Relativistic Bell Test within Quantum Reference Frames
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A still widely debated question in the field of relativistic quantum information is whether entanglement and the degree of violation of Bell's inequalities for massive relativistic particles are frame independent or not. At the core of this question is the effect that spin gets entangled with the momentum degree of freedom at relativistic velocities. Here, we show that Bell's inequalities for a pair of particles can be maximally violated in a special-relativistic regime, even without any postselection of the momentum of the particles. To this end, we use the methodology of quantum reference frames, which allows us to transform the problem to the rest frame of a particle, whose state can be in a superposition of relativistic momenta from the viewpoint of the laboratory frame. We show that, when the relative motion of two particles is noncollinear, the optimal measurements for violation of Bell's inequalities in the laboratory frame involve "coherent Wigner rotations." Moreover, the degree of violation of Bell's inequalities is independent of the choice of the quantum reference frame. Our results open up the possibility of extending entanglement-based quantum communication protocols to relativistic regimes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".