Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T16:27:55.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reeh-Schlieder Meets Newton-Wigner

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Gordon N. Fleming
Gordon N. Fleming*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Physics Department, Pennsylvania State University, 325 Davey Lab, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: gnfl@earthlink.net.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Reeh-Schlieder theorem asserts the vacuum and certain other states to be spacelike superentangled relative to local quantum fields. This motivates an inquiry into the physical status of various concepts of localization. It is argued that a covariant generalization of Newton-Wigner localization is a physically illuminating concept. When analyzed in terms of nonlocally covariant quantum fields, creating and annihilating quanta in Newton-Wigner localized states, the vacuum is seen to not possess the spacelike superentanglement that the Reeh-Schlieder theorem displays relative to local fields, and to be locally empty as well as globally empty. Newton-Wigner localization is then shown to be physically interpretable in terms of a covariant generalization of the center of energy, the two localizations being identical if the system has no internal angular momentum. Finally, some of the counterintuitive features of Newton-Wigner localization are shown to have close analogues in classical special relativity.

Type
Philosophy of Physics and Chemistry
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 67 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers Sep., 2000 , 2000 , pp. S495 - S515
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

In the work leading to this paper I have had the benefit of critical discussions with Twareque Ali, Jeremy Butterfield, Rob Clifton, Jan Hilgevoord, John Norton, Simon Saunders, Paul Teller, and Andrew Wayne, none of whom are responsible for this paper's retention of my more extreme idiosyncratic views.

References

Ali, S. Twareque (1998), “Systems of Covariance in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 36: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birrell, N. D. and Davies, Paul C. W. (1984), Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clifton, Robert, Feldman, David, Halvorson, H., Redhead, Michael L. G., and Wilce, Alexander (1998), “Superentangled States”, Physical Review A 58: 135–145.10.1103/PhysRevA.58.135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1965a), “Covariant Position Operators, Spin, and Locality”, The Physical Review 137: B188–197.10.1103/PhysRev.137.B188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1965b), “Nonlocal Properties of Stable Particles”, The Physical Review 139: B963–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1966), “A Manifestly Covariant Description of Arbitrary Dynamical Variables in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 7: 1959–1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. (1996), “Just How Radical is Hyperplane Dependence?”, in Clifton, Robert (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Gordon N. and Butterfield, Jeremy (1999), “Strange Positions”, in Butterfield, Jeremy and Pagonis, Constantin (eds.), From Physics to Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 108–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulling, Stephen A. (1989), Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haag, Rudolph (1992), Local Quantum Physics. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegerfeldt, Gerhardt C. (1985), “Violation of Causality in Relativistic Quantum Theory?”, Physical Review Letters 54: 2395–2398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, J. M. (1961), “Strict Localization in Quantum Field Theory”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 2: 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licht, A. L. (1963), “Strict Localization”, Journal of Mathematical Physics 4: 1443–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, T. D. and Wigner, Eugene. P. (1949), “Localized States for Elementary Systems”, Reviews of Modern Physics 21: 400–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael L. G. (1995a), “More Ado About Nothing”, Foundations of Physics 25: 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael L. G. (1995b), “The Vacuum in Relativistic Quantum Field Theory”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M. (eds.), PSA 1994, vol.2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 77–87.Google Scholar
Reeh, H. and Schlieder, S. (1961) “Bemerkungen zur unitaraquivalenz von Lorentzinvarianten Feldern”, Nuovo Cimento 22: 1051–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruijsenaars, S. N. M. (1981), “On Newton-Wigner Localization and Superluminal Propagation Speeds”, Annals of Physics 137: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Simon (1995), “A Dissolution of the Problem of Locality”, in Hull, David, Forbes, Micky, and Burian, Richard M. (eds.), PSA 1994, vol.2. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, 88–98.Google Scholar
Unruh, William G. (1976), “Notes on Black Hole Evaporation”, Physical Review D14: 870–892.Google Scholar
Wald, Robert M. (1994), Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wigner, Eugene P. (1983), “Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Wheeler, John. A. and Zurek, Wojciech H. (eds.), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 260–314.Google Scholar