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

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association

Lorentz Invariant State Reduction, and Localization

Gordon N. Fleming

Published Jan 1, 1988• 58 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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).

DOI
10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1988.2.192876

Related papers

Strange positions

Gordon N. Fleming, Jeremy Butterfield

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Dec 28, 1999•29 citations

Relativistic Quantum Field Theory

Many of the "counterintuitive" features of relativistic quantum field theory have their formal root in the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, which in particular entails that local operations applied to the vacuum state can produce any state of the entire field.It is of great interest then that I.E.Segal and, more recently, G. Fleming (in a paper entitled "Reeh-Schlieder meets Newton-Wigner") have proposed an alternative "Newton-Wigner" localization scheme that avoids the Reeh-Schlieder theorem.In this paper, I reconstruct the Newton-Wigner localization scheme and clarify the limited extent to which it avoids the counterintuitive consequences of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem.I also argue that there is no coherent interpretation of the Newton-Wigner localization scheme that renders it free from act-outcome correlations at spacelike separation.

Princeton University Press eBooks•Mar 19, 2019•8 citations

Lorentz-Invariant Localization for Elementary Systems. V. General Transformations

Andrés J. Kálnay, P. L. Torres

In parts II and III of the present series of papers, the localization problem was studied for the cases of relativistic nonzero mass (spin 0, $\frac{1}{2}$) and zero mass (spin 0, $\frac{1}{2}$, and 1). With a set of postulates, of which the basic one is the imposition of Lorentz invariance of localization (LIL) (which is a self-consistency requirement), it was possible to define the position operator uniquely (except for a constant in the spin-$\frac{1}{2}$, nonzero-mass case). For the determination of the position operators it was enough to consider only very special cases of homogeneous Lorentz transformations. One of the purposes of the present paper is to consider the effect of arbitrary inhomogeneous continuous Lorentz transformations in order to obtain general Poincar\'e-invariant localization (GPIL). Our main result will be that localization is LIL if and only if it is GPIL. In II and III, LIL was obtained in spite of the fact that the position operators were not 4-vector operators but only 3-vector operators. In this paper, following Fleming, we construct formally covariant position operators from the 3-vector operators. We prove that their eigenfunctions are just the localized states defined in the GPIL sense.

Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Mar 15, 1973•11 citations

II. Elements of Physical Reality, Nonlocality and Stochasticity in Relativistic Dynamical Reduction Models

G. C. Ghirardi, Philip Pearle

In this part we will consider recent attempts to get a relativistic CSL theory. The problem of getting such a generalization, or at least of making plausible that it exists, is of great interest. J. Bell (1990), after having expressed his dissatisfaction with the fundamental lack of precision of the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and the opinion that the only available acceptable alternatives are the Pilot Wave and the Spontaneous Localization schemes has stated: The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way. The point of view of this paper is that what is most interesting is not a detailed exposition of the formal aspects of the generalization, but some crucial conceptual points which have come into focus in this attempt.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association•Jan 1, 1990•10 citations

Relativistic quantum measurement

Donald M. Marolf, Carlo Rovelli C

Does the measurement of a quantum system necessarily break Lorentz invariance? We present a simple model of a detector that measures the spacetime localization of a relativistic particle in a Lorentz invariant manner. The detector does not select a preferred Lorentz frame as a Newton-Wigner measurement would do. The result indicates that there exists a Lorentz invariant notion of quantum measurement and sheds light on the issue of the localization of a relativistic particle. The framework considered is that of single-particle mechanics as opposed to field theory. The result may be taken as support for the interpretation postulate of the spacetime-states formulation of single-particle quantum theory.

arXiv:gr-qc/0203056•Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields•Jul 15, 2002•42 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
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).
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.
Many of the "counterintuitive" features of relativistic quantum field theory have their formal root in the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, which in particular entails that local operations applied to the vacuum state can produce any state of the entire field.It is of great interest then that I.E.Segal and, more recently, G. Fleming (in a paper entitled "Reeh-Schlieder meets Newton-Wigner") have proposed an alternative "Newton-Wigner" localization scheme that avoids the Reeh-Schlieder theorem.In this paper, I reconstruct the Newton-Wigner localization scheme and clarify the limited extent to which it avoids the counterintuitive consequences of the Reeh-Schlieder theorem.I also argue that there is no coherent interpretation of the Newton-Wigner localization scheme that renders it free from act-outcome correlations at spacelike separation.
In parts II and III of the present series of papers, the localization problem was studied for the cases of relativistic nonzero mass (spin 0, 12\frac{1}{2}21​) and zero mass (spin 0, 12\frac{1}{2}21​, and 1). With a set of postulates, of which the basic one is the imposition of Lorentz invariance of localization (LIL) (which is a self-consistency requirement), it was possible to define the position operator uniquely (except for a constant in the spin-12\frac{1}{2}21​, nonzero-mass case). For the determination of the position operators it was enough to consider only very special cases of homogeneous Lorentz transformations. One of the purposes of the present paper is to consider the effect of arbitrary inhomogeneous continuous Lorentz transformations in order to obtain general Poincar\'e-invariant localization (GPIL). Our main result will be that localization is LIL if and only if it is GPIL. In II and III, LIL was obtained in spite of the fact that the position operators were not 4-vector operators but only 3-vector operators. In this paper, following Fleming, we construct formally covariant position operators from the 3-vector operators. We prove that their eigenfunctions are just the localized states defined in the GPIL sense.
In this part we will consider recent attempts to get a relativistic CSL theory. The problem of getting such a generalization, or at least of making plausible that it exists, is of great interest. J. Bell (1990), after having expressed his dissatisfaction with the fundamental lack of precision of the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and the opinion that the only available acceptable alternatives are the Pilot Wave and the Spontaneous Localization schemes has stated: The big question, in my opinion, is which, if either, of these two precise pictures can be redeveloped in a Lorentz invariant way. The point of view of this paper is that what is most interesting is not a detailed exposition of the formal aspects of the generalization, but some crucial conceptual points which have come into focus in this attempt.
Does the measurement of a quantum system necessarily break Lorentz invariance? We present a simple model of a detector that measures the spacetime localization of a relativistic particle in a Lorentz invariant manner. The detector does not select a preferred Lorentz frame as a Newton-Wigner measurement would do. The result indicates that there exists a Lorentz invariant notion of quantum measurement and sheds light on the issue of the localization of a relativistic particle. The framework considered is that of single-particle mechanics as opposed to field theory. The result may be taken as support for the interpretation postulate of the spacetime-states formulation of single-particle quantum theory.
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.