180 ~ PETER MITTELSTAEDT 12, See: B Busch and P. Lahti, “A Note on Quantum Theory, Complementarity, ilosophy of Science 52 (1985): 64-77; P. Busch, “Unsharp it Measurements for Spin Observables,” Physical Review D 33 ‘Wave Duality in Double-§ (New York: Plenum, 1992), that the “unsharpness” meant here corresponds to ar ress which must not be confused the experimental inaccuracy, respectively. 11 ee Galilean Particles: An Example of Constitution of Objects Elena Castellani 1. Objects and Physics Speaking of physical objects, we can momentarily bracket the general question, What is there? and focus on the more specific problem of what ion ind subnuclear 8 as “obj the realm of contemporary physics—are quite different from the ordinary physical objects we can see or touch in our everyday experience, Microphysical are surely not immediate data of perception: they can be “ob- served” only with the help of instruments, and sometimes they are even in principle unobservable as free part quarks, Moreover, properties traditional as its persistence through time or the possibility of distingui another similar object, are not easily available in quantum contexts, ‘These are some of the reasons why it is often claimed that the classi- cal conception of physical objects, that is, the conception grounded on everyday experience, is no longer appropriate when we turn to micro- Physics. Quantum objects are remote from the objects of our common uunderstan microparticles are to be taken as object ied: they must be constructed or “constitute theoretical framework being used as well as data at dispos Supporters of this view usually assume that, th regard ly arise in the case of classical physics, objects are not really different beings.” a more radical . Physics, classical or not, does not speak immediately of the ite our external world, Classical mechanics, for example, is formulated in terms of mass182 ~ ELENA CASTELLANI Points, which are obviously of quite another nature than everyday ‘Mass points can be seen as “ideal objects,” taken to represent some main features of ordinary physical objects.! How the properties symbol ized through suc beings, whose phys some astronomic bodies of which we have only a series of as empirical evidence.? is kind may lead to jects of physics, classical as well as not starting point of what we shall call the group-theoretic approach to the problem of physical objects. This chapter provides a brief overvie articles. 2. Invariance, Symmetry Groups, and Constitution of Objects rier of a set of properties the dignity of an object? or, more specifically, What kind of properties and prescriptions do we need in order to con- struct an object? ‘The group-theoretic approach to the problem of physical objects is ‘grounded on the idea of invariance. More precisely, the basic considera- tion is that the fundamental role that the notions of invariance and sym- ‘metry (i.e. invariance with respect to a group of transformations) have acquired in contemporary physics can also provide a key for addressing the problem of the constitution of phy’ ; Arguments attributing special significance to the notion of invariance with regard to the object question are surely not new. Permanence or invariance in time is a classical requirement for defining the identity of ‘an object in the philosophical tradition. More generall respect to change in space and time, when interpreted der change of reference frames or “observer condition requited in determining physical object ficulties in speaking of “objects” in the case of ies that were not GALILEAN PARTICLES ~ 183 recognizable as the same ones under a simple change of the spatiotem- poral perspective,* to the group-theoretic approach for constituting ob- of the invariance idea by using the results of the tion of group theory in physics. The theory of groups of trans- tions and their representations constitutes the appropriate mathe- tool for investigating the consequences of the symmetry charac- teristics of physical systems, that is, the characteristics that are usually formulated in terms of invariance principles. In physics, the significance of symmetry groups started to be realized around the middle 1920s (with the consequent introduction of group-theoretic techniques in theoreti- cal elaboration) mainly thanks to the fundamental contributions of Her- mann Weyl and Eugene Wigner on the application of group theory in quantum mechanics. Today, we can say that symmetry groups are among ie basic ingredients of theoretical physics: the so~ icles and their interactions are described esse symmetry arguments and group-theoretic methods. ‘What can the theory of symmetry groups actu: to the constitution of objects? Let us begin by re work of Wigner (1939) ions o homogeneous a locus classicus for the ic elementary systems representations of the group. This possibility of establishing a correspondence between “irre~ ducil 1as become qui cles on the basis of their correspondence wit is possible to use symmetry consider fone way. Let us focus on the two main arguments we can find in the literature. lowing Wigner’s 1939 results, that each ith an irreducible representation of implies that the particle has a given number of. Wariant properties, and that these are exactly the properties which char- acterize the kind of particle in question.” Note, however, that what we184 — ELENA CASTELLANI an indi- inct from other similar particles. These p properties are in the sense that the given “pa Here comes to the rescue another kind of symmetry argument, whi goes back to the notion of a system of imprimitivity associated wit symmetry group. The method of imprimitivity systems, wh be of great importance for the theory of group representat application of this theory to the domain of quantum physies, was system- of papers of G. W. Mackey in the 1950s.