text:
# Existence of spinning solitons in gauge field theory

## I Introduction

The existence of globally regular soliton solutions with a nonvanishing angular momentum in classical field theory is an interesting open issue, which has recently been addressed in a number of publications Schunk96 ; Yoshida:1997qf ; Heusler:1998ec ; VanderBij:2001nm ; Volkov:2002aj ; VanderBij:2002sq ; Radu:2002rv . Up to now, such spinning solutions in Minkowski space have been found only in the theory of a self-interacting complex scalar field (Q-balls) Volkov:2002aj 111In curved space similar rotating solutions are known for a self-gravitating scalar field (boson stars) Schunk96 ; Yoshida:1997qf .. For these solutions the energy-momentum tensor is stationary and axially symmetric, while the angular momentum $`J\omega N`$ is generated by the rotating phase of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi (r,\vartheta )e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t+\mathrm{i}N\phi }`$.

It is natural to wonder whether rotating solitons can also exist in gauge field theories with spontaneously broken symmetries. For stationary, axially symmetric systems the rotating phase of the Higgs field can be gauged away222It is not excluded that the action could be invariant under time translations and axial rotations while the fields are not stationary and axially symmetric. In such a case it would not be possible to gauge away the rotating phases. Such a possibility, however, is beyond the scope of our present consideration.. A nonzero angular momentum could then be supported only by the Poynting vector of the gauge field, and in fact such solutions can indeed be obtained, as for example rotating Heusler:1998ec ; VanderBij:2001nm  monopole-antimonopole pairs Kleihaus:1999sx ; Taubes:1982ie ; Taubes:1982if . However, the rotation is then rather associated with the orbital motion in a many-body system. The real challenge is to construct rotating solutions in the one-soliton sector, where the rotation would indeed be associated with spinning excitations of an individual object. For some strange reason, up to now such spinning solitons have been found only in anti–de Sitter space VanderBij:2002sq ; Radu:2002rv , while their possible existence in Minkowski space remains rather obscure. In fact, the results obtained so far in this area have all been negative. For example, it has been shown that ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles and Julia-Zee dyons in Minkowski space cannot rotate slowly Heusler:1998ec . The same conclusion holds for gravitating monopoles and sphalerons Brodbeck:1997sa . In addition, it was noticed in VanderBij:2001nm  that for axially symmetric deformations of Julia-Zee dyons the angular momentum can be represented as a flux integral, a fact that was used in VanderBij:2001nm  to argue that dyons cannot rotate rapidly either.

In this paper we study the existence of spinning solitons in the context of Yang-Mills-Higgs (YMH) theory for an arbitrary compact gauge group $`𝒢`$ in $`(3+1)`$-dimensional Minkowski space. First of all, we analyze the observation of VanderBij:2001nm  that the angular momentum of Julia-Zee dyons can be expressed as a flux integral. It is natural to wonder why such a representation of the angular momentum exists at all and whether it can be generalized to other models. Usually, conserved quantities associated with Poincaré symmetries in Minkowski space, such as, for example, the energy, are given by volume integrals and not surface integrals. We therefore study the relationship between conservation laws, spacetime, and gauge symmetries, and what we find is the following. For symmetric gauge fields, the action of a rigid spacetime symmetry generated by a Killing vector $`X`$ is equivalent to that of a local gauge symmetry generated by a Lie algebra valued function $`W_X`$. It is then a consequence of the Bianchi identities imposed by the local gauge symmetry that the Noether current for the global Poincaré symmetry is essentially a total divergence. In the case of spatial symmetries, the Noether charge can then be expressed by a surface integral

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_X`$ $`={\displaystyle (A_XW_X)F^{0k}\text{d}S_k},`$ (1)
where $`A_X`$ is the $`X`$ projection of the gauge field. In the case of spatial rotations $`X=\frac{}{\phi }`$, this gives the conserved and gauge invariant angular momentum.

Making use of this representation of the angular momentum, we then systematically study the fields in the asymptotic region near spatial infinity, looking for field modes that could give a contribution to the surface integral. In this way we show that for ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles and Julia-Zee dyons there are no stationary, axially symmetric deformations giving a nonzero contribution to the angular momentum. We then carry out a similar analysis for sphalerons and also for vortices — with the same conclusion. As a result, we in fact show the absence of stationary and axially symmetric spinning excitations in the one-soliton sector for all known topological solitons with gauge group $`𝒢=SU(2)`$. The still remaining possibilities of constructing rotating solutions can then be related only either to studying solutions with higher gauge groups or to considering fields that are not manifestly stationary or axially symmetric.

## II Yang-Mills-Higgs theory

The theory under consideration is a Yang-Mills-Higgs theory with compact gauge group $`𝒢`$ defined by the action

$`S_{\text{YMH}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \text{d}^4x},`$ (2)
where

$``$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }1)^2.`$ (3)
Here, the gauge field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{T}_aF_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ with the gauge field $`A_\mu \mathrm{T}_aA_\mu ^a`$. The anti-Hermitian gauge group generators $`\mathrm{T}_a`$ ($`a=1,2,\mathrm{},dim𝒢`$) satisfy the relations

$`[\mathrm{T}_a,\mathrm{T}_b]`$ $`=f_{abc}\mathrm{T}_c,`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{T}_a\mathrm{T}_b)`$ $`=K\delta _{ab}.`$ (4)
The invariant scalar product in the Lie algebra is defined as $`AB=\frac{1}{K}\mathrm{tr}(AB)`$. The Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a vector in the representation space of $`𝒢`$ where the generators $`\mathrm{T}_a`$ act; this space can be complex or real. $`𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=(_\mu +A_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the covariant derivative of the Higgs field. The units are chosen such that the gauge coupling constant and the vacuum value of the Higgs field are equal to 1. Spacetime indices are lifted with the Minkowski metric.

Below, we will consider two important particular cases corresponding to $`𝒢=SU(2)`$. The Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ then will be chosen to be either in the real triplet representation, in which case

$`(\mathrm{T}_a)_{ik}`$ $`=\epsilon _{aik},`$ (5)
or in the complex doublet representation with

$`\mathrm{T}_a`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\tau _a}{2i}},`$ (6)
where $`\tau _a`$ are the Pauli matrices.

The action is invariant under gauge transformations

$`A_\mu `$ $`U(A_\mu +_\mu )U^1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`U\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (7)
where $`U`$ is a $`𝒢`$ valued function. Varying the action with respect to the gauge and Higgs fields gives the equations of motion

$`D_\sigma F^{\sigma \mu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{T}_a𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}\mathrm{T}_a\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{T}_a,`$ (8)
$`𝒟_\mu 𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }1)\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (9)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu +[A_\mu ,]`$ is the covariant derivative in the adjoint representation.

In what follows, we will consider stationary, axially symmetric fields subject to the symmetry conditions Forgacs:1980zs

$`_{\xi _m}A_\mu `$ $`=D_\mu W_m,`$ $`_{\xi _m}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=W_m\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`m`$ $`=t,\phi .`$ (10)
Here, $`_{\xi _m}`$ are the Lie derivatives along the two Killing vectors $`\xi _t=_t`$ and $`\xi _\phi =_\phi `$, while $`W_m`$ are compensating Lie algebra valued functions. The general solution of these equations is well known: since the two Killing vectors commute, there exists a gauge where $`W_m=0`$. Therefore, the symmetry conditions in this gauge require simply the independence from $`t`$ and $`\phi `$. As a result, the most general solution is

$`A_\mu `$ $`=\mathrm{T}_aA_\mu ^a(\rho ,z)\text{d}x^\mu ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho ,z).`$ (11)
The regularity on the symmetry axis requires that

$`A_\phi (0,z)`$ $`=f(z)\mathrm{T},`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{T}`$ is an element of the Cartan subalgebra of the Lie algebra of $`𝒢`$ and $`f(z)`$ is a bounded function. Passing to a new gauge with the gauge transformation $`U=e^{\phi f(z)\mathrm{T}}`$ will then send $`A_\phi (0,z)`$ to zero.

