Progress of Theoretical Physics

Critical Comment on the Nonexistence of the Charge Superselection Rule

Yasuo Yoshihuku

Published Jun 1, 1972• 1 citation

Abstract

Aharonov and Susskind denied the concept of the superselection rules, and suggested the experimental feasibility of measuring interference between states with different charges. Their reasoning is shown to be incorrect.

DOI: 10.1143/ptp.47.2085

Related papers

Charge Superselection Rule

Yakir Aharonov, Leonard Susskind

Questions concerning superselection rules are considered. Two experiments are discussed. In the first, coherent superpositions of different angular-momentum states are constructed. In the second, coherent superpositions of states with different charge are constructed in complete analogy with the angular-momentum case. We suggest that, contrary to a widespread belief, interference may be possible between states with different charges.

Physical ReviewMar 25, 1967242 citations

Superselection Rule for Charge

G. C. Wick, Arthur S. Wightman, Eugene Paul Wigner

The customary notion of superselection rule stipulates the vanishing of those matrix elements of the density matrix that connect states separated by the superselection rule, i.e., the relative phases of which are, according to the superselection rule, meaningless. It is shown that, if any two states for which an additive conserved quantity has different values are separated for all physical systems by a superselection rule at one time, the separation will persist for all times. It is concluded that the states with different electric (or baryonic) charges are so separated. The reason for the difference between electric charge and other additive conserved quantities, such as momentum, is brought out.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsJun 15, 197091 citations

The Intrinsic Parity of Elementary Particles

G. C. Wick, Arthur S. Wightman, Eugene Paul Wigner

The limitations to the concept of parity of quantum-mechanical states and, in particular, of intrinsic parity of elementary particles are discussed. These limitations are shown to follow from "superselection rules," i.e., from restrictions on the nature and scope of possible measurements. The existence of such superselection rules is proved for the case of spinor fields; it is also conjectured that a superselection rule operates between states of different total charge.

Physical ReviewOct 1, 1952666 citations

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

Namit Anand

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.

arXiv:1507.00544European Journal of PhysicsJun 15, 20160 citations

Comment on "Condition for nonexistence of Aharonov-Bohm effect"

U. Klein

A recent attempt to deny the crucial role of inaccessible fields in experiments performed to test the predictions of Aharonov and Bohm is critically discussed. It is shown that these experiments may well be considered to show the reality of the Aharonov-Bohm effect even if it is correct to say that the results are completely determined by the accessible field.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fieldsMar 15, 198113 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 ScienceSep 1, 19982 citations