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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

Strange positions

Gordon N. Fleming, Jeremy Butterfield

Published Dec 28, 1999• 29 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Introduction: localization and Lorentz-invariant Quantum Theory The current status of localization and related concepts, especially localized statevectors and position operators, within Lorentz-invariant Quantum Theory (LIQT) is ambiguous and controversial. Ever since the early work of Newton & Wigner (1949), and the subsequent extensions of their work, particularly by Hegerfeldt (1974, 1985), it has seemed impossible to identify localized statevectors or position operators in LIQT that were not counterintuitive – strange – in one way or another; the most striking strange property being the superluminal propagation of the localized states. The ambiguous and controversial status of these concepts arises from the varied reactions that workers have to the strange properties. Some regard them, particularly the superluminal propagation, as utterly unacceptable, and conclude that no precise concepts of localized statevectors and position operators exist in LIQT (Wigner 1973, pp. 325–7; 1983, pp. 310–13; Malament 1996). Others downplay the whole issue, on the grounds that current theoretical and experimental practice has no need of sharply formulated concepts of localization, localized states etc. (Birrell & Davies 1984, pp. 48–59; Haag 1992, p. 34). Still others, including ourselves, believe that the superluminal propagation does not lead to causal contradictions, and is not in conflict with available empirical data: so that it should not be ruled out. We also believe that the other strange properties are merely unfamiliar novelties of LIQT which we must simply learn to accept. (Like the superluminal propagation, they do not lead to causal contradictions, nor conflict with available data.) So in this essay, we aim to help remove the ambiguous and controversial status of localization concepts in LIQT.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9780511597947.008

Related papers

Lorentz Invariant State Reduction, and Localization

Gordon N. Fleming

In this paper I will present conceptions of state reduction and particle and/or system localization which render these subjects fully compatible with the general requirements of a relativistic, i.e. Lorentz invariant, quantum theory. In the case of state reduction, the concept presented has, in it's main features, been advanced by several investigators in recent years, (Giovannini 1983), (Aharonov and Albert 1984), (Malin 1984), (Dieks 1985). My own contribution to this topic has been to elaborate the concept in question and examine, in some detail, the often counterintuitive but never causally anomalous or internally inconsistent consequences that emerge from taking the concept seriously (Fleming 1985,1986). In the case of particle and system localization, the concepts are more nearly my own and have been pursued by me for some time (Fleming 1964, 1965, 1966) as a way of freeing the subject of localization in relativistic quantum systems from the conceptual problems pointed out by Newton and Wigner (1949) myself (Fleming 1965) and extensively studied by Hegerfeldt et. al. (1974, 1980) and Ruijsenaars (1981).

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1988•58 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

Lorentz-Invariant Localization for Elementary Systems. IV. The Nonrelativistic Limit

Andrés J. Kálnay, P. L. Torres

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.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jun 15, 1971•4 citations

Lorentz Invariant Localized States

T. O. Philips

Newton and Wigner have previously discussed the definition of "localized states" in terms of invariance conditions. However, their localization conditions are not Lorentz covariant. The present work presents a modified set of invariance postulates which includes a Lorentz invariance condition. It is shown that for spinless systems there do exist states satisfying the modified set of postulates; these states are calculated explicitly. The procedure appears to preclude the existence of Lorentz covariant "position operators."

Physical Review•Nov 9, 1964•45 citations

Quantum time and spatial localization: An analysis of the Hegerfeldt paradox

Francis S. G. Von Zuben

Two related problems in relativistic quantum mechanics, the apparent superluminal propagation of initially localized particles and dependence of spatial localization on the motion of the observer, are analyzed in the context of Dirac’s theory of constraints. A parametrization invariant formulation is obtained by introducing time and energy operators for the relativistic particle and then treating the Klein–Gordon equation as a constraint. The standard, physical Hilbert space is recovered, via integration over proper time, from an augmented Hilbert space wherein time and energy are dynamical variables. It is shown that the Newton–Wigner position operator, being in this description a constant of motion, acts on states in the augmented space. States with strictly positive energy are nonlocal in time; consequently, position measurements receive contributions from states representing the particle’s position at many times. Apparent superluminal propagation is explained by noting that, as the particle is potentially in the past (or future) of the assumed initial place and time of localization, it has time to propagate to distant regions without exceeding the speed of light. An inequality is proven showing the Hegerfeldt paradox to be completely accounted for by the hypotheses of subluminal propagation from a set of initial space–time points determined by the quantum time distribution arising from the positivity of the system’s energy. Spatial localization can nevertheless occur through quantum interference between states representing the particle at different times. The nonlocality of the same system to a moving observer is due to Lorentz rotation of spatial axes out of the interference minimum.