## III Noether charges as flux integrals

Conserved quantities in field theory are determined by Noether charges corresponding to global symmetries of the action. These charges can be expressed as volume integrals of the local charge densities. In some cases, such as, for example, for the electric charge, these volume integrals can be further transformed to surface integrals. The reason for this is as follows (see Julia:1998ys  for a discussion). Electric charge is conserved owing to the invariance under global phase rotations. In gauge field theory, this symmetry is a special case of the local gauge invariance. The local gauge invariance leads to the existence of identity relations between the field equations (Bianchi identities) and implies the identical conservation of Noether’s currents, since they can be represented as divergences of antisymmetric quantities (sometimes called superpotentials)

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`=_\sigma (\omega (x)^{\sigma \mu }).`$ (13)
Here, $`\omega (x)`$ is the parameter of local gauge transformations, the case of global phase rotations corresponding to constant $`\omega `$’s. Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }^0`$ is a total divergence, the Noether charge can be expressed as a surface integral.

The procedure described above is very well illustrated in the context of general relativity, where the conserved energy, momentum, and angular momentum are given by flux integrals. This can be traced back to the fact that the Poincaré symmetries are a special case of general spacetime diffeomorphisms. For theories in Minkowski space, on the other hand, there is no diffeomorphism invariance, and so Poincaré symmetries are not related to any local symmetries. As a result, the energy, for example, cannot be expressed as a flux integral. However, for symmetric gauge fields some of the spacetime symmetries can be equivalent to local gauge symmetries in the sense that the result of Poincaré transformations can be compensated by gauge transformations. As a result, the corresponding Noether charges will have essentially the same structure as in Eq.(13), and the Noether charges can be expressed as flux integrals. We will now show how this works in the context of YMH theory.

It is well known Jackiw:1978ar ; Jackiw:1980ub  that in the presence of gauge invariance spacetime symmetries must be combined with the internal gauge symmetries in order to give conserved and gauge invariant charges via Noether’s procedure. If $`X^\mu `$ is a Killing vector of the system333Thus, one has $`_\mu X_\nu +_\nu X_\mu =0`$. then the corresponding conserved and gauge invariant Noether current is

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\mu u^B)}}\delta u^BX^\mu .`$ (14)
Here, $`u^B`$ collectively denotes the fields $`(A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, and the variations $`\delta u^B`$ include the part generated by $`X^\mu `$ plus another part due to an infinitesimal gauge transformation generated by a Lie algebra valued function $`W`$:

$`\delta u^B`$ $`=_Xu^B\delta _Wu^B.`$ (15)
Here, the Lie derivatives are

$`_XA_\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha _\alpha A_\mu +A^\alpha _\alpha X_\mu ,`$ $`_X\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=X^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (16)
while the gauge variations are given by

$`\delta _WA_\mu `$ $`=D_\mu W,`$ $`\delta _W\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=W\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (17)
The function $`W`$ is determined by the requirement that the variations $`\delta u^B`$ transform under gauge transformations covariantly, thus ensuring the gauge invariance of the Noether current. Using the identity Jackiw:1978ar ; Jackiw:1980ub

$`_XA_\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }+D_\mu (X^\alpha A_\alpha ),`$ (18)
one obtains

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha F_{\alpha \mu }+D_\mu (X^\alpha A_\alpha W),`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=X^\alpha 𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }(X^\alpha A_\alpha W),`$ (19)
which shows that the transformation law for $`W`$ must be

$`W`$ $`U(W+X^\sigma _\sigma )U^1,`$ (20)
since then $`(X^\alpha A_\alpha W)`$ transforms covariantly. Having this in mind and inserting Eqs.(15)–(17) into Eq.(14), one obtains after straightforward calculations

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha T_\alpha ^\mu +_\sigma (X^\nu A_\nu W)F^{\sigma \mu }.`$ (21)
Here the tensor

$`T_\nu ^\mu `$ $`=F^{\mu \sigma }F_{\nu \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}𝒟_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+(𝒟_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\delta _\nu ^\mu `$ (22)
coincides with the metrical energy-momentum tensor obtained by varying the action with respect to the spacetime metric. This tensor is symmetric and divergence-free, $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$.

The Noether current (21) is conserved and gauge invariant. However, it is not yet completely defined, since $`W`$ is not uniquely determined by the condition (20). This reflects the well-known ambiguity in the definition of Noether currents, as they can always be changed by adding the divergence of an antisymmetric tensor. The way to uniquely define the Noether currents (see, for example, Landau ; Jackiw:1978ar ; Jackiw:1980ub ) is dictated by the agreement with the general relativity (GR), since they should coincide with the conserved currents obtained from the metrical energy-momentum tensor. The canonical Noether energy-momentum tensor will then be symmetric and will coincide with the metrical one. All this is achieved if only one chooses Jackiw:1978ar ; Jackiw:1980ub

$`W`$ $`=X^\alpha A_\alpha `$ (23)
(notice that this transforms according Eq.(20)) in order to get rid of the second term on the right in Eq.(21). The Noether current then becomes

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha T_\alpha ^\mu .`$ (24)
This coincides with the standard GR current and leads to the conserved charge expressed by the volume integral over the three-space,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_X`$ $`={\displaystyle X^\alpha T_\alpha ^0d^3x}.`$ (25)
This formula reproduces the known result for the conserved and gauge invariant Noether charge associated with a rigid Poincaré symmetry $`X^\mu `$ Jackiw:1978ar .

Let us now repeat the calculation above by assuming that the symmetry generated by $`X^\mu `$ is not only a symmetry of the action, but also a symmetry of the fields, in the sense that there exists a Lie algebra valued function $`W_X`$ such that

$`_XA_\mu `$ $`=D_\mu W_X,`$ $`_X\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=W_X\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (26)
Substituting this into Eq.(15) and using Eq.(17) gives

$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_X,`$ $`\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_X\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (27)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_X=WW_X=X^\alpha A_\alpha W_X`$. Therefore, the field variations generated by $`X^\mu `$ can in this case be viewed as pure gauge variations. Inserting Eq.(27) into Eq.(14) gives

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`=F^{\mu \alpha }D_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_X+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }X^\mu ,`$ (28)
and using the equations of motion (8) this reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ $`=_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_XF^{\alpha \mu }X^\mu .`$ (29)
This almost has the structure of an identically conserved current, if it were not for the last term. This term is the remnant of the fact that the symmetries under consideration, although closely related to gauge symmetries, are actually spacetime symmetries. Now, if the vector $`X^\mu `$ is spacelike, as is the case for strictly spatial translations and rotations, then there exist reference frames where the temporal component $`X^0`$ vanishes. As a result, $`\mathrm{\Theta }^0`$ is a total divergence and its integral over the spatial hypersurface can be transformed into a surface integral (provided that there is no contribution from the inner boundary). The conserved and gauge invariant Noether charge is then given by the flux integral over a closed two-surface at spatial infinity:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_X`$ $`={\displaystyle \mathrm{\Psi }_XF^{k0}\text{d}S_k}.`$ (30)
This is the main result of this section. It shows that the Noether charges associated with rigid spatial symmetries can be represented as flux integrals when the fields under consideration are symmetric.

