text:
# On entanglement of states and quantum correlations Work supported by KBN grant PB/0273/PO3/99/16

## 1 Introduction

The problem of quantum entanglement of mixed states has attracted much attention recently and that concept has been widely considered in different physical contexts (cf. ,  and references therein, see also , , , ). Moreover, it is frequently argued that the nature of entangled states is strongly related to quantum correlations.

In this paper we are concerned with the generalization of the entanglement of formation, introduced in  as well as with the rigorous definition of a measure of quantum correlations. To this end, firstly we look more closely at the original definition of EoF. Namely, there is a difficulty in implementing the definition given by Bennett et al in the sense that it is not clear why the operation of taking $`min`$ over the set of all decomposition of the given state into finite convex combination of pure states is well defined (for details see ). To overcome this problem and to get a measure with nice properties we shall use the theory of decomposition which is based on the theory of compact convex sets and boundary integrals. Then, having rigorously described measure of entanglement we will discuss the concept of coefficient of quantum correlations. The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we set up notation and terminology, and we review some of the standard facts on the theory of decomposition. Section III contains our definition of entanglement of formation, EoF, with theorem 1 saying that EoF is equal to zero if and only if the state is a separable one. In section IV we review properties of EoF. In the final section V, we present the concept of coefficient of quantum correlations with a discussion of its relations to entanglement.

## 2 Preliminaries

Let us consider a composite system $`\mathrm{"}1+2\mathrm{"}`$ and its Hilbert space of pure states $`_1_2`$ where $`_i`$ is the Hilbert space associated to subsystem $`i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). Let $`()`$ denote the set of all bounded linear operators on $``$. Unless otherwise stated, $``$ stands for a (unital) $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`(_2)`$. We will assume that $`_1`$ is a finite dimensional space (for a discussion how to dispense with that assumption see ). $`_2`$ will be an arbitrary (infinite dimensional, separable) Hilbert space. In other words, the composite system consists of small subsystem and a big heat-bath, rather a typical situation for concrete physical problems.

Turning to states we recall that any density matrix (positive operator of trace equal to $`1`$) on $``$ determines uniquely a linear positive, normalized, functional $`\omega _\varrho ()\omega ()Tr\{\varrho \}`$ on $`()`$ which is also called a normal state. We will assume Ruelle’s separability condition for $``$ (cf. , , ): a subset $``$ of the set of all states $`𝒮`$ of $``$ satisfies Ruelle’s separability \[Note: this refers to topological properties, and is not related to the algebraic notion, which is the subject of this paper\] condition if there exists a sequence $`\{_n\}`$ of sub-$`C^{}`$-algebras of $``$ such that $`_{n1}_n`$ is dense in $``$, and each $`_n`$ contains a closed, two-sided, separable ideal $`_n`$ such that

$$=\{\omega ;\omega 𝒮,||\omega |__n||=1,n1\}$$
(1)
We recall that this condition leads to a situation in which the subsets of states have good measurability properties (cf ). Furthermore, one can easily verify that this separability condition is satisfied in our case provided that we restrict to the set of normal states on $``$ or $``$ is a separable $`C^{}`$-algebra.

The density matrix $`\varrho `$ (state) on the Hilbert space $`_1_2`$ is called separable if it can be written or approximated (in the norm) by the density matrices (states) of the form:

$$\varrho =p_i\varrho _i^1\varrho _i^2\left(\omega ()=p_i(\omega _i^1\omega _i^2)()\right)$$

where $`p_i0`$, $`_ip_i=1`$, $`\varrho _i^\alpha `$ are density matrices on $`_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2`$, and $`(\omega _i^1\omega _i^2)(AB)\omega _i^1(A)\omega _i^2(B)(Tr\varrho _i^1A)(Tr\varrho _i^2B)Tr\{\varrho _i^1\varrho _i^2AB\}`$. In other words, separable states are the norm-closed convex hull of all product states on $`(_1)`$ (or more generally, on the tensor product of two $`C^{}`$-algebras). It is well known ( see e.g. ) the state space of the tensor product $`𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ ($`𝒩_1\overline{}𝒩_2`$) of two $`C^{}`$-algebras $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ (two $`W^{}`$-algebras $`𝒩_1`$ and $`𝒩_2`$ respectively) is not the norm-closed (weak-closed) convex hull of all product states on $`𝒜_1𝒜_2`$ ($`𝒩_1\overline{}𝒩_2`$). Thus, one can define

###### Definition 1

Non- separable states are called entangled states. The set of entangled states is defined by

$$𝒮_{entangled}𝒮_{en}=𝒮\{separablestates\}$$
(2)
where $`𝒮`$ stands for the state space.

Now, for the convenience of the reader, we introduce some terminology and give a short resumé of results from convexity and Choquet theory that we shall need in the sequel (for details see , , , and ). Let $`𝒜`$ stand for a $`C^{}`$-algebra. From now on we make the same assumption of Ruelle separability for $`𝒜`$ which was posed for $``$. In next sections, by a slight abuse of notation we will write $`𝒜`$ for $`(_1)`$. By $`𝒮`$ we will denote the state space of $`𝒜`$, i.e. the set of linear, positive, normalized, linear functionals on $`𝒜`$. We recall that $`𝒮`$ is a compact convex set in the -weak topology. Further, we denote by $`M_1(𝒮)`$ the set of all probability Radon measures on $`𝒮`$. It is well known that $`M_1(𝒮)`$ is a compact subset of the vector space of real, regular Borel measures on $`𝒮`$. Further, let us recall the concept of barycenter $`b(\mu )`$ of a measure $`\mu M_1(𝒮)`$:

$$b(\mu )=𝑑\mu (\phi )\phi $$
(3)
where the integral is understood in the weak sense. The set $`M_\omega (𝒮)`$ is defined as a subset of $`M_1(𝒮)`$ with barycenter $`\omega `$, i.e.

$$M_\omega (𝒮)=\{\mu M_1(𝒮),b(\mu )=\omega \}$$
(4)
$`M_\omega (𝒮)`$ is a convex closed subset of $`M_1(𝒮)`$, hence compact in the weak -topology. Thus, it follows by the Krein-Milman theorem that there are ”many” extreme points in $`M_\omega (𝒮)`$. We say the measure $`\mu `$ is simplicial if $`\mu `$ is an extreme point in $`M_\omega (𝒮)`$. The set of all simplicial measures in $`M_\omega (𝒮)`$ will be denoted by $`(𝒮)`$.

## 3 Entanglement of Formation

Let us define, for a state $`\omega `$ on $`(_1)`$ the following map:

$$(r\omega )(A)\omega (A\mathrm{𝟏})$$
(5)
where $`A(_1)`$.

Clearly, $`r\omega `$ is a state on $`(_1)`$. One has

Let $`(r\omega )`$ be a pure state on $`(_1)`$ (so a state determined by a vector from $`_1`$). Then $`\omega `$ can be written as a product state on $`(_1)`$.

The proof of that statement can be extracted from . (For more details we refer the reader to , , ).

Conversely, there is another result in operator algebras saying that if $`\omega `$ is a state on $`(_1)`$ then there exists a state $`\omega ^{}`$ over $`(_1)`$ which extends $`\omega `$. If $`\omega `$ is a pure state of $`(_1)`$ then $`\omega ^{}`$ may be chosen to be a pure state of $`(_1)`$ (cf. ). This observation is the crucial one for our definition of entanglement of formation which is phrased in terms of decomposition theory.

###### Definition 2

Let $`\omega `$ be a state on $`(_1)`$. The entanglement of formation, EoF, is defined as

$$E(\omega )=inf_{\mu M_\omega (𝒮)}_𝒮𝑑\mu (\phi )S(r\phi )$$
(6)
where $`S()`$ stands for the von Neumann entropy, i.e. $`S(\phi )=Tr\varrho _\phi log\varrho _\phi `$ where $`\varrho _\phi `$ is the density matrix determining the state $`\phi `$.

To comment the above definition we recall that the map $`r`$ and the function $`S`$ are (-weakly ) continuous. At this point we want to strongly emphasize that we use the entropy function $`S`$ only to respect tradition. Namely, to have a well defined concept of EoF we need a concave non-negative continuous function which vanishes on pure states (and only on pure states). In our case, with the first subsysten being finite, the von Neumann entropy meets these conditions. Clearly, there are others functions satisfying these conditions. Our next remark is that we define EoF as infimum of integrals evaluated on continuous function and the infimum is taken over a compact set. Therefore, the infimum is attainable, i.e. there exists a measure $`\mu _0M_\omega (𝒮)`$ such that

$$E(\omega )=_𝒮𝑑\mu _0(\phi )S(r\phi )$$
(7)
and

$$\omega =_𝒮𝑑\mu _0(\phi )\phi $$
(8)
To argue that $`E(\omega )`$ is a well defined measure of entanglement one should show that $`\omega E(\omega )`$ is equal to $`0`$ only for separable states (we recall that $``$ stands for the subset of states satisfying Ruelle’s condition, cf. Section II). This is the case. Namely, one can prove (see )

###### Theorem 1

A state $`\omega `$ is separable if and only if EoF $`E(\omega )`$ is equal to 0.