* ‘observables, such as for example the position observabl through which the particle could be determined also as an individual ob- ject. As we shall see, the method of Mackey’s imprimitivty systems for the space-time symmetry group provides a way of approaching the object problem from this point of view. ‘As an example of the foregoing ideas, us now have a closer look at the case of nonrelativistic 3. Galilean Particles (1) ‘The space-time symmetry group of nonrelativistic physics is the so-called Galilei group, the group of transformations relating classical frames of reference. According to the group-theoretic approach, for arriving at obtaining “Galilean particles” one has therefore to investi- gate the irreducible representations of this symmetry group. This has to be done in the formalism of either classical or quantum mechanics, depending on what kind of objects—classical or quantum objects—we ‘want to obtain, But let us start with some general features for discussing GALILEAN PARTICLES ~ 185 physical systems, space-time symmetry, and the consequences of this, symmetry for the physical description. A physical system, to be is generally described by first speci- fying its observable properties or observables and its possible modes of preparation or states. Observables are physical quantities that are mea- surable attributes of the system, that is, their values can be measured on the system. The result of such measurements depends which the system is, that “observables and states, the dynamical law). (ed through the principle changes of reference invariance of physical ns of reference Gis a symmetry group the fundamental equa- ms of the theory are invariant under the transformations of group G) implies, among other things, that the states of the system transform operat Accordingly, group is the symmetry group of the the- ory, the set of the states of the system should provide a “representation space” for this group. We shall therefore proceed toward the determi- nation of “Galilean particles” by first defining as a Galilean system a physical system whose states form a representation space for the Galilei group. In order to arrive at Galilean particles, the strategy will then be to select, among Galilean systems, those which are elementary. For 1a physical system representing a single particle, elementarity is a quite natural requirement already from an intuitive point of view. In gr theoretic terms, however, this assumes the following pre elementary system is a system whose set of s a represen- tation space for an irreducible representation of the space-time symmetry186 ~ ELENA CASTRLLANI group." This means, in other words, that there is a correspondence be- tween the “elementari i representation associated with the system: for such a syst the set of its states decomposes into (linear) subsets that are each invariant under the transformations of the spi mn (1): a Galilean particle is an elementary Galilean system, that is, 4 physical system whose states form an irreducible representation space for the Galilei group. Del tary Gi ‘4 Galilean particle isa physical eq lean systems. ence class of elemen- ‘What have we obtained so far? Let us see what the preceding defi ies. For this purpose, we shall have to return to a more abstr level and introduce some aspects of the Lie group formalism appropriate for investigating the irreducible representations of space-time symmetry ‘groups Space-time transformation groups such as the invariance groups of Galilean and Lorentz relativity are continuous groups and, in particular, Lie groups. This means, first of all, that the group elements are functions of a certain number r of continuous parameters a, (I = 1, 2,...1), which are characteristic of the group. Without entering into further mathemat- ical techni let us just recall that such group elements can be wri ten in terms of a corresponding number r of in! the generators of the group, which satisfy the “mult sented by the “Lie brackets” 1%. X= called the Lie algebra of the group. The coefficients that characterize the particular structure of the group, whence their being named the siructure constants of the Lie group. every Lie group, we can construct operators that are scalar quadra the infinitesimal operators X;, the so-called Casimir operators C= Le XX GALILEAN PARTICLES ~ 187 With the matrix elements g,, given by tors have the special property of commut operators X; (the generators of the Lie group) hey are the fun- damental invarianss of the group. In the context of the theory of group representations, this implies, in particular, that in an irreducible repre- sentation the Casimir operators are simple multiples of the unit oper- ior, whence the possibility of labeling the representations directly in s of the eigenvalues of these operators. The eigenvalue spectra of invariants of the group therefore provide the labels for classifying ible representations of the grou is fact is grounded the lues of the invariant properties character- the labels of the imeducible representations of symmetry groups. This is a very general scheme, which can be abstracted from the