It is instructive to see how the general Noether current (24) assumes the special form (29) when the symmetry conditions (26) are imposed. One has

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu =X^\alpha T_\alpha ^\mu `$ $`=X^\alpha F^{\mu \sigma }F_{\alpha \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^\alpha \left((𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }+(𝒟_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi })^{}𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\right)X^\mu .`$ (31)
Using Eqs.(27), (19), and (23), one obtains

$`F_{\sigma \mu }X^\mu `$ $`=D_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_X,`$ $`X^\mu 𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_X\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (32)
As a result, the first term in (31) can be transformed as

$`X^\alpha F^{\mu \sigma }F_{\alpha \sigma }`$ $`=F^{\sigma \mu }D_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_X=D_\sigma (F^{\sigma \mu }\mathrm{\Psi }_X)+\mathrm{\Psi }_XD_\sigma F^{\sigma \mu }`$
$`=_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_XF^{\sigma \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(𝒟^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_X\mathrm{\Phi }\right),`$ (33)
where the equations of motion have been used. Inserting this into Eq.(31) and using Eq.(32) the terms containing the Higgs field exactly cancel, giving

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu =X^\alpha T_\alpha ^\mu `$ $`=_\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }_XF^{\sigma \mu }X^\mu ,`$ (34)
which coincides with Eq.(29).

## IV Calculation of the angular momentum

Let us now choose $`X=_\phi `$ in Eqs.(25),(30). This gives the conserved and gauge invariant angular momentum

$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle T_\phi ^0d^3x}={\displaystyle (A_\phi W_\phi )F^{k0}\text{d}S_k}.`$ (35)
Here the second equality on the right applies for fields subject to the symmetry conditions (10), $`W_\phi `$ being the compensating parameter in these conditions. In addition, one has to make sure that, when transforming the volume integral into the surface integral, the contribution of the inner boundary is zero. This can be checked in the gauge (11), where $`W_\phi =0`$ while $`A_\phi `$ given by Eq.(12) is finite at the origin, so that the integral over a small surface enclosing the origin would be nonzero only if the electric field was $`1/r^2`$. This, however, would imply that the total energy is infinite.

The surface integral structure of $`J`$ shows that only the asymptotic long-range tails of the fields can contribute to the angular momentum. In order to calculate this integral, it suffices therefore to analyze the asymptotics of the fields near spatial infinity, where the problem reduces to studying the linearized field equations. More precisely, let $`(A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ be a given static soliton solution with $`J=0`$. We consider all possible axial deformation of this solution with the only condition that, asymptotically, the deformed configurations approach the initial static solution, such that they will belong to the same topological sector. Therefore, the deformed configurations can be described by $`(A_\mu +\psi _\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }+\varphi )`$, where the deformations $`(\psi _\mu ,\varphi )`$ can be arbitrary, with the only condition that they vanish as $`r\mathrm{}`$. As a result, in the asymptotic region the deformations satisfy the YMH equations linearized around the $`(A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ background:

$`D_\sigma D^\sigma \psi _\mu `$ $`D_\mu D_\sigma \psi ^\sigma +2[F_{\mu \sigma },\psi ^\sigma ]_{ab}\psi _\mu ^a\mathrm{T}_b`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{\varphi ^{}\mathrm{T}_a𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(𝒟_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}\mathrm{T}_a\varphi +\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{T}_a𝒟_\mu \varphi (𝒟_\mu \varphi )^{}\mathrm{T}_a\mathrm{\Phi }\right\}\mathrm{T}_a,`$ (36)
$`𝒟_\sigma 𝒟^\sigma \varphi `$ $`+D_\sigma \psi ^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }+2\psi _\sigma 𝒟^\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`=\lambda \left\{(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }1)\varphi +(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\varphi +\varphi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Phi }\right\},`$ (37)
where the mass matrix is

$`_{ab}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\mathrm{T}_a\mathrm{T}_b+\mathrm{T}_b\mathrm{T}_a)\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (38)
Our strategy now is to solve these linearized equations in the asymptotic region to see if there are modes giving a nonvanishing contribution to the flux integral (35). We shall study axial deformations of all known topological solutions for the gauge group $`𝒢=SU(2)`$: ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles and Julia-Zee dyons, sphalerons, and also vortices.

### IV.1 ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles and Julia-Zee dyons

These are spherically symmetric solutions of YMH theory with $`𝒢=SU(2)`$ and the Higgs field in the real triplet representation 'tHooft:1974qc ; Polyakov:1974ek ; Julia:1975ff . The gauge group generators $`\mathrm{T}_a`$ are chosen according to Eq.(5), $`(\mathrm{T}_a)_{ik}=\epsilon _{aik}`$. The mass matrix (38) has one zero eigenvalue corresponding to a massless gauge boson. Hence, there are long-range gauge field modes that may give a nonzero contribution to Eq.(35).

Static, spherically symmetric YMH fields are characterized in this case by the following gauge connection and the Higgs field (passing in the gauge (11) to spherical coordinates):

$`A`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\mathrm{T}_3\text{d}t+w(r)\left(\mathrm{T}_2\text{d}\vartheta +\mathrm{T}_1\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}\phi \right)+\mathrm{T}_3\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \text{d}\phi ,`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ $`=\delta _3^k\mathrm{\Phi }(r).`$ (40)
The field equations (8) and (9) reduce to

$`(r^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{})^{}`$ $`=2w^2\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (41)
$`(r^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{}`$ $`=2w^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda r^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^21)\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (42)
$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=w(w^21)+r^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)w.`$ (43)
The ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$) and Julia-Zee dyons ($`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$) are solutions of this system that are regular at the origin, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0`$ and $`w(0)=1`$, while for large $`r`$ they approach exponentially fast (for $`\lambda 0`$) the asymptotic values

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r}},`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=1,`$ $`w`$ $`=0,`$ (44)
with constant $`Q`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These solutions have finite energy, electric charge $`Q`$, and unit magnetic charge. For nonzero values of the self-coupling $`\lambda `$ these solutions can be obtained numerically. For $`\lambda =0`$ the Higgs field is massless and has a long-range Coulomb tail: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1+O(1/r)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. In this case, the solution is known analytically Bogomolny:1976de :

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=\mathrm{coth}Cr{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Cr}},`$ $`w`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{Cr}{\mathrm{sinh}Cr}},`$ (45)
with $`C=\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}`$.

We would now like to study all possible axial deformations of these solutions in the asymptotic region by solving the linearized equations (IV) and (IV). The first step is to carry out a multipole decomposition of perturbations to identify the most general modes corresponding to axial deformations of the background solutions. Since the backgrounds are spherically symmetric, the angular quantum number $`j`$ is conserved and perturbations for different values of $`j`$ decouple from each other. It is convenient to introduce the basis of complex one-forms

$`\theta ^0`$ $`=\text{d}t,`$ $`\theta ^1`$ $`=\text{d}r,`$ $`\theta ^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{r}{\sqrt{2}}}(\text{d}\vartheta \mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}\phi ),`$ $`\theta ^3`$ $`=(\theta ^2)^{},`$ (46)
whose nonzero scalar products $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }(\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta )`$ are $`\theta ^{00}=\theta ^{11}=\theta ^{23}=1`$. In addition, one introduces the new Lie algebra basis $`\text{L}_1=\mathrm{T}_1+\mathrm{iT}_2`$, $`\text{L}_2=\mathrm{T}_1\mathrm{iT}_2`$, $`\text{L}_3=\mathrm{T}_3`$. The perturbations are then expanded as

$`\psi _\mu \text{d}x^\mu `$ $`=\text{L}_a\psi _\alpha ^a\theta ^\alpha ,`$ $`\varphi ^a`$ $`=\text{L}_a\mathrm{T}_bf^b.`$ (47)
A complete separation of the angular variables in the perturbation equations (IV) and (IV) is achieved by making the following ansatz:

$`\psi _\alpha ^a`$ $`=Z_\alpha ^a(r)_sY_{jm}(\vartheta ,\phi ),`$ $`f^a`$ $`=U^a(r)_\sigma Y_{jm}(\vartheta ,\phi ).`$ (48)
Here, $`{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{jm}^{}(\vartheta ,\phi )`$ are the spin-weighted spherical harmonics Goldberg:1967uu . The quantum numbers $`j`$, $`m`$ are the same for all values of the indices $`a`$,$`\alpha `$, while the values of the spin weights $`s=s(a,\alpha )`$ and $`\sigma =\sigma (a)`$ are determined by direct inspection of Eqs.(IV) and (IV) using the properties of the spin-weighted harmonics Goldberg:1967uu .