## 4 Properties of EoF

In this section we list briefly properties of EoF. We start with

### 4.1 Convexity of EoF

Firstly, let us observe that the set $`M_{\lambda _1\omega _1+\lambda _2\omega _2}(𝒮)`$ contains the sum of the sets $`\lambda _1M_{\omega _1}(𝒮)`$ and $`\lambda _2M_{\omega _2}(𝒮)`$ where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are non-negative numbers such that $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=1`$. To see this we recall (see e.g.  or ) that $`\mu M_\omega (𝒮)`$ if and only if $`\mu (f)f(\omega )`$ for any continuous, real-valued, convex function $`f`$. Thus

$$(\lambda _1\mu _1+\lambda _2\mu _2)(f)\lambda _1f(\omega _1)+\lambda _2f(\omega _2)f(\lambda _1\omega _1+\lambda _2\omega _2)$$
(9)
implies the above stated relation between sets. Hence

$`E(\lambda _1\omega _1+\lambda _2\omega _2)=\underset{\mu M_{\lambda _1\omega _1+\lambda _2\omega _2}(𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\phi )S(r\phi )}`$
$`\lambda _1\underset{\mu M_{\omega _1}(𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\phi )S(r\phi )}`$
$`+\lambda _2\underset{\mu M_{\omega _2}(𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\phi )S(r\phi )}=\lambda _1E(\omega _1)+\lambda _2E(\omega _2)`$ (10)
Consequently, the function $`𝒮\omega E(\omega )`$ is convex.

### 4.2 Subadditivity of EoF

To discuss this property, which seems to be important in quantum information (cf. ), we consider the tensor product of von Neumann algebras $`(_1)(_1)`$ and a state $`\omega \omega `$ over it where $`\omega `$ is a state on $`(_1)`$. We observe

$`E(\omega \omega )=\underset{\mu M_{\omega \omega }(𝒮_T)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\nu )S_{1+2}(r\nu )}`$
$`\underset{\mu _1\times \mu _2M_\omega (𝒮)\times M_\omega (𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu _1(\nu )𝑑\mu _2(\nu ^{})S_{1+2}(r\nu \nu ^{})}`$
$`\underset{\mu _1\times \mu _2M_\omega (𝒮)\times M_\omega (𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle }d\mu _1(\nu ){\displaystyle }d\mu _2(\nu ^{})(S_1(r\nu )`$
$`+S_1(r\nu ^{}))=2E(\omega )`$ (11)
where $`𝒮_T`$ denotes the set of all states on $`(_1)(_1)`$, $`S_{1+2}`$ ($`S_1`$) the von Neumann entropy on $`(_1)(_1)`$ ($`(_1)`$ respectively). The last inequality follows from subadditivity of the von Neumann entropy. Consequently, EoF has also a form of subadditivity. Applying the above argument to $`E(\omega \mathrm{}\omega )`$ one can consider the ”density” of EoF and treat $`E(\omega )`$ as an extensive (thermodynamical) quantity.

### 4.3 Continuity of EoF

As entanglement of formation, EoF, is a convex, real-valued function on the topological space $`𝒮`$

$$𝒮\omega E(\omega )\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}$$
(12)
it is natural to pose a question about its continuity. Going in that direction we proved (see )

###### Proposition 1

EoF, $`𝒮\omega E(\omega )`$, is a continuous function.

This result has the following important corollary. Namely, as $`𝒮\omega E(\omega )`$ is a continuous convex function, an application of the Bauer maximum principle leads to:

###### Corollary 1

$`E(\omega )`$ attains its maximum at an extremal point of $`𝒮`$, so the family of maximally entangled states is a subset of pure states.

### 4.4 Comparison with the Bennett, DiVincenzo, Smolin and Wooters definition of EoF

As our definition of EoF is a generalization of that given by Bennett et al (cf ), it is natural to compare these two definitions. Let us denote Bennett’s et al entanglement of formation by $`EoF_B`$. It is an easy observation that $`EoFEoF_B`$. To examine the converse inequality we start with another simple observation that

$`\underset{\mu M_\omega (𝒮)}{inf}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mu (\nu )S(r\nu )}`$ (13)
$`=inf\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _iS(r\nu _i):\omega ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\lambda _i\nu _i(convexsum)\}`$
where the first infimum is attained for some $`\mu M_\omega (𝒮)`$. The above observation follows from the fact that each measure $`\mu `$ can be (weakly) approximated by measures with finite support. On the other hand, measures concentrated on $`𝒮_p`$, where $`𝒮_p`$ is the set of all pure states, are known to be maximal with respect to the order $`\mu \nu `$ ($`\mu \nu `$ if and only if $`\mu (f)\nu (f)`$ for any convex, real-valued convex function $`f`$, cf.  or ), so minimal on the set of all concave functions. It particular, such the measure is minimal on $`Sr`$. Thus to get the converse inequality, $`EoFEoF_B`$ it would be enough to prove existence of very special type of decompositions, so called optimal decompositions. A decomposition $`\omega =_{j=1}^n\lambda _j\varrho _j`$, where $`\{\varrho _i\}`$ are pure states, such that the infimum in the definition of EoF is attained will be called an optimal decomposition. In other words, the infimum is attained by a measure $`\mu _0`$ with finite support contained in the set of all pure states. Thus, we want to have

$$E(\omega )=\underset{\mu M_\omega (𝒮)}{inf}_𝒮S(r\varrho )𝑑\mu (\varrho )=_𝒮𝑑\mu _0(\varrho )S(r\varrho )$$

with $`supp\mu _0=\{\varrho _1,\mathrm{},\varrho _n\}`$, $`n<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varrho _i𝒮_p`$. Here, $`\mu _0=_1^n\lambda _i\delta _{\varrho _i}`$ where $`\delta _\varrho `$ stands for the Dirac measure, $`\{\varrho _i\}`$ are pure states and $`\omega =\lambda _i\varrho _i`$. In () we proved:

###### Proposition 2

The maximum of the set $`\{\mu (Sr);\mu M_\omega (𝒮)\}`$ for a continuous convex function $`S`$ is attained by a simplicial boundary measure.

Then a straightforward application of the classical Carathéodory theorem (cf ) leads to

###### Corollary 2

Assume that both Hilbert spaces $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are finite dimensional. Then, there exist optimal decompositions. Therefore, our definition of EoF and that given by Bennett et al are equal to each other. However, this is not true if the assumption on dimensionality of Hilbert spaces be dropped.

## 5 Quantum correlations

In this Section we introduce the notion of coefficient of quantum correlations and we will look more closely at relations between quantum correlations and entanglement. We wish to start with a generalization of the framework of the previous Sections. Let $`𝒜=_1^N𝒜_i`$ be a (e.g. spatial) tensor product of $`C^{}`$-algebras $`𝒜_i`$. We assume that each $`𝒜_i`$ contains the identity $`\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a state on $`𝒜`$. Again, the set of all states on $`𝒜`$ will be denoted by $`𝒮(𝒜)`$. The pair $`(𝒜,\varphi )`$ will be considered as a (quantum) probability system. Further, let $`(a_1,\mathrm{}a_m)`$ be a system of elements of $`𝒜`$ such that for every $`\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},m`$ there is $`i_\nu \{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ such that $`a_\nu 𝒜_{i_\nu }.`$ To measure any correlations of the system we have to analyze the evaluation of a state $`\varphi `$ on $`m`$-points $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$, i.e., $`\varphi (a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)`$.

In the sequel, considering $`\varphi (a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)`$, we will always assume that $`a_i𝒜_i`$ and indices are ordered. This is legitimate since each $`𝒜_i`$ can be embeded in $`𝒜`$ and then the tensor product structure implies that $`a_i`$ commutes with $`a_j`$ for $`ij`$, $`a_i𝒜_i`$, $`a_j𝒜_j`$. Consequently, we will consider $`\varphi (a_{\nu _1},\mathrm{},a_{\nu _l})`$ where $`(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _l)\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ is an ordered subset and $`a_{\nu _i}𝒜_{\nu _i}`$.

