F. Capra, Le tao de la physique, in Science et Conscience ,Stock, Paris (1980), pp. 43–55 (see especially pp. 45–46).
E. E. Witmer, Am. J. Phys. 35, 40 (1967).
A. A. Cochran, Found. Phys. 1, 235 (1971).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Beauregard, O.C. (1983). CPT Invariance as Basic for Interpreting Quantum Mechanics. In: van der Merwe, A. (eds) Old and New Questions in Physics, Cosmology, Philosophy, and Theoretical Biology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8830-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8830-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-8832-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-8830-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive