Summary
The problem of getting the Galilei group as a limit of the Poincaré group has been solved in a rigorous manner. We use the generalized contraction introduced by Doebner and Melsheimer. Good physical reasons are given for keepingE 3 invariant in the contraction procedure, in spite of other attempts made in this direction. Group representations are contracted by using well-defined mathematical methods studied by Mickelsson and Niederle. Ill-defined contracted states do not appear in this way. An intriguing connection between localizability and contraction has energed through this work. Some physical conclusions are associated to this feature.
Riassunto
Si è risolto in maniera rigorosa il problema di ottenere il gruppo di Galilei come limite del gruppo di Poincaré. Si usa la contrazione generalizzata introdotta da Doebner e Melsheimer. Si forniscono buoni motivi fisici per mantenereE 3 invariante nella procedura di contrazione, nonostante altri tentativi fatti in questa direzione. Si contraggono altre rappresentazioni di gruppo usando metodi matematici ben definiti studiati da Mickelsson e Niederle. In questo modo non compaiono stati contratti mal definiti. Un'interessante relazione tra localizzabilità e contrazione è emersa in questo lavoro. A questo aspetto sono associate alcune conclusioni fisiche.
Резюме
Строго рещается проблема получения группы Галилея, как предела группы Пуанкаре. Мы используем обобщенное свертывание, введенное Добнером и Мелшеймером. Приводятся физические аргументы в пользу сохраненияE 3 инвариантности в процедуре свертывания. Представления группы свертываются, используя хорошо известные математические методы, исследованные Микелсоном и Нидерлом. В таком подходе не появляются неправильно определенные свернутые состояния. В работе возникает интригующая связь между локализуемостью и свертыванием. Обсуждаются некоторые физические следствия этой связи.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
V. Bargmann:Ann. of Math.,59, 1 (1954);M. Hammermesh:Ann. of Phys.,9, 518 (1960);J. M. Lévy-Leblond:Riv. Nuovo Cimento,4, 99 (1974).
E. Inönü andE. P. Wigner:Nuovo Cimento,9, 705 (1952).
V. Bargmann andE. P. Wigner:Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,34, 211 (1948);E. P. Wigner:Ann. of Math.,40, 149 (1939).
E. Inönü andE. P. Wigner:Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,39, 510 (1953).
E. Saletan:Journ. Math. Phys.,2, 1 (1961).
J. Mickelsson andJ. Niederle:Comm. Math. Phys.,27, 167 (1972).
T. Newton andE. P. Wigner:Rev. Mod. Phys.,21, 400 (1949).
A. S. Wightman:Rev. Mod. Phys.,34, 845 (1962).
I. E. Segal:Duke Math. Journ.,18, 221 (1951).
M. D. Doebner andO. Melsheimer:Nuovo Cimento,49 A, 306 (1967).
For more details and weaker (i.e. local) definitions we refer to the work ofMickelsson andNiederle, ref. (6).
C. R. Hagen andW. J. Hurley:Phys. Rev. Lett.,24, 1381 (1970);W. J. Hurley:Phys. Rev. D,3, 2339 (1971);J. M. Lévy-Leblond:Comm. Math. Phys.,6, 287 (1967).
W. O. Amrein:Helv. Phys. Acta,42, 149 (1969).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
To speed up publication, the authors of this paper have agreed to not receive the proofs for correction.
Traduzione a cura della Redazione.
Переведено редакцией.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
León, J., Quirós, M. & Ramírez Mittelbrunn, J. Probabilistic interpretation, group contraction and the Galilean limit of relativistic quantum mechanics. Nuov Cim B 46, 109–120 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02748635
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02748635