Let us define, now in more general context, the restriction map r (cf. ). Let $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ be $`C^{}`$-subalgebras of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$. Assume that $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ and $`𝒜`$ have a common identity, $`_1_2^{}`$ and $`_1_2`$ generates $`𝒜`$ as a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Define the map $`r:𝒮(𝒜)𝒮(_1)`$ by

$$(r\omega )(a)=\omega (a)foralla_1$$
(15)
Specializing this definition for the tensor structure of $`𝒜=_{i=1}^N𝒜_i`$ one has the following definition $`r_{\nu _k}:𝒮(𝒜)𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k})`$,

$$(r_{\nu _k}\omega )(a)=\omega (\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}\mathrm{}\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}\underset{\nu _k}{\underset{}{a}}\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}\mathrm{}\widehat{1\mathrm{l}})$$
(16)
Clearly, $`r_{\nu _k}`$ is an affine, $`w^{}`$-continuous, “onto”, map. Again, as $`𝒮(𝒜)`$ is -weak convex compact set one can employ the Choquet theory. To this end, we denote by $`M_\omega (𝒮(𝒜))`$ the set of all positive, normalized Radon measures on $`𝒮(𝒜)`$ with the barycenter $`\omega `$. Futhermore, we denote by $`M_{r_{\nu _k}\varphi }^0(𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k}))M_{r_{\nu _k}\varphi }(𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k}))`$ the set of all finitely supported positive normalized Radon measures. Thus, if $`\mu _{\nu _k}`$ is in $`M_{r_{\nu _k}\varphi }^0(𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k}))`$, then $`\mu _{\nu _k}=_1^P\lambda _i\delta _{\varrho _i^{\nu _k}}`$ with $`_1^P\lambda _i\varrho _i^{\nu _k}=r_{\nu _k}\omega `$. Again, $`\delta _\varrho `$, stands for the Dirac (or point) measure.

Turning to quantum correlations, we recall that the entanglement is often considered as a signature of quantum correlations. Although, the concept of quantum correlations is essential one for quantum statistical mechanics, there is still lack of its precise definition. To make an attempt to formulate a rigorous definition of quantum correlations, guided by the (classical) probability theory with its definition of coefficient of independence, we will define the coefficient of quantum correlations. Leaving aside for a moment the general framework, let us present the basic idea for the simplest composite system, i.e. a system consisting of two subsystems only. Thus, $`𝒜=𝒜_1𝒜_2`$. We note

###### Remark 1

Let us consider a separable state $`\omega `$ on $`𝒜𝒜_1𝒜_2`$, $`\omega ()Tr\{(_i\lambda _i\varrho _i^1\varrho _i^2)\}`$ and observe that, in general, $`\omega (a\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}b)\omega (a\widehat{1\mathrm{l}})\omega (\widehat{1\mathrm{l}}b)`$ for $`a𝒜_1`$ and $`b𝒜_2`$. Thus, the state $`\omega `$ reflects some correlations. However, as the state $`\omega `$ is separable, these correlations are considered to be of classical nature only. Namely, each (classical) probability measure can be (-weakly) approximated by a net of probability measures with finite support. Hence, each (classical) probability measure on a composite system exhibits the basic properties of a separable state.

Therefore, to define “pure” quantum correlations we should “substract” classical correlations. Suppose that a measure $`\mu `$ is in $`M_\varphi ^0(𝒮(𝒜))`$. So, $`\mu =_{i=1}^P\lambda _i\delta _{\varrho _i}`$ and the corresponding decomposition of $`\varphi `$ is given by $`\varphi =_{i=1}^P\lambda _i\varrho _i`$. As $`r_1`$ ($`r_2`$) is an affine map of $`𝒮(𝒜)`$ onto $`𝒮(𝒜_1)`$ ($`𝒮(𝒜_2)`$ respectively) one has

$$r_1\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{P}{}}\lambda _ir_1(\varrho _i)$$
(17)
and

$$r_2\varphi =\underset{i=1}{\overset{P}{}}\lambda _ir_2(\varrho _i)$$
(18)
Consequently, the decomposition of $`\varphi `$ determined by $`\mu `$ induces the corresponding decomposition of $`r_1\varphi `$ and $`r_2\varphi `$ (determined by $`\mu _1=_i\lambda _i\delta _{r_1\varrho _i}`$ and $`\mu _2=_i\lambda _i\delta _{r_2\varrho _i}`$ respectively). More generally, let us define $`\mu _I`$ $`(\mu _{II})`$ on Borel subsets $`F_I𝒮(𝒜_1)`$ ($`F_{II}𝒮(𝒜_2)`$ respectively) by

$$\mu _I(F_I)=\mu (r_1^1(F_I)$$
(19)
and

$$\mu _{II}(F_{II})=\mu (r_2^1(F_{II})$$
(20)
where $`\mu `$ is a measure in $`M_\varphi (𝒮(𝒜)).`$ This can be done as for any Borel set $`F`$ (for example, take as $`F`$ the subset $`F_I𝒮(𝒜_1)`$), $`r^1(F)`$ is a Borel set in $`𝒮(𝒜)`$. Suppose that $`F_I^0`$ is a Borel subset in $`𝒮(𝒜_1)`$ such that $`F_I^0\{r_1\rho _1,\mathrm{},r_1\rho _P\}`$ and consider $`\mu _I(\{F_I^0\})\mu (r_1^1(\{F_I^0\}))`$, $`\mu M_\varphi (𝒮)`$. Clearly, $`F^0r_1^1(\{F_I^0\})\{\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _P\}`$. But, if $`\mu `$ is supported by the subset $`\{\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _P\}`$ of $`F^0`$ then $`\mu _I`$ is supported on $`\{r_1\rho _1,\mathrm{},r_1\rho _P\}`$. Furthermore, assuming $`\mu M_\varphi ^0(𝒮(𝒜))`$ and noting $`r_1\varphi =r_1\xi 𝑑\mu (\xi )=\xi _r𝑑\mu r^1(\xi _r)`$ one has $`\xi 𝑑\mu _I(\xi )=r_1\varphi `$. Here, we denoted $`r_1\xi `$ by $`\xi _r`$. Clearly, the same argument can be applied for $`r_2`$ and $`\mu _{II}`$. In particular, one can easily note that

$$\mu _I(\{r_1\rho _i\})=\mu _{II}(\{r_2\rho _i\}),i=1,\mathrm{},P$$
(21)
for any $`\mu M_\varphi ^0(𝒮)`$. Having measures $`\mu _I`$ on $`𝒮(𝒜_1)`$ and $`\mu _{II}`$ on $`𝒮(𝒜_2)`$, both originating from the measure $`\mu `$ on $`𝒮(𝒜)`$, we wish to define a new measure $`\mu `$ on $`𝒮(𝒜_1)\times 𝒮(𝒜_2)`$ which encodes classical correlations between two subsystems described by $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ respectively. As the first step we define it for discrete measures. Let $`\mu ^dM_\varphi ^0(𝒮)`$, i.e. $`\mu ^d=_i\lambda _i^d\delta _{\rho _i^d}`$ with $`\lambda _i^d0`$, $`_i\lambda _i^d=1`$, $`\rho _i^d𝒮(𝒜)`$. Then, the just given argument leads to $`\mu _I^d=_i\lambda _i^d\delta _{r_1\rho _i^d}`$ and $`\mu _{II}^d=_i\lambda _i^d\delta _{r_2\rho _i^d}`$. Define

$$\mu =\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^d\delta _{r_1\rho _i^d}\times \delta _{r_2\rho _i^d}$$
(22)
where we have used (21). Now, let us take an arbitrary measure $`\mu `$ in $`M_\varphi (𝒮)`$. Then, there exists net $`\mu _k`$ such that $`\mu _kM_\varphi ^0(𝒮)`$ and $`\mu _k\mu `$ (-weakly). Defining $`\mu _I^k`$ ($`\mu _{II}^k`$) analogously as $`\mu _I`$ ($`\mu _{II}`$ respectively; cf (19)) one has $`\mu _I^k\mu _I`$ and $`\mu _{II}^k\mu _{II}`$ where the convergence is taken in -weak topology. Then define, for each $`k`$, $`\mu ^k`$ as in (22). One can verify that $`\{\mu ^k\}_k`$ is convergent to a measure on $`𝒮(𝒜_1)\times 𝒮(𝒜_2)`$, so taking the weak limit we arrive to the measure $`\mu `$ on $`𝒮(𝒜_1)\times 𝒮(𝒜_2)`$. All that leads to

###### Definition 3

1. Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra with two $`W^{}`$-subalgebras $`_1`$, $`_2`$ satisfying conditions given prior to formula (15) suplemented by the condition $`_2_1^{}`$. The coefficient of quantum correlations for the state $`\varphi `$ evaluated on $`a_1a_2`$, $`\varphi (a_1a_2)`$, $`a_i_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, is defined as

$$CQC(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)=\underset{\mu M_\varphi (𝒮(𝒜))}{inf}|(\xi d(\mu )(\xi ))(a_1a_2)(\xi d(\mu )(\xi ))(a_1a_2)|$$
(23)
$$\underset{\mu M_\varphi (𝒮(𝒜))}{inf}|\varphi (a_1a_2)(\xi d(\mu )(\xi ))(a_1a_2)|$$
(24)
where $`a_i_i`$, $`i=1,2.`$
2. Assume that $`𝒜=𝒜_1𝒜_2`$. Then, specializing the definition of CQC to the tensor structure of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ we have the degree of quantum correlations for the state $`\varphi `$ evaluated on $`a_1a_2`$. It is defined as

$$d(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)=\underset{\mu M_\varphi (𝒮(𝒜))}{inf}|\varphi (a_1a_2)(\xi d(\mu )(\xi ))(a_1a_2)|$$
(25)
where $`a_i𝒜_i`$, $`i=1,2.`$

To comment on the above definition, firstly we note that the definition of $`CQC`$ makes no appeal to the tensor structure of $`𝒜`$. Therefore, such a definition seems to be very well adapted to the general theory of quasi-local algebras, so to the general theory of quantum systems (cf. ). Clearly, we followed the classical definition of coefficient of independence. The main difference between the classical and quantum approaches (apart from the existence of extra correlations) relies on the fact that in the quantum setting, the set of states does not form a simplex. Therefore, there is no uniquness in decomposition of a (quantum) state. Hence, to carry out our construction we are forced to take the infimum operation over the set of all “good” decompositions.

