# References

<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>footnotetext: Work partially supported by the Department of Energy under contracts DE-FG05-87ER40319 and DE-FG05-85ER2500.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>footnotetext: Department of Physics, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. <sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>footnotetext: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.  

About thirty years ago Lipkin  wrote an interesting paper in which he proposed to exploit quantum mechanical correlations of the EPR  type for experimental studies of CP violation in the coherent decay of kaon pairs. His basic idea is quite simple: Consider proton-antiproton annihilation into two neutral kaons $`K^0K^0`$, where the intial state is assumed to be in an $`s`$-wave. First, disregard $`CP`$ violation and take the states of definite $`CP`$, called $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, as basis for the $`K^0`$ meson system. Only the $`K_1K_2`$ final state is allowed, whereas the states $`K_1K_1`$ and $`K_2K_2`$ are forbidden. This result follows from parity conservation and Bose statistics. The initial state has odd parity, while Bose statistics forbids odd-parity states for two identical spinless bosons. The $`K_1`$ decays into two pions, $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ or $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, whereas the $`K_2`$ does not. Therefore, we have derived that only one of the $`K^0K^0`$ kaons can decay into two pions.

With $`CP`$ violation the short- and long-lived kaons, $`K_S`$ and $`K_L`$, form a natural (not necessarily orthogonal) basis of the neutral kaon system and are both observed to decay into pions. Lipkin’s observation is that the above derivation requires only parity conservation and Bose statistics, but does not depend on $`CP`$ conservation. $`P\overline{P}`$ annihilation creates the entangled intial state

$$|i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|K_L(x)|K_S(x)|K_L(x)|K_S(x)\right]$$
(1)   
where the $`x`$-axis is chosen as the direction of the momenta of the kaons in their CM system; following Lipkin’s notation $`(x)`$ means that the particle is moving in the positive $`x`$ direction and $`(x)`$ means that it is moving in the negative $`x`$ direction. Measurement of the decay of one of the kaons into, say, $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ at a spacetime point $`(t_1,x_1)`$  with $`x_1>0`$ forces the other into a definite coherent mixture

$$|K_r^0=\alpha |K_S(x)+\beta |K_L(x)$$
(2)   
with coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ such that at some time $`t_2^0`$ the matrix elements of the two terms to the state $`|\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ cancel one another. Further, the subscript $`r`$ stands for “reduced”. States of the type (2) are then initial states for a beam of coherent neutral kaons. Similar considerations hold for other processes such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-meson decay into neutral kaons, or $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)B^0B^0`$ .

The initial $`|K_r^0`$ state (2) is defined at the spacetime point $`(t_r,x_r)`$ where the reduction of the second kaon happens. The time $`t_r`$ is not necessarily identical with the time $`t_2^0`$ at which the decay of $`|K_r^0`$ into $`|\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is forbidden. Lipkin assumes that the spacetime point $`(t_r,x_r)`$ is located on the instantaneous plane

$$t_r=t_1.$$
(3)   
This reducion prescription lacks relativistic covariance (see below) and a few years ago Kayser and Stodolsky  proposed as a remedy to abolish the concept of wave function reduction in favor of an amplitude approach within which they obtained covariant results. Recently, the author succeeded  in formulating a relativistic version of the reduction postulate. In this paper I shortly summarize the basic ideas of covariant reduction and derive the relativistic equations for some of Lipkin’s results. Agreement is found with ref..

Figure 1 depicts the instantaneous reduction scenario (3) in the CM frame of the kaons. The $`K^0K^0`$ pair is created at the origin $`0`$ of the depicted reference frame and each kaon propagates on a straight line within the forward lightcone of $`0`$. The symmetry of the branches under $`xx`$ comes from the almost degenerate kaon masses. It is assumed that pion measurements allow to reconstruct the decay spacetime point $`(t_1,x_1)`$ as indicated, and reduction at $`(t_r,x_r)`$ is implied in the other branch. Decay of the second kaon may be observed at some later time $`(t_2,x_2)`$. Now, instantaneous reduction faces difficulties with relativistic covariance. For instance, the LAB frame of the detectors can be distinct from the CM frame of the kaons. Then the LAB frame times $`t_r^{}`$ and $`t_1^{}`$ (corresponding to the CM spacetime points $`(t_r,x_r)`$ and $`(t_1,x_1)`$ transformed into the LAB frame) will no longer be instantaneous. Further, in case that $`(t_1,x_1)`$ and $`(t_2,x_2)`$ are spacelike, the time ordering $`t_2>t_r`$ of the CM frame can change into $`t_2^{}<t_r^{}`$ in the LAB frame. This is shown in figure 1 where the upper dotted line originating at $`(t_1,x_2)`$ indicates the instantaneous time plane of a LAB frame, where the relative velocity between the CM and LAB frame is assumed to be $`0.447c`$ along the $`x`$ direction (no care is taken to match the kinematic conditions of proton and kaons). Nothing is gained by embarking on the business of preferred reference frames. It is by no means obvious whether the rest frame of the kaons or the LAB frame of the detectors (after all they cause the reduction?) should be preferred. Desireable is a covariant generalization of the reduction process, which emerged only recently .

