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:1708.09007

Reply to Comment on "Wigner rotations and an apparent paradox in relativistic quantum information"

Pablo L. Saldanha, Vlatko Vedral

Published Aug 29, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

As Lanzagorta and Crowder have shown in their Comment [Phys. Rev. A 96, 026101 (2017)], the linear application of the Wigner rotations to the quantum state of two massive relativistic particles does not entail the instantaneous transmission of information as we concluded in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 87, 042102 (2013)]. But in the new version of our paper in arXiv [arXiv:1303.4367v2] we show (and solve) another paradox that is generated by the linear application of the Wigner rotations to a system with a single relativistic particle. So the conclusion of our paper that we cannot in general linearly apply the Wigner rotations to the quantum state of a relativistic particle without considering the appropriate physical interpretation is still valid, although the paradox presented in that paper is inappropriate.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1708.09007

Related papers

Wigner rotations and an apparent paradox in relativistic quantum information

Pablo L. Saldanha, Vlatko Vedral

It is shown that a general model for particle detection in combination with a linear application of the Wigner rotations, which correspond to momentum-dependent changes of the particle spin under Lorentz transformations, to the state of a massive relativistic particle in a superposition of two counterpropagating momentum states leads to a paradox. The paradox entails the instantaneous transmission of information between two spatially separated parties. A solution to the paradox is given when the physical construction of the corresponding state is taken into account, suggesting that we cannot in general linearly apply the Wigner rotations to a quantum state without considering the appropriate physical interpretation.

arXiv:1303.4367•Physical Review A•Apr 3, 2013•14 citations

Comment on “Wigner rotations and an apparent paradox in relativistic quantum information”

Marco O. Lanzagorta, Tanner Crowder

We show that the paradox published by Saldanha and Vedral [Phys. Rev. A 87, 042102 (2013)] is based on an improper interpretation of the localization probability density and a miscalculation of the wave functions. This Comment shows that there is no paradox as stated.

Physical Review A•Aug 10, 2017•6 citations

Physical interpretation of the Wigner rotations and its implications for relativistic quantum information

Pablo L. Saldanha, Vlatko Vedral

We present a new treatment for the spin of a massive relativistic particle in the context of quantum information based on a physical interpretation of the Wigner rotations, obtaining different results in relation to previous works. We are led to the conclusion that it is not possible to define a reduced density matrix for the particle spin and that the Pauli–Lubanski (or similar) spin operators are not suitable for describing measurements where the spin couples to an electromagnetic field in the measuring apparatus. These conclusions contradict the assumptions made by most of the previous papers on the subject. We also propose an experimental test of our formulation.

arXiv:1111.7145•New Journal of Physics•Feb 20, 2012•50 citations

Comment on “Relativistic effects on the spin entanglement of two massive Dirac particles”

Paweł Caban, Jakub Rembieliński

The paper of Choi et al. [Phys. Rev. A 84, 012334 (2011)] discusses the use of the Foldy-Wouthuysen mean-spin operator in the theory of relativistic quantum information. However, the paper contains some incorrect statements and misunderstandings.

Physical Review A•Dec 26, 2012•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Association between quantum paradoxes based on weak values and a realistic interpretation of quantum measurements' ”

Alice M. Aredes, Pablo L. Saldanha

Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.

Physical Review A•Jun 2, 2025•1 citation

Comment on “Full quantum reconstruction of vortex states”

João P. S. Bizarro

It is pointed out that the bona fide Wigner distribution recently introduced [Phys. Rev. A 78, 060101(R) (2008)] is in fact the rotational Wigner function earlier derived and thoroughly studied [Phys. Rev. A 49, 3255 (1994); 71, 069901(E) (2005)], so the latter remains indeed the natural phase-space representation for the rotation-angle and angular-momentum pair.

Physical Review A•Jan 13, 2010•2 citations
As Lanzagorta and Crowder have shown in their Comment [Phys. Rev. A 96, 026101 (2017)], the linear application of the Wigner rotations to the quantum state of two massive relativistic particles does not entail the instantaneous transmission of information as we concluded in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 87, 042102 (2013)]. But in the new version of our paper in arXiv [arXiv:1303.4367v2] we show (and solve) another paradox that is generated by the linear application of the Wigner rotations to a system with a single relativistic particle. So the conclusion of our paper that we cannot in general linearly apply the Wigner rotations to the quantum state of a relativistic particle without considering the appropriate physical interpretation is still valid, although the paradox presented in that paper is inappropriate.
It is shown that a general model for particle detection in combination with a linear application of the Wigner rotations, which correspond to momentum-dependent changes of the particle spin under Lorentz transformations, to the state of a massive relativistic particle in a superposition of two counterpropagating momentum states leads to a paradox. The paradox entails the instantaneous transmission of information between two spatially separated parties. A solution to the paradox is given when the physical construction of the corresponding state is taken into account, suggesting that we cannot in general linearly apply the Wigner rotations to a quantum state without considering the appropriate physical interpretation.
We present a new treatment for the spin of a massive relativistic particle in the context of quantum information based on a physical interpretation of the Wigner rotations, obtaining different results in relation to previous works. We are led to the conclusion that it is not possible to define a reduced density matrix for the particle spin and that the Pauli–Lubanski (or similar) spin operators are not suitable for describing measurements where the spin couples to an electromagnetic field in the measuring apparatus. These conclusions contradict the assumptions made by most of the previous papers on the subject. We also propose an experimental test of our formulation.
Seoane et al. [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 111, 066201 (2025)] criticized our work [Phys. Rev. A 109, 022238 (2024)], saying that our argument that realistic interpretations of weak values lead to inconsistencies is not valid for all weak values and quantum theories. This is true. We never intended that the arguments we presented would be valid for all weak values. We believe it is clearly stated in our work that we were dealing only with the weak values related to the quantum paradoxes cited in our paper. Seoane et al. also said in their Comment that the ``general argument'' we present in our paper is formally incorrect. However, this criticism is related to the interpretation they give to the expression ``equivalent,'' which is different from the one we use. In this sense, the presented criticisms are a matter of semantics, not of physics.