Secondly, to have the framework well adapted to an analysis of separable (so also entangled) states it is necessary to take into account the tensor structure of the algebra. To distinguish these two cases, we give two different names to a measure of quantum correlations: coefficient (degree respectively) of quantum correlation.

Turning to separable states we have

###### Proposition 3

A state $`\varphi `$ is separable one if and only if $`d(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)=0`$ for any $`a_1,a_2`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}:`$ Recall that $`\varphi `$ is separable iff $`EoF(\varphi )=0`$ (cf. Section III). Hence, there exists a measure $`\mu ^0`$ such that $`\varphi =\xi 𝑑\mu ^0(\xi )`$ with the property that $`supp\mu `$ is contained in the following set $`\overline{conv}\{\xi _1\xi _2;\xi _1𝒮(𝒜_1),\xi _2𝒮(𝒜_2)\}`$. An application of the restriction maps $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ to the measure $`\mu ^0`$ lead to measures $`\mu _I^0`$ and $`\mu _{II}^0`$. Then, considering the (-weak) approximation one has $`\mu ^0=lim\mu _k^0`$ with $`\mu _k^0=\lambda _i^k\delta _{\varphi _{i,k}^I}\times \delta _{\varphi _{i,k}^{II}}`$ where $`\varphi _{i,k}^a𝒮(𝒜_a)`$, $`a\{1,2\}`$. Clearly, $`\mu _{\alpha ,k}^0\mu _k^0r_a=\lambda _i^k\delta _{\varphi _{i,k}^\alpha }`$, $`\alpha \{I,II\}`$. Therefore, $`\mu _k^0=\mu _k^0`$. Hence, $`d(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)`$ is equal to $`0`$. Conversely, suppose that $`d(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)=0`$ for any $`a_1,a_2`$. As $`M_\varphi (𝒮(𝒜))`$ is compact, then $`inf`$ in definition of $`d(\varphi ;a_1,a_2)`$ is attainable. Therefore, there exist two measures $`\mu _I`$ and $`\mu _{II}`$ defining $`\mu `$ such that

$$\varphi (a_1a_2)=(\xi d(\mu )(\xi ))(a_1a_2)$$
(26)
However, this proves the separability.
$`\mathrm{}`$

The Proposition may be summarized by saying that any separable state contains classical correlations only. Therefore, an entangled state contains “non-classical” (or quantum) correlations.

###### Remark 2

$`CQC`$ yields information about quantum correlations and therefore it makes legitimate to apply $`CQC`$ for an analysis of quantum stochastic dynamics. However, this topic exceeds the scope of this paper and it will be present in another paper (see , and )

Turning to the general case, $`𝒜=_{i=1}^N𝒜_i`$, to each state $`\varphi `$ on $`𝒜`$ we will assign the family of product states

$$\{\varphi _{\nu _1}^\lambda \mathrm{}\varphi _{\nu _\lambda }^\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(27)
where for each $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\varphi _{\nu _k}^\lambda supp\mu _k`$ for some $`\mu _kM_{r_{\nu _k}\varphi }(𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k}))`$. We recall that $`M_{r_{\nu _k}\varphi }(𝒮(𝒜_{\nu _k}))`$ stands for all all normalized positive Radon measures with barycenter of the restricted state $`r_{\nu _k}\varphi `$ on $`𝒜_{\nu _k}`$. Let us define

$$\overline{conv}\{\varphi _{\nu _1}^\lambda \mathrm{}\varphi _{\nu _l}^\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}𝒮_{cc}$$
(28)
where, by a slight abuse of notation we denote an extension of $`\varphi _{\nu _1}^\lambda \mathrm{}\varphi _{\nu _l}^\lambda `$ to a state over $`𝒜`$ by the same letter.

We have observed that one can interpret a state in $`𝒮_{cc}`$ as a state encoding classical correlations only. Therefore, a state in $`𝒮_{cc}`$ will be called a c-dependent state. As $`CQC`$ measures the deviation of correlations of a state from classical correlations, going in that direction, we propose

###### Definition 4

Let $`𝒜=_{i=1}^N𝒜_i`$ and let a state $`\varphi `$ be in $`𝒮(𝒜)`$. Then

1. $$d(\varphi ,𝒮_{cc})=\underset{\psi 𝒮_{cc}}{inf}\varphi \psi $$
(29)
will be called the uniform degree of quantum correlation (UDQC).
2. $$d_\varphi (a_{\nu _1},\mathrm{},a_{\nu _l})=\underset{\psi 𝒮_{cc}}{inf}|\varphi (a_{\nu _1},\mathrm{},a_{\nu _l})\psi (a_{\nu _1},\mathrm{},a_{\nu _l})|$$
(30)
will be called the weak degree of quantum correlation (WDQC). Here, we recall that $`(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _l)\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ is an ordered subset.

We close this Section with some remarks on Definition 4. Firstly, it is an easy observation that $`d(\varphi ,𝒮_{cc})=0`$ if and only if $`\varphi `$ is a separable state. Secondly, the equality $`d_\varphi (a_1,\mathrm{},a_m)=0`$ can be treated as a definition of quantum independence of subsystems of a composite system. However, we would like to emphasize that the subsystems still can have a “classical” correlations. Finally, let us specialize Definition 4.2 to a quantum chain, i.e. $`𝒜=_{i\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}}M_d(\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C})𝒜_{\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}}`$, $`𝒜_1=𝒜_{(\mathrm{},0)}`$, $`𝒜_2=𝒜_{\{1\}}`$, …, $`𝒜_{N1}=𝒜_{\{N2\}}`$, $`𝒜_N=𝒜_{(N1,\mathrm{})}`$. Here, the algebra $`M_d(\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{C})`$ associated with each site $`i`$ is taken to be the full algebra of $`d\times d`$ matrices. Then, the subset of states with $`WDQC>0`$ can be called finitely quantum correlated states (cf ).


format: text

text:
# The system with discrete interactions II: Behavior of the relativistic particle in space and in time

## 1 Introduction

The special theory of relativity in its classical formulation  is based on the universally accepted principle of locality of interactions, the principle of relativity, that the character of behavior of a physical system is the same in inertial systems of reference, and constancy of speed of signal, conducted by light. This implies invariance of Maxwell equations, which were considered as fundamental and postulated independently. Alternatively, Maxwell equations are supposed to follow from local invariance of the Lagrangian under $`U\left(1\right)`$ transformations; Lagrangian of the system is essentially defined in a way that it has a covariant form. Similarly for other types of interactions, the system of principles used today, is the definition of the group of internal transformations, principles of relativity and constancy of the speed of signal (light). The covariant form of equations of motion for particles (fields) essentially follows from these principles. The principle of constancy of the speed of signal applied to interactions of all types is interpreted as the principle of constant, maximal speed of propagation of an interaction.

It may be noted, the statement about constancy of the speed of signal, conducted by light, may assume either constancy of the speed of signal as such (in the broad sense, a generic name for the mechanism of propagation of information between physical objects separated in space), or constancy of speed of possible propagators of the particular signals (such as photons), which are material objects with certain properties. The first assumption seems to be in contradiction with the well known superluminal phenomena in quantum systems: for a quantum system an interaction with one component of the system may have a seemingly instant effect on the other component. That means information about the state of this component is instantly reaching other components separated with the given one in space. The controversy of the predictions made by quantum theory and special relativity was noticed by Einstein, Podolky and Rosen in 1935 . This was attributed to the fact that quantum theory is not complete. The approach was further developed by Bell in 1964 , with very many experiments to follow (to mention just a few , ). The theoretical conclusion of the thinking experiments discussed in the pioneering papers (as well as interpretation of the real experiments) was the concept of entangled state in the quantum system introduced by Schrödinger , which implies that measurement conducted on one component of the quantum system has an instant effect on the other component. This may be interpreted as an indication of the phenomenon that the events inside the system have a common cause or, alternatively, information propagates within the system with an infinite speed. More strongly (the currently accepted point of view) the phenomena are interpreted in a way that the principle of locality is not applicable to the quantum system in entangled state (non-locality of quantum mechanics).

