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:2005.14378

No point-localized photon states

Scott E. Hoffmann

Published May 29, 2020• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to critically examine claims that it is possible to construct point-localized state vectors for the photon. We supply a brief proof of the impossibility of this. Then it is found that the authors making these claims use a non-standard scalar product, not equal to the quantum-mechanical one. This alternative scalar product is found to be proportional to a Dirac delta function in position for the state vectors they use, but the remaining elements of the proof, namely satisfying all three Newton-Wigner criteria, are lacking.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2005.14378

Related papers

Photon wave functions in a localized coordinate space basis

Margaret Hawton

A first quantized theory of the photon is developed that incorporates all of the usual rules of quantum mechanics. The state vector is argued to be proportional to the four-vector potential. Scalar products and the probability amplitude are invariant under gauge transformations that satisfy the Lorentz gauge condition. The eigenvectors of a recently constructed Hermitian position operator with commuting components provide a basis for the position representation.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1999•55 citations

Lorentz-Invariant Localization for Elementary Systems. II

Andrés J. Kálnay

The purpose of this paper is to find to what extent the notion of position in the relativistic quantum mechanics of free elementary systems of nonzero mass is defined (or precluded) by the requirement that the descriptions of a localized state as seen from two observers in different frames of reference should be physically consistent. Neither the existence of a time component of the position operator nor the compatibility of the space components of position is assumed. Hermiticity with respect to the quantum-relativistic scalar product in state-vector space is neither assumed nor rejected. There are three possibilities: (i) The position is represented as usual by a Hermitian operator; this is the point-type position. (ii) Non-Hermitian operators are accepted, and the $k$ component of position can represent segments of the $k$ axis with length of the order of $\frac{1}{m}$; when the operator is not only non-Hermitian, but also non-normal, this is the extended-type position. (iii) Non-Hermitian operators are accepted, but the segments are reduced to points; this is the limiting case of the extended-type position. Case (ii) is not studied in this paper. General conditions are found for any spin as regards cases (i) and (iii), and their consequences are obtained for spin 0 and spin \textonehalf{}. The results are the following: There is no position operator in case (i), but in case (iii) the position operator is unique for spin 0 and unique up to a parameter for spin \textonehalf{}. For both spins, in spite of the lack of relativistic Hermiticity, the eigenvalues of position are real, and the velocity is the expected one. The eigenstates of one component of the position are found. The components of the position are compatible with each other for spin 0, and incompatible for spin \textonehalf{}. In the former case, the simultaneous eigenstates of all components are Philip's class-I localized states. Related work is discussed.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Feb 15, 1970•27 citations

The Observables and Localized States of a Dirac Particle

P. M. Mathews, A. Sankaranarayanan

It is shown that for a non-zero mass Dirac particle, only one of the four position operators recently discovered by the authors has eigenstates (describing the localized states of the particle) which obey the regularity condition imposed by Newton and Wigner. However, this condition is not applicable to the states of a particle with zero rest mass, and in such a case the multiplicity of possible position (and other) operators persists.

Progress of Theoretical Physics•May 1, 1962•11 citations

Photon Localizationat the Nanoscale

Klaus D. Sattler

You might think that the great success of quantum electrodynamics (QED) would settle the debate on the nature of light to provide a clear view of its behavior, where the photon is regarded as the unit of excitation associated with a quantized mode of the electromagnetic (radiation) œeld. However, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that a state of deœnite momentum, energy, and polarization associated with a plane wave used as a basis function of quantization must be completely indeœnite in space and time. It suggests the diµculty of spatial localization of a photon as a particle. In fact, Newton and Wigner showed that a free photon, as a massless particle with spin 1, has no localized states on the basis of natural invariance requirements that localized states for which operators of the Lorentz group apply should be orthogonal to the undisplaced localized states, a§er a translation (Newton and Wigner 1949). According to them, one can obtain a general expression for a position operator for massive particles and for massless particles of spin 0 or 1/2, not for massless particles with œnite spin, which indicates that there is no probability density for the position of the photon, and thus a position-representation wave function cannot be consistently introduced. It has also been shown that photons are not localizable, on the basis of imprimitive representations of the Euclidean group (Wightman 1962). It is now believed that photons are only weakly localizable, although single-photon states with arbitrarily fast asymptotic fallo˜ of energy density exist, and that a lack of strict localizability is directly related to the absence of a position operator for a photon in free space and a positionrepresentation photon wave function (Hawton 1999).

CRC Press eBooks•Sep 17, 2010•0 citations

Localization in Relativistic Quantum Theories

Lars O. Herrmann

Although the concept of localization in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-defined there is no obvious and unambiguous way to generalize it to relativistic quantum theory. After a brief review of localization in quantum mechanics the Newton-Wigner localization scheme is introduced and it is shown by the example of a massive spinless system how it leads to a position operator with seemingly unphysical properties. This motivated the development of several theorems which claim to rule out the existence of localizable particles. A particularly important one of them is presented and its validity discussed. In the last section however it is shown that if localization is considered with respect to spacelike hyperplanes, the properties of the Newton-Wigner position operators are not necessarily unphysical and localizable particles can exist.