Within the multipole decomposition obtained, we specialize to the dipole ($`j=1`$) and axially symmetric ($`m=0`$) sector. The most general perturbations in this case are described by (passing back to the standard basis)

$`\psi `$ $`=\left(\mathrm{T}_1{\displaystyle \frac{Z_1(r)}{r}}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta +\mathrm{T}_3{\displaystyle \frac{Z_2(r)}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \right)\text{d}t+\mathrm{T}_2Z_3(r)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}r+\mathrm{T}_2Z_5(r)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \text{d}\vartheta `$
$`+\left(\mathrm{T}_1Z_5(r)\mathrm{cos}\vartheta +\mathrm{T}_3Z_4(r)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \right)\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}\phi ,`$
$`\varphi ^k`$ $`=\delta _1^k{\displaystyle \frac{U_1(r)}{r}}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta +\delta _3^k{\displaystyle \frac{U_2(r)}{r}}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta .`$ (49)
This ansatz has a residual U(1) gauge symmetry generated by the infinitesimal gauge transformations (7) with $`U=\mathrm{exp}(L)`$,

$`\psi `$ $`\psi +\text{d}L+[A,L],`$ $`\varphi `$ $`\varphi L\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (50)
where $`L=\alpha (r)\mathrm{T}_2\mathrm{sin}\vartheta `$. This symmetry does not change the values of $`Z_2`$ and $`U_2`$, while

$`Z_1`$ $`Z_1r\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha ,`$ $`Z_3`$ $`Z_3+\alpha ^{},`$ $`Z_4`$ $`Z_4+w\alpha ,`$ $`Z_5`$ $`Z_5+\alpha ,`$ $`U_1`$ $`U_1r\alpha \mathrm{\Phi },`$ (51)
which can be used to impose the gauge condition444There remains one pure gauge mode generated by constant $`\alpha `$. $`Z_3=0`$. Inserting now the ansatz (IV.1) into the perturbation equations (IV) and (IV), the angular dependence decouples and we obtain a system of radial equations for the amplitudes $`Z_1`$, $`Z_2`$, $`Z_4`$, $`Z_5`$, $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ which is listed in the Appendix. Inserting the ansatz into the angular momentum integral (35) gives (we are working in the gauge (11) where $`W_\phi =0`$)

$`J`$ $`=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^2{\displaystyle (A_\phi +\psi _\phi )(A_0+\psi _0)^{}\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}\vartheta \text{d}\phi }`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^2\left(2w\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_1}{r}}\right)^{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{r}}\right)^{}+2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}Z_4\right).`$ (52)
Since the background amplitudes approach their asymptotic values (for large $`r`$) exponentially fast, we can replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`w`$ by their asymptotics (44). This gives

$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r^2\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{Z_2}{r}}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2Q}{r^2}}Z_4\right).`$ (53)
The asymptotic behavior of the amplitudes $`Z_2`$ and $`Z_4`$ is determined from the radial equations (A.2) and (A.3), which in the asymptotic region reduce to

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)Z_2`$ $`=0,`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}\right)Z_4`$ $`=0.`$ (54)
Solutions that are regular at infinity are

$`Z_2`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},`$ $`Z_4`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}.`$ (55)
Inserting these into Eq.(53) finally gives555The same result is obtained for $`\lambda =0`$, in which case all perturbation equations can be solved exactly Heusler:1998ec .

$`J`$ $`=0.`$ (56)
In fact, in order to ensure a nonzero value of $`J`$, the amplitudes $`Z_2`$, $`Z_4`$ should approach nonzero constant values at infinity, which is not the case. The conclusion is that there are no stationary, axial deformations of the ’t Hooft–Polyakov monopoles and Julia-Zee dyons that would support a nonzero angular momentum. The same is true for higher (quadrupole, etc.) multipole deformations, since all of them decay at infinity even faster than the dipole ones. This conclusion did not require smallness of deformations for all $`r`$, the only requirement having been that deformed configurations must approach the spherically symmetric solutions for $`r\mathrm{}`$666 The rotational excitations of monopoles were also studied in Ref.Heusler:1998ec ; this work, however, used the volume integral representation of the angular momentum. In view of this, it was necessary to assume the perturbative regime of rotational deformations everywhere, thus restricting consideration to the case of slow rotation. In our analysis, on the other hand, the rotation is not assumed to be slow..

### IV.2 Sphalerons and vortices

Sphalerons are spherically symmetric solutions of a YMH theory with $`𝒢=SU(2)`$ and the Higgs field in the complex doublet representation Klinkhamer:1984di ; Kunz:1989sx . The gauge group generators $`\mathrm{T}_a`$ are thus chosen according to Eq.(6), $`(\mathrm{T}_a)=\frac{1}{2i}\tau ^a`$. In the simplest case Klinkhamer:1984di , static and spherically symmetric YMH fields are characterized by the following purely magnetic gauge connection and Higgs field:

$`A`$ $`=w(r)\left(\mathrm{T}_2\text{d}\vartheta +\mathrm{T}_1\mathrm{sin}\vartheta \text{d}\phi \right)+\mathrm{T}_3\mathrm{cos}\vartheta \text{d}\phi ,`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ $`=\delta _1^k\mathrm{\Phi }(r).`$ (58)
The field equations (8) and (9) reduce to

$`(r^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(w+1)^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda r^2(\mathrm{\Phi }^21)\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (59)
$`r^2w^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=w(w^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^2(w+1).`$ (60)
Sphalerons are solutions of this system which are regular at the origin ($`\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=0`$, $`w(0)=1`$) and approach the asymptotic values

$`w`$ $`=1,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=1`$ (61)
for large $`r`$ exponentially fast. The crucial point now is that all deformations of these background solutions also approach zero exponentially fast. This is a manifestation of the fact that the gauge symmetry of the vacuum (61) is broken completely, since all eigenvalues of the mass matrix (38) are nonzero. As a result, there are no long-range solutions of the linearized field equations, and the angular momentum integral is zero. The only subtlety is the limit $`\lambda 0`$, since then the Higgs field becomes long range. However, as the background fields are purely magnetic, the equations for the most general dipole, axially symmetric gauge field perturbations do not contain any Higgs field perturbations777The same thing happens for the dyons, since Eqs. (A.1) and (A.2) decouple from the rest in the purely magnetic limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$.. The relevant perturbation equations, therefore, contain only massive amplitudes. Thus, their solutions approach zero exponentially fast. The conclusion888This conclusion also applies to the deformed sphalerons of Kunz:1989sx . is that there are no stationary and axially symmetric spinning excitations of sphalerons.

To complete our considerations, we also want to consider the YMH vortices. It is known that the Abelian Nielsen-Olesen vortex Nielsen:1973cs  does not admit spinning generalizations within the original YMH theory with $`𝒢=U(1)`$ Julia:1975ff . However, it is not excluded that such generalizations may exist within a YMH theory with a larger gauge group $`𝒢`$. Let us restrict consideration to cylindrically symmetric, i.e., $`z`$-independent, YMH fields. Then one can straightforwardly obtain from Eq.(35) the angular momentum per unit length $`z`$,

$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle (A_\phi W_\phi )F_{0\rho }\text{d}l},`$ (62)
where the integration is over a circle of radius $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ in a plane of constant $`z`$. For spinning excitations that asymptotically approach the Nielsen-Olesen vortex, both $`A_\phi `$ and $`W_\phi `$ stay finite as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, and so the integral will be nonzero if only $`F_{0\rho }1/\rho `$. However, this would imply that the energy is divergent. The conclusion is that there are no axially symmetric, spinning excitations of the Nielsen-Olesen vortex within YMH theory999Spinning vortices can exist in generalized YMH theories including the Chern-Simons term deVega:1986eu ; Jackiw:1990aw . for a compact gauge group $`𝒢`$.