Note that the kind of correlation dependence between the components of the system postulated by the model of entanglement of states does not permit to pass information to the observer with an infinite speed and in this respect obviously does not contradict to special relativity. The model implies though, that cause-effect relation applies instantly to spatially separated components of the system, which is basically the definition of action-at-a-distance (albeit not dynamic).111The common argument that this is not a physical action, but statistical correlation must be scrutinized. Statistical correlation, as discussed by EPR, would imply preexistence of the particular values of the parameters, as prescribed to both components of the system: in disagreement with the principle of uncertainty. That means that the area of applicability of the principle of locality versus action-at-a-distance, which is the basic assumption of special relativity, should be clearly specified.

More precisely, if imply constancy of speed of propagators of the signal, we must specify due to which of their properties, these objects can move with the speed, which is constant in all inertial reference frames.222We do not mean here the obvious condition that the particles are massless, as the equation of motion of these particles initially was formulated in the covariant form. Note that generally speaking, the statement about constancy of speed of the signal, defined without a study of possible propagators (from which it may follow), in a sense is similar to postulating of elastic properties of solids based on the general thermodynamical approach, without considering the appropriate models of solid state physics.333A kind of argument used by Wheeler in speaking about the general relativity . The theory is self-consistent but restricts the study of the physical reality at a certain level.

It appears that the model of discrete interactions gives the way to obtain the results commonly associated with the postulate about constancy of the speed of light, without leading to the contradiction of the conventional approach. We consider this in more detail. We use the results and definitions established in  without special references to it.

## 2 The principles of discrete interaction applied to behavior in time

The principles of behavior of the system with discrete interactions (DI-system) as defined in  can be formulated as follows

(i) The parameters of a physical system are defined in process of its interaction;

(ii) Interaction is discrete.

The basic principles in particular imply that between interactions, which detect the particular value of the parameter, the DI-system has any possible value of this parameter, what makes a major difference with the behavior of the classical system. In particular, that means that the description of the particle in space is fundamentally non-local. As a state between interactions (intermediate state), we prescribe to the particle the set of positions it may enter, not one single position for each moment of time as used to be in the classical theory. So detection of the particle in space is not similar to registering of existing position, but something like choosing of the particular element (position) from the set.

In  the behavior of the system was considered for the case when time was prescribed to the DI-system continuously. Each distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$ may be uniquely identified by the value of the parameter $`t`$, which has a meaning of time as defined in the reference frame, so that g-probability $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)`$ describes the state of the system continuously in time. In other words, the model specifies the DI-behavior in space and classical in time. Space coordinates were interpreted as physical parameters: interaction is needed to detect the value of the coordinate; time was considered as a variable: it was prescribed to the system independent of any interactions.

The essential generalization of the approach is to consider the case when time is also interpreted as a physical parameter: the interaction is needed to detect the value of time, which may be prescribed to the system. According to our general approach, we assume that interaction of this type also has a discrete character. That means that the particular single value of time may be prescribed to the system, only if detected in the particular moment, as specified by the clock in the reference frame. For discrete interaction, at the particular moment of time the system may not interact with any detector located at any point in space; for each state between detection (as specified by distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right))`$444Time can be measured as an interval associated with a process: either for motion of a body relative to another body, or for change of internal state. In either case time may be measured only in relation to change of the state of the system (otherwise, for a stationary state, time is being prescribed to the system). Consider a body in motion. We prescribe to the body different values of time according to changes of its position, or more generally, position in space and internal state. If the state of the system is characterized by a distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ we prescribe different values of time $`t`$ to the different distributions. a set of values $`t`$ may be prescribed to the system.

Consider the case of a scalar particle. In between interactions, the state of the particle in space is described by the distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$. In the non-relativistic model , the set of distributions $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$ is defined for the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ between interactions, so that for each $`t_0\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, a distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(t_0,𝐫)`$ is specified. The single value of time $`t=t_0`$ is associated with the particular distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$. In the present model a set of values $`t`$ is associated with each distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$, or alternatively, a set of functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$ is defined for any single particular value of the parameter $`t`$.

In  we have defined an intermediate state of the particle in space as a set of positions which is prescribed to the particle for the particular moment in time. Taking into account that within the present model, for each distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$, or alternatively for each position $`𝐫`$, the set of values of time is prescribed to the particle, we introduce intermediate state in time.

Definition An intermediate sate of the particle in time is the set of values of time, which may be prescribed to the particle for the given particular position in space.

## 3 Equation of motion of a particle

We establish the equation of motion of a particle based of the following

Definition\[$``$\]: Entering of an intermediate state in space for the particular moment in time can be presented as entering of an intermediate state in time for the given position.

This may be interpreted as the property of time. Alternatively we use much weaker condition: we postulate existence of the parameter $`tR`$ with the property \[$``$\]. This parameter can be identified with time as conventionally defined, provided we can show that it has the properties of time, that is, can be used to specify the sequence of events.

Consider motion of the particle without internal states. The DI-particle is defined as a physical system with the property

Definition\[$``$\]: If the DI-particle enters intermediate state in space which includes a position $`𝐫`$, the g-probability $`\varphi \left(𝐫+\delta 𝐫\right)`$ that this state also includes a position $`𝐫+\delta 𝐫`$, rapidly decreases with the growth of $`\delta 𝐫`$.

We generalize this by adding the same constraint for the value $`t`$ (for convenience we will call the values of $`t`$ moments).

The g-probability that the particle enters an intermediate state, which includes the position $`𝐫`$ at the moment $`t`$ may be estimated in two different ways. We define $`P_T(𝐫,t)`$ as g-probability of entering of an intermediate state in time for the given position $`𝐫`$, “in vicinity” of the given moment $`t`$. That is, if the particle stays in the state, which includes the given position $`𝐫`$ at the moment $`t_1`$, the same state (no ordering specified) contains $`𝐫`$ also at the moment $`t`$, so that by definition

$$P_T(𝐫,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t_1)\varphi (𝐫,t,t_1)𝑑t_1,$$
(1)
here $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t_1)`$ is the g-probability that the particle stays in intermadiate state, which includes $`𝐫`$ at the moment $`t_1=t+\delta t`$, $`\varphi (𝐫,t,t_1)`$ is g-probability that if the state of the system defined by its position $`𝐫`$ includes $`t_1`$, it also contains $`t`$. According to the definition

$$\varphi (𝐫,t,t_1)=\varphi (𝐫,t_1,t).$$

We also define $`P_R(𝐫,t)`$, as g-probability of entering of an intermediate state in space for the given moment $`t`$, in vicinity of the given position $`𝐫`$. That is, if the particle stays in the state which includes the position $`𝐫_1`$ at the given moment $`t`$, this state also contains $`𝐫`$, so that by definition

$$P_R(𝐫,t)=_V\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,t)\theta (t,𝐫,𝐫_1)𝑑𝐫_1,$$
(2)
here $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,t)`$ is g-probability that the particle at the moment $`t`$ enters the intermadiate state which includes the position $`𝐫_1=𝐫+\delta 𝐫`$, $`\theta (t,𝐫,𝐫_1)`$ is the probability that if the state contains $`𝐫_1`$ at the moment $`t`$ it also includes $`𝐫`$ at the same moment $`t`$. According to the definition

$$\theta (t,𝐫,𝐫_1)=\theta (t,𝐫_1,𝐫).$$

Consider the special case of homogeneous space and parameter $`t`$. Suppose existence of the reference frame $`A`$, which is defined for homogeneous space and parameter $`t`$: the characteristics of behaviour of the particle in this system do not explicitly depend on its position in space or the value of $`t`$. We call this reference frame inertial. For the inertial reference frame $`A`$, $`\theta (t,𝐫,𝐫+\delta 𝐫)=\theta \left(\delta 𝐫\right)`$ and $`\varphi (𝐫,t,t+\delta t)=\varphi \left(\delta t\right)`$ do not depend on $`𝐫`$ and $`t`$.

