In order to discuss localization experiments and also to extend the consistent history interpretation of quantum mechanics to relativistic properties, the techniques introduced in a previous paper [J. Math. Phys. 38, 697 (1997)] are applied to the localization of a photon in a given region of space. An essential requirement is to exclude arbitrarily large wavelengths. The method is valid for a particle with any mass and spin. Though there is no proper position operator for a photon, one never needs one in practice. Causality is valid up to exponentially small corrections.
In order to discuss localization experiments and also to extend the consistent history interpretation of quantum mechanics to relativistic properties, the techniques introduced in a previous paper [J. Math. Phys. 38, 697 (1997)] are applied to the localization of a photon in a given region of space. An essential requirement is to exclude arbitrarily large wavelengths. The method is valid for a particle with any mass and spin. Though there is no proper position operator for a photon, one never needs one in practice. Causality is valid up to exponentially small corrections.
The concept of position is a basic one in our construction of a model of thenphysical world: yet the theory of localisation in quantum mechanics is fraughtnwith difficulties, especially in the relativistic case. A strictly localised state forna nonrelativistic particle cannot be described by an ordinary function. In thenrelativistic case the problems are manifold. For a free electron, using the Diracnposition operator x, we cannot construct positive-energy states which localisenthe particle within a compact region. Furthermore it has been suggested that anconsistent one-particle description of localisation on a scale small compared tonthe Compton wavelength of the particle is ruled out because pair-productionnwould take place. These matters are dicussed at greater length in Chaptern1, where several proposed localisation schemes (that is, sets of definitions ofnlocalised states and position operators) are reviewed: none of these is deemednwholly satisfactory. Introductory remarks are also made in this chapter aboutnthe remarkable phenomenon of 'probability backflow', which is discussed further below, and which is relevant to our discussion of localisation.In Chapter 2 we show that while strict localisation of the free Dirac particle is not describable within the usual mathematical formalism, in terms of Dirac's position operator x it is possible to describe sequences of positive-energy states whose spread Dx = ((x -- x0)2) about a point X0 approaches zero.In Chapter 3 the component states of these sequences are used as the basis of a full causally well-behaved solution to the localisation problem for the free electron, with natural space-time transformation properties. It is shown that although x is not an observable in the usual sense, the four-vector density (p(x, t), j(x, t)/c) is observable, and can be localised arbitrarily precisely about any point in space, at any instant of time, using only positive-energy states. A suitable spin operator can be diagonalised at the same time.n n
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.
In parts II and III of the present series of papers, the localization problem was studied for the relativistic nonzero-mass (spin 0 and \textonehalf{}) and zero-mass (spin 0, \textonehalf{}, and 1) cases. With a set of postulates of which the basic one was the imposition of Lorentz invariance of localization (which is a self-consistency requirement), it was possible to define the position operator uniquely (except for a constant for spin \textonehalf{}, nonzero mass). However, the position operator has unusual properties, e.g., non-Hermiticity. This does not preclude its having physical meaning, but is such a strange result that in the present paper we test the validity of the postulates in the nonrelativistic case (spin 0 and \textonehalf{}) where the position operator is well known. We use the same set of postulates, except that here we impose the Galilean invariance of localization. The result of the test is positive; the position operator found is the usual one. Moreover, with our set of postulates, we restate the notion of localization in a more physical basis, giving a precise definition of it without imposing avoidable requirements.
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 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) eld. However, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle tells us that a state of denite momentum, energy, and polarization associated with a plane wave used as a basis function of quantization must be completely indenite 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 nite 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).