arXiv:physics/9708030•Journal of Mathematical Physics•Sep 1, 2000•9 citations

Some Thoughts on Quantum Nonlocality and Its Apparent Incompatibility with Relativity

Shan Gao

It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•1 citation
Introduction: localization and Lorentz-invariant Quantum Theory The current status of localization and related concepts, especially localized statevectors and position operators, within Lorentz-invariant Quantum Theory (LIQT) is ambiguous and controversial. Ever since the early work of Newton & Wigner (1949), and the subsequent extensions of their work, particularly by Hegerfeldt (1974, 1985), it has seemed impossible to identify localized statevectors or position operators in LIQT that were not counterintuitive – strange – in one way or another; the most striking strange property being the superluminal propagation of the localized states. The ambiguous and controversial status of these concepts arises from the varied reactions that workers have to the strange properties. Some regard them, particularly the superluminal propagation, as utterly unacceptable, and conclude that no precise concepts of localized statevectors and position operators exist in LIQT (Wigner 1973, pp. 325–7; 1983, pp. 310–13; Malament 1996). Others downplay the whole issue, on the grounds that current theoretical and experimental practice has no need of sharply formulated concepts of localization, localized states etc. (Birrell & Davies 1984, pp. 48–59; Haag 1992, p. 34). Still others, including ourselves, believe that the superluminal propagation does not lead to causal contradictions, and is not in conflict with available empirical data: so that it should not be ruled out. We also believe that the other strange properties are merely unfamiliar novelties of LIQT which we must simply learn to accept. (Like the superluminal propagation, they do not lead to causal contradictions, nor conflict with available data.) So in this essay, we aim to help remove the ambiguous and controversial status of localization concepts in LIQT.
In this paper I will present conceptions of state reduction and particle and/or system localization which render these subjects fully compatible with the general requirements of a relativistic, i.e. Lorentz invariant, quantum theory. In the case of state reduction, the concept presented has, in it's main features, been advanced by several investigators in recent years, (Giovannini 1983), (Aharonov and Albert 1984), (Malin 1984), (Dieks 1985). My own contribution to this topic has been to elaborate the concept in question and examine, in some detail, the often counterintuitive but never causally anomalous or internally inconsistent consequences that emerge from taking the concept seriously (Fleming 1985,1986). In the case of particle and system localization, the concepts are more nearly my own and have been pursued by me for some time (Fleming 1964, 1965, 1966) as a way of freeing the subject of localization in relativistic quantum systems from the conceptual problems pointed out by Newton and Wigner (1949) myself (Fleming 1965) and extensively studied by Hegerfeldt et. al. (1974, 1980) and Ruijsenaars (1981).
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.
Newton and Wigner have previously discussed the definition of "localized states" in terms of invariance conditions. However, their localization conditions are not Lorentz covariant. The present work presents a modified set of invariance postulates which includes a Lorentz invariance condition. It is shown that for spinless systems there do exist states satisfying the modified set of postulates; these states are calculated explicitly. The procedure appears to preclude the existence of Lorentz covariant "position operators."
Two related problems in relativistic quantum mechanics, the apparent superluminal propagation of initially localized particles and dependence of spatial localization on the motion of the observer, are analyzed in the context of Dirac’s theory of constraints. A parametrization invariant formulation is obtained by introducing time and energy operators for the relativistic particle and then treating the Klein–Gordon equation as a constraint. The standard, physical Hilbert space is recovered, via integration over proper time, from an augmented Hilbert space wherein time and energy are dynamical variables. It is shown that the Newton–Wigner position operator, being in this description a constant of motion, acts on states in the augmented space. States with strictly positive energy are nonlocal in time; consequently, position measurements receive contributions from states representing the particle’s position at many times. Apparent superluminal propagation is explained by noting that, as the particle is potentially in the past (or future) of the assumed initial place and time of localization, it has time to propagate to distant regions without exceeding the speed of light. An inequality is proven showing the Hegerfeldt paradox to be completely accounted for by the hypotheses of subluminal propagation from a set of initial space–time points determined by the quantum time distribution arising from the positivity of the system’s energy. Spatial localization can nevertheless occur through quantum interference between states representing the particle at different times. The nonlocality of the same system to a moving observer is due to Lorentz rotation of spatial axes out of the interference minimum.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.