usual way of proceeding in quantum relativistic physics (quantum field theory) fo ifying elementary particles. In order to see how and to what +h a scheme can be applied to the case of classical and quan- lean particles,” one has to consider how classical and quantum, systems can respectively provide a representation space for ir- reducible representations of the Galilei (Lie) group, and what kind of invariant properties can be consequent! uted to either class of systems. In this chapter we shall give only a very brief account of this Program, by summarizing it in the following points.'5 3.1 Galilei Group The (proper) Galilei group ‘is a 10-parameter Lie group, containing the translations in space x = x + (3 translation parameters translations in time r’ = ¢ +6 (1 time parameter b), the space rot x = Rx (3 rotation parameters in rotation matrix R), and the tran to a uniformly moving coordinate system x’ = x + vi, also called Galilei transformations” or “Galilei boosts” (3 velocity parameters ¥). A general inhomogeneous Galilei transformation is then a map BDH 0) of the form W=Retvi+a, Harte. In terms of the group parameters, a generic element g of is denoted by 8 = (bay, R)188 ~ ELENA CASTELLANI and the multi ge = (6, VR), al, V,R) = (6+ 8,04 Ral + Bv,0 4 RY, RR). jon law or “group law” and hence the structure,!® one can compute the Lie brackets fot the infinit generators and consequently the Lie algebra of the Gi group 4. up 3.2 Galilei Group and Classical Mechanics ‘The usual way of describing a classical mechanical system with n degrees of freedom is to associate with it a space i, called the Phase space of the system, whose points are defined by the values + Pn of the configuration (x,,...,x,) and the mo- Pa) of the system at a given instant of time. These points represent the states of the system and the physical quan- ies or observables are described by real valued functions defined on the phase space. The system we are considering here is a massive point the phase space of the states of the system, the symmetry transfor- mations are “represented” by so-called canonical transformations, which are the transformations of the phase space leaving invariant the equa- tions of motion. Canonical transformations can be regarded as infini sequences of infinitesimal canonical transformations x; = x, + 8: Pi + bp; The quantities W,, such that 6x, = (@W,/ap,)6a, and ~(2W,/@x,)8a,, are called the generators of the int al transforma- tions. The Lie algebra of the Galilei group has a physically significant real- ization in terms of the ten quantities H, P, J, and K, which are the gener- ators of the canonical transformations representing the time translations, space translations, space rotations, and Galilean boosts, respect ‘can be identified with the Hamiltonian or energy of the ‘generators P; with the components of the momentum P, the erators J; with the components of the angular mome: three generators K, with the components of the quantity K ‘The Lie brackets characterizing the Lie algebra of the Gali represented by the following Poisson brackets: {P,P} =0, {PH} =0, Ui, H}=0, GALILEAN PARTICLES ~ 189 and {K,,P;} =0+ mb, where the constant m can be identified with the mass of the system.!” 3.3 Galilei Group and Quantum Mechanics In the usual formulation of quantum mechanics, the behavior of a system with n degrees of freedom is desc or state vector W(x, t), where x = system at the instai a Hilbert space %, whict corresponding to the (pure) quantity corresponds a self ich physical system is associated the space of the wave functions or vectors rransformations of the group are represented in the space % by ing on the wave functions. In the case of a Lie group, ary operators can be regarded as generated by infinitesimal (self- adjoint) operator 1e three operators components of the momentum P for space translations, the three operators components of the angular momentum ms, and the three operators components of the quan- tity K for Galilei boosts. The Lie brackets of the Galilei Lie algebra are here represented by the commutation relations (Fi, P= 0, [PH] =0, Ui, HI] = Jin Ti] = €yter [ir Pi) = iyePer »H) =P, [Ki Kj] =0, = Ke, and U Pi) = 0+ mb, where m is the mass of the system.18190 ~ ELENA CASTELLANE 3.4 Invariant Properties As we have seen, the values of the fundamental invariants of the sym- ‘metry group label the irreducible representations and hence the elemen- tary physical syste Both in the classical and quantum case, the char ‘group gener- yystem) and a (eral angular momentum” From the group-theoretic point of view, “Galilean ps fore characterized in terms of the invariant proper energy, and spin2” are there- f mass, internal 4. Galilean Particles (2) As already remarked, another way of addressing the object question from the group-theoretical point of view is that grounded on the notion of a system of impri for the space-time symmetry group. The aim is to arrive at a definition of a particle by determining “indi observable quantities (such as the help of the method of imp: The framework is that of tem: according to the viewpoi given system S, the value a of the observable quantity A lies in the set E © @(R) (where WH) is the family of the Borel subsets of the real line ®), the observable A may be identified with the mapping A: Ev A{E} of B(M) into the lattice 2. Given the triplet (4, ®, Sf) for a physical system, the method is then to consider what the action of the space-time symmetry group G implies for