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

arXiv:quant-ph/0010090 · Springer eBooks

Decoherence: A Dynamical Approach to Superselection Rules?

Domenico Giulini

Published Jun 18, 2007• 8 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/3-540-45369-5_4

Related papers

Symmetries, superselection rules, and decoherence

D. Giulini, Claus Kiefer, H.D. Zeh

arXiv:gr-qc/9410029•Physics Letters A•Apr 1, 1995•60 citations

Superselection Rules and Symmetries

Domenico Giulini

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1996•2 citations

Superselection Rules and Symmetries

Domenico Giulini

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2003•9 citations

Superselection Rules for Philosophers

John Earman

Erkenntnis•Sep 26, 2008•69 citations

On violation of the superselection rules

Elihu Lubkin

Annals of Physics•Jan 1, 1970•17 citations

States, Symmetries and Superselection

Domenico Giulini

The process of dynamical decoherence may cause apparent superselection rules, which are sometimes called `environmentally induced' or `soft'. A natural question is whether such dynamical processes are eventually also responsible for at least some of the superselection rules which are usually presented as fundamentally rooted in the kinematical structure of the theory (so called `hard' superselection rules). With this question in mind, I re-investigate two well known examples where superselection rules are usually argued to rigorously exist within the given mathematical framework. These are (1) the Bargmann superselection rule for the total mass in Galilei invariant quantum mechanics and (2) the charge superselection rule in quantum electrodynamics. I argue that, for various reasons, the kinematical arguments usually given are not physically convincing unless they are based on an underlying dynamical process.

arXiv:quant-ph/9906108•Jun 28, 1999•3 citations
The process of dynamical decoherence may cause apparent superselection rules, which are sometimes called `environmentally induced' or `soft'. A natural question is whether such dynamical processes are eventually also responsible for at least some of the superselection rules which are usually presented as fundamentally rooted in the kinematical structure of the theory (so called `hard' superselection rules). With this question in mind, I re-investigate two well known examples where superselection rules are usually argued to rigorously exist within the given mathematical framework. These are (1) the Bargmann superselection rule for the total mass in Galilei invariant quantum mechanics and (2) the charge superselection rule in quantum electrodynamics. I argue that, for various reasons, the kinematical arguments usually given are not physically convincing unless they are based on an underlying dynamical process.