Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1507.00544 · European Journal of Physics

Comment on ‘Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics’

Namit Anand

Published Jun 15, 2016• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This is a comment to the paper, Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics by C Cisneros et al 1998 Eur. J. Phys. 19 237. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/19/3/005. The proof that the authors construct for the limitation on the superposition of state vectors corresponding to different sectors of the Hilbert space, partitioned by a superoperator has a flaw as outlined below.

DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/37/4/048003

Related papers

Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics

C. Cisneros, R. P. Martı́nez-y-Romero, H. N. Núñez‐Yépez +1 more

The superposition principle is a very basic ingredient of quantum theory. What may come as a surprise to many students, and even to many practitioners of the quantum craft, is tha superposition has limitations imposed by certain requirements of the theory. The discussion of such limitations arising from the so-called superselection rules is the main purpose of this paper. Some of their principal consequences are also discussed. The univalence, mass and particle number superselection rules of non-relativistic quantum mechanics are also derived using rather simple methods.

arXiv:quant-ph/9809059•European Journal of Physics•May 1, 1998•25 citations

The Trouble with Superselection Accounts of Measurement

Mariam Thalos

A superselection rule advanced in the course of a quantum-mechanical treatment of some phenomenon is an assertion to the effect that the superposition principle of quantum mechanics is to be restricted in the application at hand. Superselection accounts of measurement all have in common a decision to represent the indicator states of detectors by eigenspaces of superselection operators named in a superselection rule, on the grounds that the states in question are states of a so-called classical quantity and therefore not subject to quantum interference effects. By this strategy superselectionists of measurement expect to dispense with use of projection postulates in treatments of measurement. I shall argue that superselection accounts of measurement are self-contradictory, and that treatments of infinite systems, if they can avoid the contradiction, are not true superselection accounts.

Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 1998•2 citations

The philosophical problems of implementing superselection rules

Jorge Manero

Some physicists believe that superselection rules should be implemented to get rid of inconsistencies when a theory is framed in terms of a new mathematical formulation, whilst others think that this new formulation should be modified instead of implementing those rules, at the expense of introducing additional mathematical structure. The outcome, however, is that we are still uncertain whether these rules should be implemented and how they should be interpreted and assessed from the philosophical point of view. Based on a detailed examination of the group-theoretic reformulation of (relativistic and non-relativistic) quantum mechanics that prompts physicists to impose superselection rules, I shall argue that the implementation of these rules involves serious heuristic and epistemological concerns. Considering this argument, I shall conclude that there are suitable philosophical reasons to claim that the implementation of superselection rules should be rejected and that there are certain circumstances when the formulation of a theory should be modified.

arXiv:2310.03014•Oct 4, 2023•0 citations

On Quantum Superposition

Guang-Liang Li

Lying in the core of the conceptual scheme of current quantum theory, the notion of quantum superposition is a consequence of the quantum-mechanical superposition principle. However, relying on precise but not attainable space or time coordinates, quantum superposition makes little sense physically if we use it to describe or explain experimental results obtained by measurement. Space or time is usually modeled by a metric space endowed with the usual distance function. Irrelevant to instrument precision and measurement accuracy, unattainability of precise coordinates is a well-established mathematical fact following from properties of the corresponding metric topology, and hence rules out completely, in principle, the possibility for us to obtain precise coordinates by measurement in actually performed experiments. In classical mechanics, unattainability of precise coordinates is hardly noticeable, and measurement results obtained in classical physics can still be reasonably explained even though precise coordinates are unattainable. However, when we explain measurement results obtained in quantum physics, unattainability of precise coordinates should not be omitted. In the conceptual scheme of current quantum theory, omission of unattainability of precise coordinates is an unfortunate flaw, which is largely responsible not only for the invalidity of quantum superposition in description of the physical world but also for various ineligible applications of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in no sense does the flaw imply quantum mechanics as a successful theory failing to be correct. As shown in this article, the flaw is repairable. By taking into account unattainability of precise coordinates, we can reinterpret the meaning of quantum superposition to repair the flaw without affecting eligible applications of quantum mechanics while avoiding all the ineligible applications.

Qeios•Jul 11, 2023•4 citations

The structure of the quantum mechanical state space and induced superselection rules

Joachim Kupsch

The role of superselection rules for the derivation of classical probability within quantum mechanics is investigated and examples of superselection rules induced by the environment are discussed.

