Lorentz-Transforming a Newton-Wigner State

  • Thread starter Thread starter l-ame
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State
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
\psi (x) = \sqrt{\omega (\vec{p})} e^{-i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{q_0}
(a state localized at position q_0 at a time t).

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

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
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top