According to the definition $`\varphi \left(\delta t\right),\theta \left(\delta 𝐫\right)`$ are even functions of their arguments. For isotropic space $`\theta \left(\delta 𝐫\right)=\theta \left(\delta r\right)`$, depends only on the distance between two positions. Recalling that for the particle the functions $`\theta \left(\delta r\right),\varphi \left(\delta t\right)`$ are rapidly decreasing with the growth of their arguments and using the expansion $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t_1\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(t\right)+\delta t\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}+\frac{\delta t^2}{2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t^2}+\mathrm{}`$, within the accuracy of $`\tau ^2\left(\delta t\right)^2`$, we have

$`P_T(𝐫,t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau `$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)}{t^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\tau ^2\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau ,`$
and similarly using expansion for $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫_1\right)`$ in vicinity of $`𝐫`$, within the accuracy of $`\rho ^4\left(\delta r\right)^4`$, we have

$`P_R(𝐫,t)`$ $``$ $`4\pi [\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho ^2\theta \left(\rho \right)d\rho `$ (4)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\rho ^4\theta \left(\rho \right)d\rho ].`$
According to the definition \[$``$\]

$$P_T(𝐫,t)P_R(𝐫,t).$$
(5)
Assumed $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\delta ^2\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau 0`$, (5) can be presented as

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t^2}=c^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }m^2c^4\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(6)
which has the form of Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar particle with the mass $`m`$, here

$$c^2=4\pi \frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^4\theta \left(\rho \right)𝑑\rho }{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^2\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau },$$
(7)
and

$$m^2c^4=2\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau 4\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}\rho ^2\theta \left(\rho \right)𝑑\rho }{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^2\varphi \left(\tau \right)𝑑\tau }.$$
(8)
Non relativistic limit.

Note that in our previous discussion, even though we were using the term moment of time, we only introduced the parameter $`t`$ with the property \[$``$\]. This parameter can be identified with time if we show that it may be used to specify coexistence and succession of the events (property conventionally associated with time). On the other hand in the non relativistic case when define
Schrödinger equation, we use the property of time: the value $`t`$ is used to mark subsequent events.

Schrödinger equation can be obtained from the Klein-Gordon equation by the ordinary
method for the case, when g-probability is complex and can be presented in the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_0e^{imc^2t}`$, so that $`\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }_0mc^2`$. In this case substitution of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into (6) ($`\mathrm{}1`$) will give

$$i\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }_0=\frac{1}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }_0+O\left(\frac{1}{c^2}\right).$$

The fact that Schrödinger equation, established using conventional interpretation of time, can be also obtained from Klein-Gordon equation can be interpreted as in indication that the parameter $`t`$ formally defined according to \[$``$\] does have the meaning of time as defined in the classical system. That means we can consider the behavior of the DI particle in the reference frame as conventionally defined by the set of scales (rods) in space and clocks.

Consider now the equation of motion of a particle in the other reference frame $`A^{}`$, which is moving relatively to $`A`$ with the constant speed $`v`$ in the direction $`x`$. The reference frame $`A^{}`$ is described by the set of coordinates $`𝐫^{}=(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ and time $`t^{}`$. The essential choice of the scales for $`x^{}`$ and $`t^{}`$ should be determined by the condition that for $`v0`$

$`x^{}x+vt,`$
$`t^{}t.`$ (9)
In this case, provided that $`A^{}`$ describes homogeneous space and time, $`x^{},y^{},z^{},t^{}`$ should be linearly related to $`x,y,z,t`$. Without loss of generality consider $`y=y^{}`$, $`z=z^{}`$,

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{11}t+\alpha _{12}x,`$
$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{21}t+\alpha _{22}x,`$ (10)
$`\alpha _{11},\alpha _{21},\alpha _{22}0`$. The lengths in space and an interval of time defined in $`A^{}`$ will be

$`\delta x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{22}\delta x,\delta y^{}=\delta y,\delta z^{}=\delta z,`$
$`\delta t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{11}\delta t.`$ (11)
All arguments used to establish (6) for $`A`$ can be repeated for $`A^{}`$, so the equation of motion of the particle will have exactly the same form as (6), though the coefficients in the equation, which depend on the choice of scale for unit length in space and time, may be different. So we have for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})`$, which specifies the g-probability of entering the states in $`A^{}`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{t^{}_{}{}^{}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{x^{}_{}{}^{}2}}+c_y^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{y^{}_{}{}^{}2}}`$
$`+`$ $`c_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{z^{}_{}{}^{}2}}\mu ^2c^4\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{}),`$
(12)
here $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})`$ is g-probability of entering of the position $`𝐫^{}`$ at the moment $`t^{}`$ as defined in $`A^{}`$

$`c_x^2={\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\left(\delta x^{}\right)^2\theta ^{}d\left(\delta x^{}\right)d\left(\delta y^{}\right)d\left(\delta z^{}\right)}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^{}_{}{}^{}2\varphi ^{}𝑑\tau ^{}}},`$ (13)
similarly for $`c_y`$ and $`c_z`$,

$$\mu ^2c^4=2\frac{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi ^{}𝑑\tau ^{}_V\theta ^{}d\left(\delta x^{}\right)d\left(\delta y^{}\right)d\left(\delta z^{}\right)}{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^{}_{}{}^{}2\varphi ^{}𝑑\tau ^{}}.$$
(14)
The functions $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`\theta ^{}`$ are defined as
$`\varphi ^{}(\delta x^{},\delta y^{},\delta z^{})=\varphi (\alpha _{22}\delta x,\delta y,\delta z)`$ and $`\theta ^{}\left(\delta t^{}\right)=\theta \left(\alpha _{11}\delta t\right)`$. In the case when

$`\alpha _{11}=1+ϵ_1,|ϵ_1<1|,`$
$`\alpha _{22}=1+ϵ_2,|ϵ_2<1|,`$ (15)
recalling the results of Appendix we obtain that

$`\mu =m,`$
$`c_x^2=c_y^2=c_z^2=c^2.`$ (16)
The ratio (7) is a constant (of a particle), invariant in inertial reference frames, if the intervals $`\delta x`$, $`\delta t`$ are transformed according to the formulae (11).

On the other hand, the equation of motion (12) may be derived from (6) by transformation of coordinates and time, so that we have

$`(\alpha _{11}^2c^2\alpha _{12}^2){\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{t^{}_{}{}^{}2}}2(\alpha _{11}\alpha _{21}`$
$`c^2\alpha _{22}\alpha _{12}){\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{t^{^{}}x^{^{}}}}=`$
$`c^2((c^2\alpha _{22}^2\alpha _{21}^2){\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{x^{}_{}{}^{}2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{y^{}_{}{}^{}2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{z^{}_{}{}^{}2}})m^2c^4\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{}).`$
(17)
Equations (12), (17) are equivalent if

$`\alpha _{11}\alpha _{21}c^2\alpha _{22}\alpha _{12}=0,`$
$`\alpha _{11}^2c^2\alpha _{12}^2=c^2\alpha _{22}^2\alpha _{21}^2=1.`$ (18)
This, together with the condition (9), uniquely identifies the values $`\alpha _{ij}`$ as coefficients of Lorenz transformations.

$`c\alpha _{21}=\alpha _{11}=\mathrm{cosh}\gamma ,`$ (19)
$`\alpha _{12}=c\alpha _{22}=\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ;\gamma =v/c.`$
Consider the other type of particle. Repeating the previous arguments, we define the equation of motion of the particle in the reference frame $`A`$

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)}{t^2}=c_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)c_1^4m_1^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t),$$
(20)
the coefficients in the equation are defined by the expressions of the form (7), (8), with the functions $`\varphi _1`$, $`\theta _1`$, which specify the behavior of the given particle.

Similarly for the reference frame $`A^{}`$, recalling the results of the Appendix, we obtain the similar equation (with the same coefficients)

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})}{t^{}_{}{}^{}2}=c_1^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{})c_1^4m_1^2\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{},t^{}).$$
(21)
The equations are inferred independently in each reference frame based on the definition \[$``$\], which, we suppose, has the general character and holds in all reference frames. On the other hand (21) may be obtained from the (20) by transformation of coordinates and time according to the formulae (10) which links the definitions of the reference frames. The necessary condition for that is

$$\alpha _{11}\alpha _{21}c_1^2\alpha _{22}\alpha _{12}=0,$$
(22)
$`\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ij}\left(c_1\right)`$. Comparing this with (18) we conclude that $`c_1=c`$, which is a fundamental constant: describes motion of an arbitrary particle.

Note that (6) can be considered as an operator equation

$$\widehat{H}^2\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(c^2\widehat{p}_j^2+c^4m^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(23)
here $`\widehat{H}=i\frac{}{t}`$, and $`\widehat{p}_j=i\frac{}{x_j}`$, $`j=1,2,3`$ (we use $`\mathrm{}1`$). The meaning of the operators is the same as in the non relativistic case, which was discussed in . The formula (23) essentially implies the equation for eigenvalues of operators

$$E^2=c^4m^2+c^2p^2,$$
(24)
which has to be invariant in inertial systems of reference. This in particular implies that the set $`(E,𝐩)`$ has properties of a vector in relation to Lorenz transformations.

As we see the concepts of special relativity are appearing when consider equation of motion of the DI-particle, provided the parameter $`t`$ attributed to the particle has the property $`[]`$. As noted above this parameter can be identified with time (with the conventional properties of succession and coexistence of events) based on the condition that the Schrödinger equation can be obtained from the Klein-Gordon equation.

## 4 Multi-component particles

We considered motion of a scalar particle, that is the case when the state of the particle is described by a single function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)`$. Similarly we can define equation of motion for a multi-component particle.

