Foundations of Physics Letters

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 501–517

Born Reciprocity and the Granularity of Spacetime

Article

Abstract

The Schrödinger-Robertson inequality for relativistic position and momentum operators Xμ, Pν, μ, ν = 0, 1, 2, 3, is interpreted in terms of Born reciprocity and ‘non-commutative’ relativistic position-momentum space geometry. For states which saturate the Schrödinger-Robertson inequality, a typology of semiclassical limits is pointed out, characterised by the orbit structure within its unitary irreducible representations, of the full invariance group of Born reciprocity, the so-called ‘quaplectic’ group U(3, 1) #x2297;sH(3, 1) (the semi-direct product of the unitary relativistic dynamical symmetry U(3, 1) with the Weyl-Heisenberg group H(3, 1)). The example of the ‘scalar’ case, namely the relativistic oscillator, and associated multimode squeezed states, is treated in detail. In this case, it is suggested that the semiclassical limit corresponds to the separate emergence of spacetime and matter, in the form of the stress-energy tensor, and the quadrupole tensor, which are in general reciprocally equivalent.

Key words:

reciprocity quaplectic Heisenberg algebra uncertainty relation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    1. X. Bekaert and N. Boulanger, “Mixed symmetry gauge fields in a flat background,” hep-th/0310209, Talk given at the International Workshop on Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries (SQS03), Dubna, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    2. M. Born, “Elementary particles and the principle of reciprocity,” Nature 163, 207–208 (February 1949).MATHADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    3. M. Born, “Reciprocity theory of elementary particles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 21(3), 463–473 (July 1949).CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    4. A Connes, Noncommutative Geometry (Academic, New York, 1994).MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. P A M Dirac, “Unitary representations of the Lorentz group,” Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 183, 284 (1945).ADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    6. G. B. Folland, Harmonic Analysis on Phase Space (University Press, Princeton, 1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    7. H. S. Green, “Quantized field theories and the principle of reciprocity,” Nature 163, 208–9 (February 1949).MATHADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    8. Y. S. Kim and M. E. Noz, Phase Space Picture of Quantum Mechanics: Group Theoretical Approach (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    9. Stephen G. Low, “Representations of the canonical group, (the semidirect product of the unitary and Weyl-Heisenberg groups), acting as a dynamical group on noncommutative extended phase space,” J. Phys. A 35, 5711–5729 (2002).CrossRefADSMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    10. Stephen G. Low, “Poincaré and Heisenberg quantum dynamical symmetry: Casimir invariant field equations of the quaplectic group,” math-ph/0502018, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    11. Stephen G. Low, “Reciprocal relativity of noninertial frames and the quaplectic group,” Found. Phys. 36 (7) (2006); math-ph/0506031, 2005.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. S. Majid, “Hopf algebras for physics at the Planck scale,” Class. Quant. Grav. 5, 1587–1606 (1993).CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    13. H. R. Robertson, “An indeterminacy relation for several observables and its classical interpretation,” Phys. Rev. 46, 794 (1934).CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    14. E. Schrödinger, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Acad. Wiss. 24, 296 (1930).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    15. J. L. Synge, “Geometrical approach to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation and its generalisation,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 325, 151–156 (1971).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    16. D. A. Trifonov, “Robertson intelligent states,” J. Phys. A 30, 594 (1997).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    17. V. G. Turaev, “Algebras of loops on surfaces, algebras of knots, and quantisation,” in C. N. Yang and M. L. Ge, eds., Braid Group, Knot Theory and Statistical Mechanics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991), pp. 59–95.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    18. J. Williamson, “On the algebraic problem concerning the normal forms of linear dynamical systems,” Am. J. Math. 58, 141 (1936).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    19. J. A. Wolf, “Representations of certain semidirect product groups,” J. Func. Anal. 19, 339–372 (1975).CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and PhysicsUniversity of TasmaniaHobart TasAustralia

Personalised recommendations