Is there a local interpretation of Reeh-Schlieder theorem?

In summary, Non-philosophically inclined experts in relativistic QFT often insist that QFT is a local theory and are not convinced by philosophical arguments for non-locality. However, the Reeh-Schlieder theorem, which is based on the Wightman axioms, suggests that acting with a local operator can create an arbitrary state in a different location. This theorem is a result of quantum entanglement and does not contain any philosophical concepts, making it purely mathematical physics. Some experts argue that this does not demonstrate physical non-locality since the operators involved are not physically realizable. However, others argue that the mathematical formulation of QFT itself is non-local.
  • #106
Thanks for the references, Demystifier! So I do see a lot of similarities with Hegerfeldt's theorem. It looks like G. N. Fleming attempts to overcome Reeh-Schlieder localization problems by postulating Newton-Wigner fields, which appear local very much like Newton-Wigner states are local in relativistic quantum mechanics (but only at one instant of time in only one inertial frame). But H. Halvorson disputes their usefulness. If I recall, G. N. Fleming held the view that dismissing the localization problems via resort to quantum field theory was just "sweeping them under the rug" (can't find the reference right now), and I think I see why.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Elemental said:
If I recall, G. N. Fleming held the view that dismissing the localization problems via resort to quantum field theory was just "sweeping them under the rug" (can't find the reference right now), and I think I see why.
I don't know whether Fleming said that, but I said something similar in https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163 , last sentence in Sec. 8.3.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
226
Views
20K
Replies
333
Views
14K
Replies
91
Views
6K
Back
Top