## V Concluding remarks

Summarizing our results, we have shown that none of the “canonical” topological solitons of the $`𝒢=SU(2)`$ YMH theory admit spinning excitations in the stationary and axisymmetric one-soliton sector. Although not completely eliminating all spinning solitons in gauge field theory, this conclusion renders their existence somewhat less probable. Therefore, we would like to list the remaining possibilities for constructing spinning solutions (if they exist at all). First, one can try to consider YMH theories with $`𝒢>SU(2)`$, which might work in the case of monopoles or dyons. The pattern of symmetry breaking can be quite different for higher gauge groups and for different representations of the Higgs field. If there remain several massless gauge group generators after symmetry breaking, then there is a better chance to have long-range modes giving a contribution to the angular momentum surface integral101010In the Einstein-Yang-Mills theory, for example, where the symmetry is not broken at all, there exist static solitons whose linear axial deformations do support a nonzero angular momentum Brodbeck:1997ek . It is, however, unclear at present whether these linear rotational modes can be promoted to spinning solutions also at the nonlinear level VanderBij:2001nm . .

The other possibility is to consider YMH systems that are not symmetric under the combined action of axial rotations and gauge transformations, while their action is symmetric. The angular momentum then will still be conserved, but it will be given by a volume integral. Thus, it may receive contributions also from short-range field modes.

Finally, we would like to make some remarks on the nonexistence of rotating monopoles. First, it should be emphasized that monopoles do not rotate only within classical theory. Quantum monopoles, on the other hand, do have angular momentum associated with the fermionic zero modes Jackiw:1976fn ; this effect, however, disappears in the classical limit. For example, supersymmetric monopoles are conjectured to be dual to the elementary particles with spin (Monteon-Olive duality), thus implying that monopoles themselves have a spin. However, this spin is carried by the fermionic superpartners of monopoles and not by the bosonic monopole configurations.

Second, it is well known that the angular momentum of an electric charge moving around a magnetic monopole contains an extra term that can be interpreted as the angular momentum of the field Jackiw:1980ub . At first glance, this disagrees with our conclusion that the angular momentum of the monopole field is zero. However, this extra term does not in fact relate to the monopole alone, but to the system of both charges, one of which is electric and the other magnetic. Even when these charges are at rest, the angular momentum of the total field $`\stackrel{}{r}\times (\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B})\text{d}^3x`$ does not vanish. However, if the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ of the electric charge is zero (no charge), the contribution of the magnetic charge alone will be zero.

We would also like to emphasize once again that our results apply only within the one-soliton sector, thus showing the absence of spinning excitations of isolated solitons. Outside this sector one can have solutions with $`J0`$ describing orbital motions of solitons. Such solutions are explicitly known in the case of rotating monopole-antimonopoles pairs Heusler:1998ec ; VanderBij:2001nm ; Kleihaus:1999sx 111111However, the axially symmetric dyons with higher values of topological charge Hartmann:ja  do not rotate VanderBij:2001nm .. It is also not excluded that in many-soliton systems, as for example in soliton scatterings, solitons might develop some kind of spinlike deformation due to their mutual polarization. However, such deformations will tend to zero in the limit of infinite separation of solitons.

## VI Acknowledgments

M.S.V. thanks Peter Forgacs for numerous discussions and acknowledges conversations with Bernard Julia, Jochum van der Bij, and Eugen Radu. E.W. thanks Tom Heinzl for many discussions and a careful reading of the manuscript. The work of E.W. was supported by the DFG. We would also like to thank Andreas Wipf for his support and comments.

## Appendix

In this appendix we list the full system of radial equations describing the most general stationary, axially symmetric excitations of the Julia-Zee dyons. These equations are obtained by putting Eq.(IV.1) (with $`Z_3=0`$) into the field equations (IV) and (IV),

$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w^2+1}{r^2}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)Z_1{\displaystyle \frac{2w}{r^2}}Z_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{r}}(Z_5wZ_4)\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }U_1,`$ (A.1)
$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{w^2+1}{r^2}}\right)Z_2{\displaystyle \frac{4w}{r^2}}Z_1{\displaystyle \frac{4w\mathrm{\Omega }}{r}}Z_5,`$ (A.2)
$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w^2+2}{r^2}}\right)Z_4{\displaystyle \frac{3w}{r^2}}Z_5+{\displaystyle \frac{w}{r}}(\mathrm{\Omega }Z_1\mathrm{\Phi }U_1),`$ (A.3)
$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3w^2}{r^2}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)Z_5{\displaystyle \frac{3w}{r^2}}Z_4+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{r}}(2wZ_2Z_1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}(U_12wU_2),`$ (A.4)
$`0`$ $`=\left(r\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}r}}+(r\mathrm{\Omega })^{}\right)Z_1{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}Z_5}{\text{d}r}}+\left(w{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}r}}+w^{}\right)Z_4+\left(r\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}r}}(r\mathrm{\Phi })^{}\right)U_1,`$ (A.5)
$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{w^2+1}{r^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^21)\right)U_1{\displaystyle \frac{2w}{r^2}}U_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}(Z_5wZ_4)+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }Z_1,`$ (A.6)
$`0`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^2}{\text{d}r^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{w^2+1}{r^2}}+\lambda (3\mathrm{\Phi }^21)\right)U_2{\displaystyle \frac{4w}{r^2}}U_1{\displaystyle \frac{4w\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}Z_5.`$ (A.7)
It is instructive to verify that for $`\lambda =0`$ these equations admit a global symmetry: if $`\{Z_1(r),Z_2(r),Z_4(r),Z_5(r),U_1(r),U_2(r)\}`$ is a solution for the purely magnetic background $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=0,\mathrm{\Phi }(r),w(r)\}`$, then

$`Z_1^\gamma (r)`$ $`=Z_1(\gamma r)+\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}U_1(\gamma r),`$ $`Z_2^\gamma (r)`$ $`=Z_2(\gamma r)+\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}U_2(\gamma r),`$
$`U_1^\gamma (r)`$ $`=U_1(\gamma r)+\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}Z_1(\gamma r),`$ $`U_2^\gamma (r)`$ $`=U_2(\gamma r)+\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}Z_2(\gamma r),`$
$`Z_4^\gamma (r)`$ $`=\gamma Z_4(\gamma r),`$ $`Z_5^\gamma (r)`$ $`=\gamma Z_5(\gamma r)`$
is a solution corresponding to a “rotated” background characterized by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^\gamma (r)`$ $`=\sqrt{1\gamma ^2}\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma r),`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\gamma (r)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma r),`$ $`w^\gamma (r)`$ $`=w(\gamma r).`$


format: text

text:
# Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations and Galilean transformations

## I Introduction

The issue of locality plays a central role in recent theoretical and experimental investigations of basic properties of quantum mechanics. The history of this long-standing problem began in 1935, when Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published their paper Einstein et al. (1935). EPR considered a gedanken experiment with two spatially separated particles, $`a`$ and $`b`$, in an entangled state in which the relative position, $`x_ax_b`$, and the total momentum, $`p_a+p_b`$, have definite values. If the momentum of the particle $`a`$ is measured one can predict with certainty the momentum of the particle $`b`$. Since particles are spatially separated and the locality of quantum mechanics is assumed, the measurement on the particle $`a`$ does not disturb the particle $`b`$, thus, due to the EPR reality criterion, the momentum of the particle $`b`$ is an element of reality. Alternatively one could measure the position of the particle $`a`$, and by the same arguments one concludes that also the position of the particle $`b`$ is an element of reality. But quantum mechanics does not allow us to find simultaneously values of $`p_b`$ and $`x_b`$, therefore EPR concluded that the description of reality that is provided by quantum mechanics is not complete.