We discussed motion of the particle in space. The essential generalization of the approach is to consider non-coordinate states as well. Consider equation of motion of the particle with internal state described by the variable $`\nu `$. In this case we define

$$P_T(𝐫,\nu ,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t_1,\nu _1)\varphi _1(𝐫;t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)𝑑t_1𝑑\nu _1,$$
(25)
$`\varphi _1(𝐫;t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)`$ is g-probability that if the state of the particle for the given position $`𝐫`$ includes time $`t`$ and the internal state $`\nu `$, it also includes the time $`t_1`$ and internal state $`\nu _1`$.

$$P_R(𝐫,\nu ,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫_1,\nu _1,t)\theta _1(t;𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_1,\nu _1)𝑑𝐫_1𝑑\nu _1,$$
(26)
$`\theta _1(t;𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_1,\nu )`$ is g-probability that if the state of the particle for the given moment $`t`$ includes the position $`𝐫`$ and the internal state $`\nu `$, it also includes the position $`𝐫_1`$ and internal state $`\nu _1`$.

Here two main cases may be distinguished:

(i) the variable $`\nu `$ is continuous; no special constraints on the type of the functions
$`\theta _1(t;𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_1,\nu )`$, $`\varphi _1(𝐫;t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)`$ are imposed. The DI-system enters an intermediate state which is defined as a set of positions and internal states $`\left\{\nu \right\}`$.

(ii) the variable $`\nu `$ is discrete; the functions $`\theta _1(t;𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_1,\nu _1)`$, $`\varphi _1(𝐫;t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)`$ have the form

$$\theta _1(t;𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_1,\nu _1)=\theta _r(t;𝐫;𝐫_1)\delta _{\nu ,\nu _1}+\delta \left(𝐫𝐫_1\right)h_{\nu ,\nu _1},$$

$$\varphi _1(𝐫;t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)=\varphi _t(𝐫;t;t_1)\delta _{\nu ,\nu _1}+\delta \left(tt_1\right)h_{\nu ,\nu _1},$$

$`\delta \left(\right)`$ is Dirac $`\delta `$-function, $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is Kroneker $`\delta `$-function, $`h_{i,j}`$ is a symmetric matrix. Transition between internal states is allowed only in the same point in space and in time.

Consider discrete set of internal states $`\nu S`$, so that the behavior of the DI-particle is described by the set of functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (𝐫,t)`$. Expansion of the integrals in (25) and (26) leads to the formulae similar to (6) for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$. The equation of motion of the particle in the given inertial reference frame $`A`$ will be given by the formulae of the type (6) for each component $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$. Recalling that in the other inertial reference frame $`A^{}`$, the equations of motion (established independently) should have the same form we should assume that either the set of functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu `$ is the set of scalars, or more generally, this set represents components of a tensor or a spinor.

Recalling that Klein-Gordon equation defined for the set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (𝐫,t)`$ with the rules of transformation as for a spinor represents Dirac equation; Klein-Gordon equation defined for the set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu (𝐫,t)`$ with the rules of transformation as for a massless vector represents Maxwell equations,555 Maxwell equations
Consider Klein-Gordon equation for the components of the vector $`A=(A_0,𝐀)`$
$$\frac{}{x_k}\frac{}{x^k}A_i=0.$$
(27)  The property that $`A_i`$ is a vector means that inner product of $`A_i`$ with any other vector is a scalar, or alternatively
$$\frac{^2A_i}{x_ix^k}=\frac{4\pi }{c}j_k,$$
(28)  where $`j_k=\frac{c}{4\pi }\frac{q}{x_k}`$ is a vector. For a tensor $`F_{ik}`$ defined as
$$F_{ik}=\frac{A_k}{x^i}\frac{A_i}{x^k},$$
using (27) and (28), we obtain
$$\frac{F_{ik}}{x^i}=\frac{4\pi }{c}j_k;$$
(29)  this, with the identity
$$e^{ijkl}\frac{F_{ik}}{x^j}=0,$$
(30)  where $`e^{ijkl}`$ is a unit anti-symmetric tensor, constitute the set of Maxwell equations.
Dirac equation
Consider Klein-Gordon equation for the components of the spinor $`\eta =(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$
$$\frac{}{x_k}\frac{}{x^k}\eta _i\widehat{D}_1\widehat{D}_2\eta _i=m^2\eta _i,$$
(31)  here
$$\widehat{D}_{1,2}=(\frac{}{x_0}\pm \sigma _k\frac{}{x_k}),$$
$`\sigma _k`$, $`k=1,2,3`$ are Pauli matrixes. Recalling the generic property, that for a spinor $`\eta _i`$ and 4-vector $`v^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, the product $`(v^0+\sigma _iv^i)\eta _i`$ transforms as a spinor, we define a spinor
$$\mu ^j=\frac{1}{m}\widehat{D}_2\eta _i;$$
(32)  substitution into (31) gives
$$\widehat{D}_1\mu ^jm\eta _i=0.$$
(33)  The formulae (32), (33) is a set of Dirac equations for the bispinor $`(\eta _i,\mu ^{\dot{j}})`$  etc. we can conclude that as long as the Klein-Gordon equation is established, the other types of equations of motion may not need to be inferred from the first principles. That is, the principles of behavior defined for DI-system, which allow us to establish Klein-Gordon equation for the scalar particle, in the case of the multi-component particle will lead to the appropriate equations of the relativistic quantum theory.

## 5 The particle with internal state

Consider now equations (25), (26) for the case when intermediate state is defined as a set of positions and internal states $`\nu `$.

We use $`\varphi (\delta t,\delta \nu )=\varphi _1(t,\nu ;t_1,\nu _1)`$, where $`\delta t=t_1t`$, $`\delta \nu =\nu _1\nu `$ and $`\theta (\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta _1(𝐫,\nu ;𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏},\nu )`$, where $`\delta 𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫`$. According to the definition

$$\varphi (\delta t,\delta \nu )=\varphi (\delta t,\delta \nu ),$$
(34)
and

$$\theta (\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta (\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ).$$
(35)
That is, if $`\theta `$ is presented as a sum of symmetric and anti-symmetric terms

$$\theta =\theta _s+\theta _a,$$
(36)
so that

$`\theta _s(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta _s(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ),`$
$`\theta _s(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta _s(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ),`$ (37)
and

$`\theta _a(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta _a(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ),`$
$`\theta _a(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )=\theta _a(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ),`$ (38)
$`\theta _{s,a}(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu )\theta _{s,a}(\delta 𝐫,\delta \nu ,t,𝐫)`$ is also a function of $`t,𝐫`$. Similarly for $`\varphi \varphi _a+\varphi _s`$.

According to the general approach, the expansion of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,\nu )`$ in (5) gives

$`{\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi (𝐫,t,\nu ;\delta \nu ,\delta t)`$
$`\times (\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{t}}+\delta \nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta t^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t^2}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\nu ^2}}+\delta t\delta \nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t\nu }}+o\left(\delta t^3\right)\left)d\right(\delta t\left)d\right(\delta \nu )=`$
$`{\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _V}\theta (𝐫,t,\nu ;\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)`$
$`\times (\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta x_k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_k}}+\delta \nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta x_k\delta x_j}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_kx_j}}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \nu ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\nu ^2}}+\delta x_k\delta \nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_k\nu }}+o\left(\delta x_k^3\right)\left)d\right(\delta 𝐫\left)d\right(\delta \nu ).`$
(39)
Recalling (36), (37) and (38), we obtain

$`Q_1{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t^2}}+Q_2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{t\nu }}=`$
$`R_0\mathrm{\Psi }+R_1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }+𝐑_2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_i\nu }}+R_3{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{\nu ^2}},`$ (40)
with the coefficients given by the formulae

$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta t\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _V}\theta _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta 𝐫\right),`$
(41)
$$R_1=\frac{1}{2}_\nu _V\theta _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta t)\delta r^2d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta 𝐫\right),$$
(42)
$$Q_1=\frac{1}{2}_\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta t)\delta t^2d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta t\right),$$
(43)
$$𝐑_2=_\nu _V\theta _a(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)\delta x_i\delta \nu d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta 𝐫\right),$$
(44)
which, according to the definition, is a vector in $`E^3`$,

$$Q_2=_\nu _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _a(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta t)\delta t\delta \nu d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta 𝐫\right),$$
(45)
$`R_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _V}\theta _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)\delta \nu ^2d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta 𝐫\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _\nu }{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi _s(𝐫,t,\delta \nu ,\delta 𝐫)\delta \nu ^2d\left(\delta \nu \right)d\left(\delta t\right)).`$
(46)
Assume $`R_j`$, $`Q_j`$ do not explicitly depend on $`𝐫`$, $`t`$, in this case, similarly to the previous, we use notations