Figure 2 depicts the situation of figure 1 from the viewpoint of measurement at the spacetime point $`(t_1,x_1)`$. The wave function can be interpreted as carrier of information, namely it allows to extract probabilities for the results of eventual measurements. At the moment when a measurement has been carried out and produced a definite result, the wave function may undergoe a discontinuous jump due to incorporating the result. For a measurement at $`(t_1,x_1)`$ the information available comes from its past. This means from within or from the surface of the backward light cone (BLC) of this spacetime point. It follows that the measurement resets the the wave function (as carrier of information) on the BLC of $`(t_1,x_1)`$. This somewhat surprising result is at second thought rather obvious: (A) Information of the past (i.e. the wave function inside the BLC) cannot be changed, because that would change the probabiltities for the (already carried out) measurement at $`(t_1,x_1)`$. (B) The newly gained information applies to the future of all points of the region over which the information for the measurement was gathered. For instance, by observing a supernova explosion 10,000 lightyears away, we obtain information about what is going on there 10,000 years ago and not about what is going on there now.

A few more points deserve to be mentioned. (A) In view of interference effects the author favors to identify the wave function with physical reality . This does not exclude the interpretation as carrier of information. Just, the information is reality too. (B) Light cone sections are the only hypersurfaces which allow for a covariant formulation of reduction. (C) Consistency of multiple spacelike measurements leads to some complications and a consistent formulation is given in . (D) An earlier attempt  to formulate reduction on the BLC failed  and ref. embarked on a position similar to that of ref.. In figure 2 the reduction spacetime point for the second kaon is indicated as $`(t_r,x_r)`$. I proceed to show that this gives a relativistically covariant description of the reduction process.

Before the decay, the paths of the two kaons are given by $`x_i=v_it_i`$ where the $`v_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are their velocities. The reduction time $`t_r`$ follows from the equations $`x_r=v_2t_r`$ and $`x_r=x_1+c(t_rt_1)`$. Elimination of $`x_r`$ gives

$$t_r=\frac{cv_1}{cv_2}t_1.$$
(4)   
The non-relativistic limit $`c\mathrm{}`$ reproduces equation (3) and in the extreme relativistic limit $`v_1c`$ we get $`t_r0`$. Equation (4) does not look very covariant, but it is. Using rapidities defined by $`\mathrm{tanh}(\zeta _i)=v_i/c`$, $`i=1,2`$ and proper times $`\tau _1=t_1/\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta _1)`$, $`\tau _r=t_r/\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta _2)`$ this is easily seen. Equation (4) becomes

$$\tau _r=R(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)\tau _1\mathrm{with}R(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta _1)\mathrm{sinh}(\zeta _1)}{\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta _2)\mathrm{sinh}(\zeta _2)}.$$
(5)   
Let us tranlate this relation into an inertial frame that moves which respect to the original one of figures 1 and 2 with rapidity $`\eta `$. The proper times are scalars and stay invariant. Hence, the factor $`R(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)`$ has to stay invariant too. The rapidities simply transform according to $`\zeta _i\zeta _i+\eta `$, $`i=1,2`$ and the invariance of $`R(\zeta _1,\zeta _2)`$ follows from the identity

$$\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta +\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\zeta +\eta )=\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )\right)\left(\mathrm{cosh}(\zeta )\mathrm{sinh}(\zeta )\right).$$

Imagine now that some decay mode $`D_1`$ is observed at $`(t_1,x_1)`$ in the positive $`x`$ direction. Equation (1) implies at $`(t_r,x_r)`$ the reduced state

$$|K_r^0=e^{i(m_L\tau _1m_S\tau _r)}D_1|T|K_L|K_S(x)e^{i(m_L\tau _rm_S\tau _1)}D_1|T|K_S|K_L(x)$$
(6)   
where the masses $`m_L`$ amd $`m_S`$ are complex to deal with the finite kaon lifetimes. The proper times in this equation are related by (5) and from this it is obvious that the reduction is Lorentz covariant. At some later time $`t_2`$, corresponding to $`\tau _2`$ for the proper time of the second kaon, a decay mode $`D_2`$ may be observed in negative $`x`$ direction. For $`D_2=D_1`$ it follows from (6) that the probability for that decay vanishes when the proper times agree, i.e. at $`\tau _2=\tau _1`$. This result is in agreement with ref. and the same holds for other physical quantities.

Some readers may wonder about the possibility of reversing the order of reductions in case that $`(t_1,x_1)`$ and $`(t_2,x_2)`$ are spacelike. Because spacelike operators commute both orders of BLC reductions are allowed and each gives a well-defined wavefunction at all times, see  for details. This solves an old problem : In non-relativistic quantum theory complete sets of commuting operators exist which uniquely determine the wave function. Does this still hold in relativistic quantum field theory? The answer is no by explicit construction: For $`n`$ spacelike measurements at least $`n!`$ distinct wave functions exist which are consistent with these measurements.

Other reduction prescriptions do also allow to calculate covariant amplitudes. However, reduction on the backward lightcone stands out as the unique possibility to mantain a well-defined space-time picture of the wave function. This contributes to conceptional clarity and computational simplicity. Finally, numerous experiments found violations of Bell inequalities , see ref. for a few examples and further references. Therefore, reality as imagined by EPR  is now ruled out on experimental grounds. Covariant wave function reduction opens the possibility to take the wave function itself as a reality substitute.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Leo Stodolsky for drawing my attention to ref. and Peter Weisz for his hospitality when I visited the Munich Max Planck Institut für Physik und Astrophysik.