In the above so-called “EPR paradox,” the Einstein locality principle, which states “…the real factual situation of the system S2 is independent on what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former,” Einstein (1949) was applied for the first time explicitly to quantum mechanics.

For a long time, EPR predictions were experimentaly untestable. The problem was reformulated in terms of spin variables by Bohm Bohm (1951), and in 1964 Bell proved that Bell (1964) in such a setting some inequality should hold for any local realistic theory. The Bell inequality was easier to handle experimentally because it imposes some constraints only on correlations of results of measurements performed by two distant observers. Many experiments were performed to test Bell-type inequalities Aspect et al. (1981, 1982); Tittel et al. (1998); Tittel et al. (1998); Weihs et al. (1998); Apostolakis et al. (1998); Foadi and Selleri (1999), and all of them showed that they are violated and that quantum-mechanical predictions are satisfied 111For technical reasons, there may exist some loopholes (see, e.g., Gisin and Zbinden (1999) and references therein) that allow us to maintain the local and realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, but we will not consider them here.. Recently, even experiments with observers in relative motion were performed Zbinden et al. (2001).

In the standard formulation of the Bell inequality, only the spin part of the wave function of two particles is taken into account Ballentine (1998); Peres (1995). However, some authors pointed out that when the issue of locality in quantum mechanics is considered, the space part of the wave function cannot be neglected Volovich (a, b). We accept this point of view. Unfortunately, in the standard formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics, the notion of localization of a particle is ill-defined. The main problem one encounters in this case concerns the Lorentz covariance of the localization (see, e.g., Bacry (1988)). It causes the framework of the standard relativistic quantum mechanics to be unsuitable for the calculation of EPR correlations in the most general case, i.e., when the space part of the wave function and the relative motion of the observers are taken into account. In the framework of standard relativistic quantum mechanics, the spin correlations were calculated in Czachor (1997a, b) but the derivation of the correlation function presented therein does not involve localization of measured particles in detectors and is restricted to the measurements performed in the same inertial frame. The framework of the Lorentz covariant quantum mechanics developed in Caban and Rembieliński (1999) seems to be more suitable to calculate the EPR correlation function in the general case. The correlation function in such a framework was calculated in Rembieliński and Smoliński (2002).

On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge,no systematic review of EPR correlations in the framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in the general case exist in the literature. One of the reasons for this is that the EPR paradox appears only in the relativistic case. But in our opinion, we should know also the exact form of the EPR correlation function in the case of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, at least to compare it with results obtained in the relativistic case. Therefore, the main goal of our present paper is to calculate in detail spin correlations in the framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. More precisely, we consider the following situation: a two-particle state is prepared (we consider separately distinguishable and identical particles and we take into account the space part of the wave function) and two observers in relative motion measure the spin component of the particle along given directions. The measurements are performed in bounded regions of space (detectors) not necessarily simultaneously.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we calculate EPR spin correlations taking into account the space part of the wave function and motion of the observers. We discuss the cases of distinguishable and identical particles separately. Section III concludes with a summary of our results. The main facts concerning the Galilean group and its unitary ray representations are collected in the Appendix.

## II  EPR correlations

In this section we calculate quantum correlations in the following case. In a given inertial frame of reference $`𝒪`$, a two-particle state is prepared. Two observers, say $`𝒜`$ and $``$, travel with constant velocities with respect to the frame $`𝒪`$. Each observer possesses a detector which can measure the spin component of a particle along a given axis fixed by unit vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, respectively. We assume that the spin measurements take place only if the particle is inside the detector. Thus we assume that detectors occupy regions $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. We consider separately the case of distinguishable and identical particles. For the notation concerning the Galilean group and its unitary ray representations, see the Appendix.

### II.1  Distinguishable particles

We consider two spin $`s`$ particles, say $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. We assume that spins of both particles are equal for simplicity, however it is straightforward to generalize our considerations for the case of particles with different spins. The space of states of this two-particle system is $`^\alpha ^\beta `$, where $`^\alpha `$ and $`^\beta `$ denote the space of states of the particles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, respectively. In the spaces $`^\alpha `$ and $`^\beta `$, we will use bases $`\{|𝐱_\alpha ,𝐧_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha \}`$ and $`\{|𝐱_\beta ,𝐧_\beta ,\lambda _\beta \}`$, respectively. A vector $`|𝐱_\alpha ,𝐧_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha `$ ($`|𝐱_\beta ,𝐧_\beta ,\lambda _\beta `$) describes the situation in which the particle $`\alpha `$ ($`\beta `$) is localized at $`\stackrel{}{x}_\alpha `$ ($`𝐱_\beta `$) and its spin component along the direction determined by a unit vector $`𝐧_\alpha `$ ($`𝐧_\beta `$) is equal to $`\lambda _\alpha `$ ($`\lambda _\beta `$). Definition of the vectors $`|\stackrel{}{x},\stackrel{}{n},\lambda `$ and their basic properties are given in the Appendix, Eqs. (83) and (84). We want to describe an EPR-type experiment in which two distant observers $`𝒜`$ and $``$ measure spin components of the particles using detectors that occupy some bounded regions $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively. Thus the measurement consists of the localization inside the region of the detector and simultaneous measurement of the spin component. Therefore, corresponding observables for particles $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ read

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A,𝐚}^sI,I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B,𝐛}^s,$$
(1)
where the spectral decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s`$ is the following:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s=\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\lambda \left(_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱,𝐧,\lambda |\right)\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }.$$
(2)
The projectors $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }`$ in Eq. (2) have the following obvious interpretation: When we measure $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }`$ we get the value 1 if and only if the corresponding particle is inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and its spin component along the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ is equal to $`\lambda `$.

Under Galilean boosts, projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }`$ transforms as follows \[cf. Eq. (93)\]:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_t^{}(𝐯)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }U_t(𝐯)& =_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3𝐱|𝐱t𝐯,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱t𝐯,𝐧,\lambda |\hfill \\ & =_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(t)}d^3𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱,𝐧,\lambda |\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(t),𝐧}^{s,\lambda },\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(t)=\{𝐱^{}:𝐱^{}=𝐱𝐯t,𝐱\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$. This means that localization in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics is covariant; that is, the projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(t),\stackrel{}{n}}^{s,\lambda }`$ corresponds to the localization in the same region as seen by the moving observer, at the moment $`t`$. We point out that this is not true in standard relativistic quantum mechanics Bacry (1988).

Now we can calculate quantum correlations. This can be done in the following steps.

1. Preparation of the initial state. We assume that a two-particle state $`\rho `$ is prepared in a certain inertial frame of reference $`𝒪`$. Two other inertial frames of reference, $`𝒜`$ and $``$, move with constant velocities with respect to $`𝒪`$. We denote the velocity of the frame $`𝒪`$ with respect to $`𝒜`$ and $``$ by $`\stackrel{}{v}_A`$ and $`𝐯_B`$, respectively.
2. Measurement performed by observer $`𝒜`$. An observer at rest with respect to $`𝒜`$ (for simplicity, we refer to him as to the observer $`𝒜`$) measures at time $`t_A`$ the observable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A,𝐚}^sI`$. As a result of the measurement with selection, $`𝒜`$ receives a value $`\lambda _\alpha `$.
3. Free time evolution of the state. Next, the state evolves freely in time from $`t_A`$ to $`t_Bt_A`$.
4. Measurement performed by observer $``$. At time $`t_B`$, an observer that rests with respect to $``$ (we call him observer $``$) measures $`I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B,𝐛}^s`$. The result of this measurement with selection is $`\lambda _\beta `$.