the elements of the triplet. To state it very shortly, we shall have, GALILEAN PARTICLES - 191 A Fig. 111 Particular, a condition of covariance for the observable A, which can be expressed in terms of the following imprimitivity condition: Alo(g)[B]} = S(s)[A{E}]. () Graphically, the condition corresponds to the commutativity shown in figure 11.1, where o(g) and S(g) are representations of the group G in terms of the automorphisms of 98 and of {, respectively. A triplet (A,B, £) that satisfies this condition is called a system of imprimitivity for the group G2 Now, if one takes as “ and time, ing” properties the observables position, lean particle” can be defined in the fol. Definition (2): A Galilean particle is an elementary system for which the observables position, momentum, and time are defined. the described framework, lean particles can then be explicitly constructed by studying the im- primitivity systems for the observables position, momentum, and time both in the classical and in the quantum case. Notes ‘Support for this work was provided in 1993-1994 by the NALO-C.N.R. Ad- vanced Fellowships Program. 1. See, for example, W.V.0. Quine, Word and Object (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1960), 248-251, trophysical example is treated, in particular, in P. Mittelstaedt, “The tion of Objects in Kant's Philosophy and in Modern Physics,” in P. Par- Kant and Contemporary Epistemology (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic rs, 1994), which is reprinted here as chapter 10,192 — ELENA CASTELLANI 3. The term constitution is here used to indicate that objects are determined as such by using some conceptual prescrip case of physics ob- ts, some physical laws. For arguments supporting such a use of this “Kan- terminology with regard to the problem of physical objects, see Mi telstaedt, “The Constitution of Objects,” and also, by same author, Spra und Realitat in der modernen Physik (Mannheim: Bibliographisches Wissenschafisveriag, 1986). The view according to which all the objects of need to be constituted is more extensively presented in E. Cast nozione di oggetto nella fisica classica e quanti , Di Maio, and G. Roncaglia, eds., Logica e filosofa della scienza: prob lei € prospetive (Proceedings Soc. Italiana di Logica e Filos. delle Scienze, Lucca 94). 4, For a more extensive treatment of this po “Quantum Mechar of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz 149-204, lescribed as a physical system whose Of the symmetry group according to a definite irreducible represe 7. In the context of relat particle are its rest-mass and spin. 8. For a clear and detailed account of Mackey's contributes on the notion of an system and a discussion of the impressive variety of applications . see in particular the chapter on systems of imprimitivty and “Mackey's machine” in V. S. Varadarajan, Geometry of Quantum Theory, 2d ed. (New York: Springer, 1985). 9. See C. Piron, Foundations of Quantum Physics (Reading, Mass: W. A. Ben- in, 1976), 93. A definition of an “elementary particle” making use of the ivity ean be found already in J. M. Jauch, Foun- ‘Quantum Mechanics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968), 205 ich it would be more appropriate to call “Galilean relativistic physics,” essed by JM. Lévy-Leblond. See for instance his Group Theory of the group G (wi elements g, 13, The concept of an “ itive concept of an “elementary partic further condition of being structurel GALILEAN PARTICLES ~ 193 Newton and E. P. Wigner, “Localized States for Elementary Systems,” Review of Modern Physics 21 (1949): 400-406. 14, That is, subsets whose component states are transformed into states of the y the transformations of the symmetry group. 1, For simplicity sake, in considering the states of a physical system we shall for example, vistic Invariance and ies of Interacting Particles,” Review of Modern Physics 35 [ D.G. Currie, ion law is easily obtained by applying successively two Gi transformations g and g’ 17. The generators Hf, P, J, K so con tule a “Poisson algebra” of the form Hs Wi} = obi + By (where 6, are constants), that is a so-called projective rea group Lie algebra in the phase space. 18. The infinitesimal operators H, P, J, K so form an algebra which is a projective representation of the Ibert space, 19. For more details on how to obtain these invariant qua ing in the classical case and in the quantum nonrela 1 what regards the Gs eprese lilei Group and Galilean Invariance,” and also, by the same author, “Galilei Group and Nonrelativstic Quantum Me- chanics,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 4 (1963): 776-788, 20. Recall ‘ever, that for a nonrelativistic isolated particle the internal energy has indeed no physical significance, See Lévy-Leblond, “Galilei Group individuality is conferred particular, by space-time properties 22. See for example Piron, Foundations of Quantum Physics, 94-95, 23. We follow here the approach of Pron. 24, Some examples of such a way of constructing cl Particles can be found in ‘of Quantum Physics. to {um cas, the problem of the incommensurablityof properties such as and momentum can be approached by using so-called “unsharp obserrablee ‘The problem of the (approximate) con jects by means of unsharp Properties, that is, by means ofthe study of imprimitivty systems inthe care lunsharp observables, is investigated in particular by P ical and quantum Galilean194 ~ ELENA CASTELLANI | PART THREE OO OBJECTS AND | MEASUREMENT