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

Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Spin and statistics in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics: The spin-zero case’ ”

Murray Peshkin

Published Oct 14, 2003• 14 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The preceding Comment states that I have assumed the conclusion in my proof from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics that spin-zero particles must be bosons, and that the theory presented is different from standard quantum mechanics. I show here that neither of those statements is true.
DOI
10.1103/physreva.68.046102

Related papers

Reply to "No spin-statistics connection in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics"

Murray Peshkin

In a previous paper [quant-ph/0207017] I gave an elementary proof, starting from stated assumptions of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, that identical spin-zero particles must be bosons. Since then it has been suggested that my proof assumed its conclusion, and that it is based on a theory "quite different from standard physics." [quant-ph/0304088] I show here that those two statements are incorrect.

arXiv:quant-ph/0306189•Jun 27, 2003•3 citations

Comment on “Spin and statistics in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics: The spin-zero case”

Roland E. Allen, Alfonso Mondragón

We emphasize that there is no spin-statistics connection in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. In several recent papers [including Phys. Rev. A 67, 042102 (2003)], quantum mechanics is modified so as to force a spin-statistics connection, but the resulting theory is quite different from standard physics.

Physical Review A•Oct 14, 2003•13 citations

Reply to "Non-relativistic proofs of the spin-statistics connection," by Shaji and Sudarshan

Murray Peshkin

I earlier proved under stated assumptions of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, that identical spin-zero particles with no internal degrees of freedom must be bosons. Shaji and Sudarshan have criticized that proof, asserting that it is "based on single-valuedness under rotation of the wave functions of systems of identical particles." No such assumption was used. Here, to remove all doubt, I exclude the fermion possibility through a proof in which even the existence of rotation is not used. Following that, I assume that the Hilbert space is invariant under rotation to exclude other symmetries which correspond neither to bosons nor to fermions. In that proof no issue of single-valuedness can arise.

arXiv:quant-ph/0402118•Feb 17, 2004•1 citation

Spin and statistics in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics: The spin-zero case

Murray Peshkin

It is proved from stated assumptions of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics based on the Schroedinger equation that identical spin-zero particles must obey symmetric statistics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207017•Physical Review A•Apr 4, 2003•19 citations

Spin-Zero Particles must be Bosons: A New Proof within Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics

Murray Peshkin

Foundations of Physics•Jan 1, 2006•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations
I earlier proved under stated assumptions of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, that identical spin-zero particles with no internal degrees of freedom must be bosons. Shaji and Sudarshan have criticized that proof, asserting that it is "based on single-valuedness under rotation of the wave functions of systems of identical particles." No such assumption was used. Here, to remove all doubt, I exclude the fermion possibility through a proof in which even the existence of rotation is not used. Following that, I assume that the Hilbert space is invariant under rotation to exclude other symmetries which correspond neither to bosons nor to fermions. In that proof no issue of single-valuedness can arise.