Let us denote the probability that $`𝒜`$ receives $`\lambda _\alpha `$ and $``$ receives $`\lambda _\beta `$ as $`p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta )`$. In the case of distinguishable particles, we define the following correlation function:

$$𝒞^{\alpha ,\beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=\underset{\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta }{}\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta ).$$
(4)
We could also imagine the situation in which the observers do not distingiush the type of particles. In such a case, the correlation function (4) should be replaced by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒞(𝐚,𝐛)& =\underset{\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta }{}\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta \left[p(\lambda _\beta ,\lambda _\alpha )+p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta )\right]\hfill \\ & =𝒞^{\alpha ,\beta }(𝐚,𝐛)+𝒞^{\beta ,\alpha }(𝐚,𝐛).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Thus we have to calculate $`p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta )`$. We do it according to the steps described above.

1. Preparation of the initial state. An initial state is prepared in the frame $`𝒪`$. At time, $`t_A`$ it is given by $`\rho (t_A)`$.
2. Measurement performed by the observer $`𝒜`$. For the observer $`𝒜`$, the density matrix $`\rho (t_A)`$ has the form

$$\rho _𝒜(t_A)=U_{t_A}(𝐯_A)\rho (t_A)U_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A),$$
(6)
where $`U_t(𝐯)=U_t^\alpha (𝐯)U_t^\beta (𝐯)`$ and the unitary operator of pure Galilean boost $`U_t^\alpha (𝐯)`$ \[$`U_t^\beta (𝐯)`$\] is given in the Appendix; see Eqs. (71), (74), (82), and (93). Now the observer $`𝒜`$ measures $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^sI`$ in the state (6) and as a result of the measurement with selection he receives $`\lambda _\alpha `$ with the probability

$$p(\lambda _\alpha )=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _𝒜(t_A)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,𝐚}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I\right)\right].$$
(7)
The measurement reduces the density matrix (6) to

$$\rho _𝒜^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_A)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I\right)\rho _𝒜(t_A)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I\right)}{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _𝒜(t_A)\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I\right)\right]}.$$
(8)
3. Free time evolution of the state. The density matrix (8) as seen from the frame $`𝒪`$ reads

$$\rho ^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_A)=U_{t_A}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_A)\rho _𝒜^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_A)U_{t_A}(\stackrel{}{v}_A).$$
(9)
Now the state $`\rho ^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_A)`$ evolves from time $`t_A`$ to $`t_B`$ and the resulting density matrix reads

$$\rho ^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_B)=U^{}(t_Bt_A)\rho ^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_A)U(t_Bt_A),$$
(10)
where $`U(t_Bt_A)=U^\alpha (t_Bt_A)U^\beta (t_Bt_A)`$ and $`U(t)`$ denotes the time evolution operator.
4. Measurement performed by the observer $``$. The density matrix (10) as seen by the observer $``$ has the form

$$\rho _{}^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_B)=U_{t_B}(\stackrel{}{v}_B)\rho ^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_B)U_{t_B}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_B).$$
(11)
Now the observer $``$ measures $`I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^s`$ in the state (11) and receives $`\lambda _\beta `$ with the probability

$$p(\lambda _\beta |\lambda _\alpha )=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _{}^{\lambda _\alpha }(t_B)\left(I\mathrm{\Pi }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^{s,\lambda _\beta }\right)\right].$$
(12)
It is conditional probability because the state in which $``$ performs the measurement has the form (10) only if $`𝒜`$ receives $`\lambda _\alpha `$ in the first measurement.

So finally we get

$$p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta )=p(\lambda _\alpha )p(\lambda _\beta |\lambda _\alpha ).$$
(13)
Taking into account Eqs. (6)–(12), we can write

$`p(\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta )=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\{\left[U_{t_A}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_A)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I)U_{t_A}(\stackrel{}{v}_A)\right]\rho (t_A)\left[U_{t_A}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_A)(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{s,\lambda _\alpha }I)U_{t_A}(\stackrel{}{v}_A)\right]`$
$`\times \left[U(t_Bt_A)U_{t_B}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_B)(I\mathrm{\Pi }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^{s,\lambda _\beta })U_{t_B}(\stackrel{}{v}_B)U^{}(t_Bt_A)\right]\}.`$ (14)
Inserting Eq. (14) into Eq. (4), we get

$$𝒞^{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b})=\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\rho (t_A)\left[U_{t_A}^\alpha (\stackrel{}{v}_A)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^sU_{t_A}^\alpha (\stackrel{}{v}_A)\right]\left[U^\beta (t_Bt_A)U_{t_B}^\beta (\stackrel{}{v}_B)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^sU_{t_B}^\beta (\stackrel{}{v}_B)U^\beta (t_Bt_A)\right]\right\}.$$
(15)
The function $`𝒞^{\beta \alpha }(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b})`$ can be obtained from $`𝒞^{\alpha \beta }(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b})`$ by simultaneous change of the order in the tensor product and change of indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

The formula (15) may be simplified in a particular case when the initial state is a pure one. In this case $`\rho (t_A)=|\psi \psi |`$, where $`|\psi ^\alpha ^\beta `$ is normalized.

Moreover, one can check that in the free time evolution case, the following relation holds:

$$U(\tau )[U_t^{}(\stackrel{}{v})\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{n}}^{s,\lambda }U_t(\stackrel{}{v})]U^{}(\tau )=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}d^3\stackrel{}{k}d^3\stackrel{}{p}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3\stackrel{}{x}e^{i(\stackrel{}{x}t\stackrel{}{v})(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{k})+[i\tau (\stackrel{}{k}^2\stackrel{}{p}^2)/2M]}|\stackrel{}{k},\stackrel{}{n},\lambda \stackrel{}{p},\stackrel{}{n},\lambda |.$$
(16)
Thus inserting Eq. (3) and (16) into Eq. (15), we have

$`𝒞_\psi ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle _A}d^3𝐱{\displaystyle _B}d^3𝐲{\displaystyle }d^3𝐤d^3𝐩\{e^{i(𝐲𝐯_Bt_B)(𝐩𝐤)+[i(t_Bt_A)/2M_\beta ](𝐤^2𝐩^2)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _\alpha ,\lambda _\beta }{}}\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta \psi |[|𝐱𝐯_At_A,𝐚,\lambda _\alpha 𝐱𝐯_At_A,𝐚,\lambda _\alpha ||𝐤,𝐛,\lambda _\beta 𝐩,𝐛,\lambda _\beta |]|\psi \},`$ (17)
where $`M_\beta `$ denotes the mass of the particle $`\beta `$. In the position representation, $`|\psi `$ is of the form

$$|\psi =\underset{m_\alpha ,m_\beta }{}d^3𝐱d^3𝐲\psi _{m_\alpha m_\beta }(𝐱,𝐲)|𝐱,m_\alpha |𝐲,m_\beta .$$
(18)
Note that in Eq. (18) we use the basis $`\{|𝐱,m_\alpha |𝐲,m_\beta \}`$, where $`m_\alpha `$ and $`m_\beta `$ denote spin components along the $`z`$ axis. One can check that under the definition (18) and using Eq. (89) and (90) we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒞_\psi ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=& \frac{1}{(2\pi )^6}_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲d^3𝐤d^3𝐩e^{i(𝐲𝐯_Bt_B)(𝐩𝐤)+[i(t_Bt_A)/2M_B](𝐤^2𝐩^2)}\underset{\begin{array}{c}m_\alpha ,m_\beta \\ m_\alpha ^{},m_\beta ^{}\end{array}}{}d^3𝐱^{}d^3𝐲^{}e^{i(𝐤𝐱^{}𝐩𝐲^{})}\hfill \\ & \times \psi _{m_\alpha ^{}m_\beta ^{}}^{}(𝐱𝐯_At_A,𝐱^{})\psi _{m_\alpha m_\beta }(𝐱𝐯_At_A,𝐲^{})(𝐚𝐒)_{m_\alpha m_\alpha ^{}}(𝐛𝐒)_{m_\beta m_\beta ^{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
When $`t_A=t_B=t`$ the correlation function (19) takes the form

$$𝒞_\psi ^{\alpha \beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲\underset{\begin{array}{c}m_\alpha ,m_\beta \\ m_\alpha ^{},m_\beta ^{}\end{array}}{}\psi _{m_\alpha ^{}m_\beta ^{}}^{}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt)\psi _{m_\alpha m_\beta }(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt)(𝐚𝐒)_{m_\alpha m_\alpha ^{}}(𝐛𝐒)_{m_\beta m_\beta ^{}}.$$
(20)
#### The case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$

Now let us apply the formula (20) to the case of the lowest nontrivial spin $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. The state $`|\psi `$ can be a triplet or a singlet.