•Jun 1, 2010•5 citations

A Dissolution of the Problem of Locality

Simon W. Saunders

Relativistic quantum theory poses a number of conceptual problems over and above the non-relativistic mechanics. From a purely mathematical point of view it is also much more sophisticated. Even the kinematic theory poses considerable difficulties: locality, antimatter, negative energy, and charge are already systematically linked in ways that cannot simply be paraphrased. A further complication is that in the midst of this structure we have what is usually called the Newton-Wigner representation (or, in the case of the Dirac theory, the Foldy-Wouthuysen representation), in which fields and states are no longer covariantly described and where the “local” self-adjoint quantities (NW-local observables) do not obey microcausality, but only satisfy equal-time commutators with respect to a particular inertial frame. If we pass to this represenation, we obtain at a stroke the basic structure of non-relativistic quantum field theory; it is not too hard to descend from that to a many-particle mechanics, and to recover the usual definitions of localization.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1994•13 citations
The aim of this paper is to critically examine claims that it is possible to construct point-localized state vectors for the photon. We supply a brief proof of the impossibility of this. Then it is found that the authors making these claims use a non-standard scalar product, not equal to the quantum-mechanical one. This alternative scalar product is found to be proportional to a Dirac delta function in position for the state vectors they use, but the remaining elements of the proof, namely satisfying all three Newton-Wigner criteria, are lacking.
The purpose of this paper is to find to what extent the notion of position in the relativistic quantum mechanics of free elementary systems of nonzero mass is defined (or precluded) by the requirement that the descriptions of a localized state as seen from two observers in different frames of reference should be physically consistent. Neither the existence of a time component of the position operator nor the compatibility of the space components of position is assumed. Hermiticity with respect to the quantum-relativistic scalar product in state-vector space is neither assumed nor rejected. There are three possibilities: (i) The position is represented as usual by a Hermitian operator; this is the point-type position. (ii) Non-Hermitian operators are accepted, and the kkk component of position can represent segments of the kkk axis with length of the order of 1m\frac{1}{m}m1​; when the operator is not only non-Hermitian, but also non-normal, this is the extended-type position. (iii) Non-Hermitian operators are accepted, but the segments are reduced to points; this is the limiting case of the extended-type position. Case (ii) is not studied in this paper. General conditions are found for any spin as regards cases (i) and (iii), and their consequences are obtained for spin 0 and spin \textonehalf{}. The results are the following: There is no position operator in case (i), but in case (iii) the position operator is unique for spin 0 and unique up to a parameter for spin \textonehalf{}. For both spins, in spite of the lack of relativistic Hermiticity, the eigenvalues of position are real, and the velocity is the expected one. The eigenstates of one component of the position are found. The components of the position are compatible with each other for spin 0, and incompatible for spin \textonehalf{}. In the former case, the simultaneous eigenstates of all components are Philip's class-I localized states. Related work is discussed.
You might think that the great success of quantum electrodynamics (QED) would settle the debate on the nature of light to provide a clear view of its behavior, where the photon is regarded as the unit of excitation associated with a quantized mode of the electromagnetic (radiation) œeld. However, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that a state of deœnite momentum, energy, and polarization associated with a plane wave used as a basis function of quantization must be completely indeœnite in space and time. It suggests the diµculty of spatial localization of a photon as a particle. In fact, Newton and Wigner showed that a free photon, as a massless particle with spin 1, has no localized states on the basis of natural invariance requirements that localized states for which operators of the Lorentz group apply should be orthogonal to the undisplaced localized states, a§er a translation (Newton and Wigner 1949). According to them, one can obtain a general expression for a position operator for massive particles and for massless particles of spin 0 or 1/2, not for massless particles with œnite spin, which indicates that there is no probability density for the position of the photon, and thus a position-representation wave function cannot be consistently introduced. It has also been shown that photons are not localizable, on the basis of imprimitive representations of the Euclidean group (Wightman 1962). It is now believed that photons are only weakly localizable, although single-photon states with arbitrarily fast asymptotic fallo˜ of energy density exist, and that a lack of strict localizability is directly related to the absence of a position operator for a photon in free space and a positionrepresentation photon wave function (Hawton 1999).
Although the concept of localization in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is mathematically well-defined there is no obvious and unambiguous way to generalize it to relativistic quantum theory. After a brief review of localization in quantum mechanics the Newton-Wigner localization scheme is introduced and it is shown by the example of a massive spinless system how it leads to a position operator with seemingly unphysical properties. This motivated the development of several theorems which claim to rule out the existence of localizable particles. A particularly important one of them is presented and its validity discussed. In the last section however it is shown that if localization is considered with respect to spacelike hyperplanes, the properties of the Newton-Wigner position operators are not necessarily unphysical and localizable particles can exist.
Relativistic quantum theory poses a number of conceptual problems over and above the non-relativistic mechanics. From a purely mathematical point of view it is also much more sophisticated. Even the kinematic theory poses considerable difficulties: locality, antimatter, negative energy, and charge are already systematically linked in ways that cannot simply be paraphrased. A further complication is that in the midst of this structure we have what is usually called the Newton-Wigner representation (or, in the case of the Dirac theory, the Foldy-Wouthuysen representation), in which fields and states are no longer covariantly described and where the “local” self-adjoint quantities (NW-local observables) do not obey microcausality, but only satisfy equal-time commutators with respect to a particular inertial frame. If we pass to this represenation, we obtain at a stroke the basic structure of non-relativistic quantum field theory; it is not too hard to descend from that to a many-particle mechanics, and to recover the usual definitions of localization.