•Jan 1, 1996•5 citations

Comment on 'Reasonable fermionic quantum information theories require relativity'

Markus Johansson

In [N. Friis, New J. Phys. 18, 033014 (2016)] the non-relativistic description of fermions is considered and in particular the role of the parity superselection rule in relation to the characterization of entanglement. An argument based on the spin-statistics connection is presented as a physical motivation for the parity superselection rule. Since the spin statistics connection was derived in the context of relativistic quantum mechanics it is argued that the inclusion of the parity superselection rule is motivated by Lorentz invariance. Based on this it is further argued that fermionic Quantum Information theory and the theory of special relativity are conceptually inseparable. In this comment a different, and well known, motivation for the parity superselection rule is given that does not rely on arguments from relativistic quantum mechanics, but instead uses the assumptions that the laws of physics are the same for different observers and the no-signalling principle.

arXiv:1610.00539•Oct 3, 2016•5 citations
This is a comment to the paper, Limitations on the superposition principle: superselection rules in non-relativistic quantum mechanics by C Cisneros et al 1998 Eur. J. Phys. 19 237. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/19/3/005. The proof that the authors construct for the limitation on the superposition of state vectors corresponding to different sectors of the Hilbert space, partitioned by a superoperator has a flaw as outlined below.
The superposition principle is a very basic ingredient of quantum theory. What may come as a surprise to many students, and even to many practitioners of the quantum craft, is tha superposition has limitations imposed by certain requirements of the theory. The discussion of such limitations arising from the so-called superselection rules is the main purpose of this paper. Some of their principal consequences are also discussed. The univalence, mass and particle number superselection rules of non-relativistic quantum mechanics are also derived using rather simple methods.
A superselection rule advanced in the course of a quantum-mechanical treatment of some phenomenon is an assertion to the effect that the superposition principle of quantum mechanics is to be restricted in the application at hand. Superselection accounts of measurement all have in common a decision to represent the indicator states of detectors by eigenspaces of superselection operators named in a superselection rule, on the grounds that the states in question are states of a so-called classical quantity and therefore not subject to quantum interference effects. By this strategy superselectionists of measurement expect to dispense with use of projection postulates in treatments of measurement. I shall argue that superselection accounts of measurement are self-contradictory, and that treatments of infinite systems, if they can avoid the contradiction, are not true superselection accounts.
Some physicists believe that superselection rules should be implemented to get rid of inconsistencies when a theory is framed in terms of a new mathematical formulation, whilst others think that this new formulation should be modified instead of implementing those rules, at the expense of introducing additional mathematical structure. The outcome, however, is that we are still uncertain whether these rules should be implemented and how they should be interpreted and assessed from the philosophical point of view. Based on a detailed examination of the group-theoretic reformulation of (relativistic and non-relativistic) quantum mechanics that prompts physicists to impose superselection rules, I shall argue that the implementation of these rules involves serious heuristic and epistemological concerns. Considering this argument, I shall conclude that there are suitable philosophical reasons to claim that the implementation of superselection rules should be rejected and that there are certain circumstances when the formulation of a theory should be modified.
Lying in the core of the conceptual scheme of current quantum theory, the notion of quantum superposition is a consequence of the quantum-mechanical superposition principle. However, relying on precise but not attainable space or time coordinates, quantum superposition makes little sense physically if we use it to describe or explain experimental results obtained by measurement. Space or time is usually modeled by a metric space endowed with the usual distance function. Irrelevant to instrument precision and measurement accuracy, unattainability of precise coordinates is a well-established mathematical fact following from properties of the corresponding metric topology, and hence rules out completely, in principle, the possibility for us to obtain precise coordinates by measurement in actually performed experiments. In classical mechanics, unattainability of precise coordinates is hardly noticeable, and measurement results obtained in classical physics can still be reasonably explained even though precise coordinates are unattainable. However, when we explain measurement results obtained in quantum physics, unattainability of precise coordinates should not be omitted. In the conceptual scheme of current quantum theory, omission of unattainability of precise coordinates is an unfortunate flaw, which is largely responsible not only for the invalidity of quantum superposition in description of the physical world but also for various ineligible applications of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, in no sense does the flaw imply quantum mechanics as a successful theory failing to be correct. As shown in this article, the flaw is repairable. By taking into account unattainability of precise coordinates, we can reinterpret the meaning of quantum superposition to repair the flaw without affecting eligible applications of quantum mechanics while avoiding all the ineligible applications.
In [N. Friis, New J. Phys. 18, 033014 (2016)] the non-relativistic description of fermions is considered and in particular the role of the parity superselection rule in relation to the characterization of entanglement. An argument based on the spin-statistics connection is presented as a physical motivation for the parity superselection rule. Since the spin statistics connection was derived in the context of relativistic quantum mechanics it is argued that the inclusion of the parity superselection rule is motivated by Lorentz invariance. Based on this it is further argued that fermionic Quantum Information theory and the theory of special relativity are conceptually inseparable. In this comment a different, and well known, motivation for the parity superselection rule is given that does not rely on arguments from relativistic quantum mechanics, but instead uses the assumptions that the laws of physics are the same for different observers and the no-signalling principle.