Lorentz-Transforming a Newton-Wigner State

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter l-ame
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of Lorentz transformations on Newton-Wigner states, particularly regarding the claim that such transformations lead to complete delocalization of these states. Participants explore the mathematical derivation and implications of this phenomenon, referencing specific literature and equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that acting with a Lorentz transformation on a Newton-Wigner state is said to completely delocalize the state, referencing literature that discusses this claim.
  • Another participant mentions that the integral involved in the transformation has not been explicitly evaluated and refers to a qualitative argument from Mourad's paper regarding the non-vanishing nature of the function outside a bounded domain due to the presence of square roots in the integrand.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in deriving a specific formula from Mourad's paper, questioning the origin of the square root in the integral.
  • Further clarification is provided on the steps needed to obtain the Lorentz transform of a wave function, including changing to momentum representation and the subsequent transformations, with a reference to Weinberg's work for comparison.
  • There is a mention of different normalization conventions used by Mourad and Weinberg, with a preference expressed for Weinberg's approach.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the derivation of the integral or the implications of the Lorentz transformation on Newton-Wigner states. There are differing views on the normalization conventions and the interpretation of the results.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the dependence on specific mathematical formulations and normalization conventions, which may affect the interpretation of the results. The discussion includes unresolved steps in the derivation process.

l-ame
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello

I recently stumbled upon an article about Newton Wigner states (cf 10.1103/RevModPhys.21.400). It is repeatedly mentioned in the literature that acting with a Lorentz transformation on a Newton Wigner state completely delocalizes the state. However I was not able to verify this, albeit I found an article by J. Mourad (arXiv:gr-qc/9310018v1), which deals with exactly this question.

The Newton Wigner eigenstates are given by
[tex]\psi (x) = \sqrt{\omega (\vec{p})} e^{-i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{q_0}[/tex]
(a state localized at position [tex]q_0[/tex] at a time t).

Then the transformed state can be written as (in a basis [tex]{|\vec{q}\rangle}[/tex] of Newton Wigner eigenstates)
[tex]\langle \vec{q} | \psi '\rangle = \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3/2}\omega} \langle \vec{q}|\vec{p}\rangle \langle{\vec{p}|\psi '\rangle[/tex]
where [tex]\psi'[/tex] denotes the Lorentz transformed state. The integral measure has a factor of [tex]\omega[/tex] in the denominator in order to be Lorentz invariant and [tex]\langle \vec{q}|\vec{p}\rangle = (2\pi)^{-3/2} e^{i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{q}}[/tex].
Unfortunately I do not succeed in evaluating the last inner product.
The whole integral in Mourad reads
[tex]\langle \vec{q} | \psi '\rangle = \sqrt{\gamma} \int \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \sqrt{\left(1-\frac{\vec{\beta}\cdot\vec{p}}{\omega}\right)}e^{i\vec{p}\cdot (\vec{q}-\vec{q_0'})}[/tex]
where [tex]\gamma^2 = 1-\beta^2[/tex].

Any help would be highly appreciated :). Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi l-ame,

welcome to the Forum!

I haven't seen these kinds of integrals evaluated explicitly. The usual argument for the de-localization in the moving frame is the qualitative statement given also in the Mourad's paper:

"The function (3.4) cannot vanish outside a bounded domain because it is the Fourier transform of a non-analytic function. This is due to the presence of square roots in the integrand."

A similar argument is used to justify the "superlumial spreading of wave packets", i.e., de-localization due to time translation. See works by Hegerfeldt and others.

Eugene.
 
Hi Eugene

Thanks for your reply.
Unfortunately I already struggle with the derivation of formula 3.4 in Mourad's paper. I can't see where the root in the integral is coming from?
 
l-ame said:
Unfortunately I already struggle with the derivation of formula 3.4 in Mourad's paper. I can't see where the root in the integral is coming from?

In order to get the Lorentz transform of a wave function in the position space you need to perform three steps:

1. Change to the momentum representation (Fourier transform)
2. Lorentz transform of the momentum-representation wave function.
3. Change back to the position representation (inverse Fourier transform).

The step 2. can be found in eq. (2.5.23) of S. Weinberg, "The quantum theory of fields", vol. 1. This eq. shows the appearance of the square root. Note also that Mourad and Weinberg use different normalization (scalar product) conventions. In Weinberg's book momentum eigenfunctions are normalized to delta function (2.5.19). In Mourad's paper the scalar product is given by (3.2). I am in favor of the Weinberg's approach. You can find the application of this approach to the de-localization in moving frames in subsection 11.1.2 of http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062v12

Eugene.
 
Great! Thank you so much for your help.

l-ame
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 167 ·
6
Replies
167
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K