$`c^2=R_1/Q_1,c^4m^2=R_0/Q_1.`$
Consider the case when

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,\nu )=\mathrm{exp}\left(ie\nu \right)\psi \left(𝐫\right),$$
(47)
which corresponds to the internal symmetry $`U\left(1\right)`$ as specified by the values of $`\nu `$, with the constraint

$$\left(𝐑_2/c\right)^2Q_2^2=4R_3;$$
(48)
after renaming of the variables

$`c𝐀=𝐑_2/2Q_1,A_0=Q_2/2Q_1,`$
we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+2ieA_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=`$ $`c^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }2i{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝐀\right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`c^4m^2\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $``$ $`e^2\left(𝐀^2A_0^2\right)\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
(49)
For

$`𝐀=0,{\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{t}}=0,`$ (50)
(49) can be presented as

$$\left(i\frac{}{t}eA_0\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }=c^2\left(i\frac{}{x_i}\frac{e}{c}A_i\right)^2\mathrm{\Psi }+c^4m^2,$$
(51)
which has the form of equation of motion of a particle, with the charge $`e`$ ($`e`$ has discrete values, see ) in the field $`A\left(𝐫\right)`$. The expression is obviously invariant in the inertial reference frames. It may be noted that the constraint (48), which implies relativistic invariance of the system, can be regarded as a necessary condition of existence of the system with $`U\left(1\right)`$ symmetry, as specified above.

The vector field $`A=A\left(𝐫\right)`$ may be interpreted as an electromagnetic field: would we consider the equation of its motion in time (a standard equation of motion for massless vector DI-particle) we obtain Maxwell equations.

Note that the approach may be applied to the general case of internal symmetry with the resulting equation of the form (51), which implies covariant derivative in the equation of motion.

## 6 Conventional interpretation of time: the concept of second quantization

The definition \[$``$\] and the Klein-Gordon equation was based on the statement that a set of values $`t`$ are to be identified with the particular distribution $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(𝐫\right)`$. This can be also stated as:

The set of distributions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ is defined for the particle for each particular moment in time $`t`$.

The statement is similar to definition of the DI-field as specified in  in the environment where $`t`$ has conventional meaning of time, that is the variable which specifies coexistence and succession of events. In the more convenient notations $`\varphi (𝐫,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)`$, where $`\varphi (𝐫,t)=_𝐤a_𝐤\left(t\right)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}}`$, can be interpreted as a DI-field with g-probability $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(a_𝐤\right)`$, so that the function $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(a_𝐤\right)`$ satisfies Schrödinger equation in the vector space $`\left\{a_𝐤\right\}`$.

As demonstrated in much detail in , the model of behavior of the DI-field is identical to the appropriate model of quantum field theory. In other words the statement \[$``$\] and consequently the Klein-Gordon equation would lead to the definition of the appropriate DI (quantum) field, provided conventional interpretation of the variable $`t`$. This would be similar to second quantization as defined in quantum field theory.

It may be noted that the definition of the DI-field, established in relation to the appropriate classical field equation, leads to the concept of Fock space and emission-absorption operators
$`A_𝐤,A_𝐤^{}`$, so that the states of the DI-field are identified by the set of consecutive integer energy levels. This however does not imply that that these states are to be represented by the sets of point-like particles, as interpreted in quantum field theory. The condition that the states of the DI-field represent sets of particles is a consequence of the statement that the Klein-Gordon equation was established as the equation for the particle: the condition \[$``$\] was used. In this case the different energy states $`E_n`$ of the DI-fields may be identified with the sets of particles. This would be applicable to all the fields derived from Klein-Gordon equation, such as Maxwell or Dirac, provided the constraint that commutation relation specified for the operators $`A_𝐤,A_𝐤^{}`$ would imply the particular energy spectrum end consequently statistics for the ensemble of particles, which corresponds to the given DI-field.

## 7 Discussion: Superluminal effects in quantum systems

Based on the previous discussion we can come up with the definition of the signal as the process of propagation of a massless particle, which will have the same constant speed $`c`$ in all inertial reference frames. The fundamental property that the speed of the signal is the same in inertial reference frames in this case would follow from the definition \[$``$\]. Clearly if the signal is used for sinchronization of the clocks in the different reference frames, or measuring of the distances, the appropriate quantities measured in the different inertial reference frames wold relate to each other as specified by Lorenz transformations. Based on that, the conclusion can be made that as long as interaction between spatially separated parts of the system is conducted by sending of a particle (or the appropriate wave), the speed of propagation of interaction can not exceed $`c`$.

Indeed, the equation of motion for a scalar DI-particle has the form of Klein-Gordon equation, invariant in inertial reference frames. For multi-component DI-particles, with the different rules of Lorentz transformations for their components, the equations of motion, which would follow from Klein-Gordon (such as Dirac or
Maxwell equations, etc.) would be similar to conventionally defined in the relativistic quantum theory. The conventional interpretation of time as a category, which specifies succession and coexistence of events, leads to interpreting of the Klein-Gordon and related equations as equations of the fields, which would justify the procedure of second quantization, with the states of the field identified by the sets of particles. Within all interpretations, the equations, established in explicitly covariant form, would confirm the statement about $`c`$ being the maximal speed of propagation of interactions, with the principle of locality of interactions clearly applicable.

On the other hand, as long as we do not discuss the question what plays the role of the carrier of information inside the system, thus do not set a restriction that information is only conducted by a particle or a field, we do not need to assume that the speed of propagation of information is finite. That is basically pre-relativistic concept of action-at-a-distance revisited. It may be noted that in  the signal is defined as a mechanism of passing of information with the speed constant in the different reference frames. The definition was subsequently re-interpreted and acquired the present generic meaning of the mechanism of passing of information in space and in time. Would the signal be interpreted in its original meaning, the relativistic approach would not exclude the concept of action-at-a-distance. This avoids controversies normally associated with EPR or Bell paradoxes in quantum mechanics. As long as we assume that in the particular systems information may propagate with an infinite speed, interaction applied to one of the components of the system will instantly affect all the others.

Consider the thinking experiment suggested by Einstein at the Fifth Solvay Congress (we refer to the description given by Jammer ). A quantum particle is passing through a small hole in the diaphragm so that it is diffracted and then impinges upon a hemispherical scintillation screen located behind the diaphragm. The conventional interpretation of the experiment would assume that the wave function, which describes the particle after passing the hole, will be defined as a spherical wave which propagates towards the screen. It was noted by Einstein that if the wave function represents not an ensemble but an individual particle, before the scintillation takes place, the particle must be considered to be potentially present at all points in the vicinity of the screen. When the particle is detected at the particular point of the screen there is a “peculiar action-at-a-distance” which prevents the particle to be detected at another position on the screen. The statement would be in perfect agreement with the present approach. The definition of the DI-particle implies that before interaction the set of positions in vicinity of the screen will be prescribed to the particle. The effect of action-at-a-distance noted by Einstein in this model would be a synonym to interaction, which by definition would mean selecting of the given position from the set.

The approach should be generalized to include the case of detecting of the particular component of the composite system, which may consist of several components, separated in space. Consider fission of a particle into two, this is the system which may consist of one (fission is not detected) or two components (fission is detected), which is the common setting of EPR-type experiment. To define that the system consists of the two particles the detector should interact with it: before interaction, we cannot identify whether the system consists of one or two particles. In quantum mechanical terms we are talking about superposition of states one-two components. Interaction, which is required to define the number of components of the system, is applied to the system as a whole and should affect the system as a whole, that is, each of the components instantly. The next interaction is not conducted on the system as a whole, as the system is identified to consist of two particles. The system is transferred to the particular state, in which the components are identified, that means interaction is conducted on the particular component, so that two separate particles are considered explicitly.

## 8 Appendix

Consider the transformation

$`t_1=t\left(1+ϵ\right),`$ $`ϵ<1.`$ (52)
Using the expansion

$$\varphi \left(t_1\right)\varphi \left(t\left(1+ϵ\right)\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ϵ^k}{k!}\frac{^k\varphi }{ϵ^k}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{ϵ^kt^k}{k!}\frac{^k\varphi }{t^k}|_{ϵ=0},$$
(53)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}t_1^n\varphi \left(t_1\right)𝑑t_1=`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^kt^{k+n}}{k!}}{\displaystyle \frac{^k\varphi \left(t\right)}{t^k}}\right]\left(1+ϵ\right)^{n+1}𝑑t=\left(1+ϵ\right)^{n+1}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}()^k{\displaystyle \frac{\left(k+n\right)!}{k!n!}}ϵ^k\right]{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi \left(t\right)t^n𝑑t={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\varphi \left(t\right)t^n𝑑t;`$
while doing integration by parts for $`\varphi ^{\left(n\right)}`$, we use that $`\varphi ^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right)=0`$ for $`t\pm \mathrm{}`$. The formula for $`n=0,2`$ confirms invariance of the integrals as discussed in the paper.