Singlet state. For the singlet state we have

$$\psi _{m_\alpha m_\beta }(𝐱,𝐲)=\psi _{m_\beta m_\alpha }(𝐱,𝐲)$$
(21)
and then from Eq. (20) we receive

$$𝒞_{\psi _{\text{singlet}}}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{ab})_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲\left|\psi _{\text{singlet}}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt)\right|^2,$$
(22)
where $`\psi _{\text{singlet}}(𝐱,𝐲)\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱,𝐲)`$, $`\theta _{ab}`$ denotes an angle between vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$, and the normalization yields

$$d^3𝐱d^3𝐲|\psi _{\text{singlet}}(𝐱,𝐲)|^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(23)
Thus the correlation function depends on the vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ in the standard way, i.e., it behaves like a cosine of an angle between vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$. The only difference is the presence of the term $`_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲\left|\psi _{\text{singlet}}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt)\right|^2`$, which influences the intensity of the correlations.

Triplet state. In the triplet case we have

$$\psi _{m_\alpha m_\beta }(𝐱,𝐲)=\psi _{m_\beta m_\alpha }(𝐱,𝐲)$$
(24)
and the correlation function has a rather complicated form,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒞_{\psi _{\text{triplet}}}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐚,𝐛)=& \frac{1}{4}_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲\{(|\psi _{++}|^2+|\psi _{}|^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _b+(\psi _{++}^{}\psi _{}e^{i(\phi _a+\phi _b)}+\psi _{}^{}\psi _{++}e^{i(\phi _a+\phi _b)})\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _b\hfill \\ & +(\psi _{++}^{}\psi _+\psi _+^{}\psi _{})(\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _be^{i\phi _b}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _be^{i\phi _a})+(\psi _+^{}\psi _{++}\psi _{}^{}\psi _+)(\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _be^{i\phi _b}\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _be^{i\phi _a})2\psi _+^{}\psi _+[\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\mathrm{cos}\theta _b\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _b\mathrm{cos}(\phi _a\phi _b)]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where we used the following notation:

$$\psi _{++}\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt),$$
(26)
$$\psi _+\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt),$$
(27)
$$\psi _{}\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt),$$
(28)
$$𝐚=(\mathrm{cos}\phi _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _a,\mathrm{sin}\phi _a\mathrm{sin}\theta _a,\mathrm{cos}\theta _a),$$
(29)
$$𝐛=(\mathrm{cos}\phi _b\mathrm{sin}\theta _b,\mathrm{sin}\phi _b\mathrm{sin}\theta _b,\mathrm{cos}\theta _b),$$
(30)
and the normalization yields

$$\begin{array}{c}d^3𝐱d^3𝐲\{|\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱,𝐲)|^2+|\psi _{1/2,1/2}(𝐱,𝐲)|^2+\hfill \\ \hfill 2|\psi _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}(𝐱,𝐲)|^2\}=1.\end{array}$$
(31)
The triplet correlation function given by Eq. (25) depends on velocities of frames in a more non-trivial way than in the singlet case. Moreover, it is evident that the dependence on frame velocities in fact reduces to the dependence on the relative velocity of the observers.

### II.2 Identical particles

Now we calculate the correlation function in the same setting as in the previous subsection but in the case of two identical particles. We denote the one-particle Hilbert space by $``$. For our purpose it is convenient to use in $``$ the basis $`\{|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda \}`$, where, as previously, $`|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda `$ represents the particle localized at $`𝐱`$ and with spin component along the direction $`𝐧`$ equal to $`\lambda `$ \[see also the Appendix, Eqs. (83) and (84)\]. Since the particles are identical, the state vectors of the two-particle system constitute the symmetrical or antisymmetrical subspace of $``$ and the observables are represented by symmetrical operators. Thus an observable that measures the spin component along direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ inside the region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^sI+I\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s=\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\lambda (\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }I+I\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }),$$
(32)
where, as in the previous subsection,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda }_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱,𝐧,\lambda |,$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\lambda \left(_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱,𝐧,\lambda |\right)=\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda },$$
(34)
and $`I`$ denotes the identity. When we apply the observable (32), we do not know how many particles are inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^s`$ measures the component of the total spin of all particles inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. To justify the above statement, we consider the particle number operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sI+I\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}_\mathrm{\Omega }d^3𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda 𝐱,𝐧,\lambda |=\underset{\lambda =s}{\overset{s}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{s,\lambda },$$
(35)
which discriminates how many particles are inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The spectral decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sI+I\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sI+I\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s=2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}+1\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}+0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)},$$
(36)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}`$ are projectors on mutually orthogonal subspaces and their explicit form is the following:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s,$$
(37)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sI+I\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s2\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s,$$
(38)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0)}=II\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sII\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s+\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s.$$
(39)
Therefore, as a result of measurement of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^sI+I\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^s`$, we receive one of the following outcomes (i) there is no particle inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; (ii) there is one particle inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; and (iii) there are two particles inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

In the sequel we will restrict ourselves to the simplest case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$. Let us denote for simplicity

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{1/2,1/2},\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{1/2,1/2}.$$
(40)
The spectral decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{1/2}`$ has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,+)}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,)}+1\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}1\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}\hfill \\ \hfill +0\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,0)}+0\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(0,0)},\end{array}$$
(41)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,+)}& =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+I+I\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+,\hfill \end{array}$$
(42)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,)}& =\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}I+I\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+,\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+,$$
(44)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{},$$
(45)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,0)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+,$$
(46)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{n}}^{(0,0)}& =II\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+I\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}II\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+I\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^++\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\hfill \\ & +\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^+\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
are projectors on mutually orthogonal subspaces and one can easily check that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,1)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(2,0)},$$
(48)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,+)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(1,)},$$
(49)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}^{(0,0)}$$
(50)
\[cf. Eqs. (37)–(39)\]. Thus we can see that the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega },𝐧}`$ really measures the component of the total spin of all the particles inside $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Now we are prepared to calculate quantum correlations in the case of two identical particles. As previously, we assume that a two-particle state $`\rho (t_A)`$ is prepared at time $`t_A`$ in a certain inertial frame of reference $`𝒪`$. Moreover, the two observers, $`𝒜`$ and $``$, move with constant velocities with respect to $`𝒪`$. We denote the velocity of the frame $`𝒪`$ with respect to $`𝒜`$ and $``$ by $`𝐯_A`$ and $`𝐯_B`$, respectively. The observer $`𝒜`$ measures at time $`t_A`$ the observable $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}`$, and as a result of measurement with selection he receives the value $`\lambda `$. Here $`A`$ denotes some bounded region in $`^3`$ and $`𝐚`$ denotes a unit vector. Next, at time $`t_Bt_A`$ the observer $``$ measures $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}`$ and receives $`\lambda ^{}`$, where similarly $`B^3`$ and $`𝐛`$ is a unit vector. We can write

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\underset{\lambda _N}{}\lambda _N\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(N,\lambda _N)}\right),$$
(51)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\underset{\lambda _N}{}\lambda _N\mathrm{\Pi }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^{(N,\lambda _N)}\right).$$
(52)
For the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(N,\lambda _N)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}^{(N,\lambda _N)}`$, see Eqs. (42)–(47). In Eqs. (51)–(52), $`\lambda _N`$ is an eigenvalue of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}`$ and the projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(N,\lambda _N)}`$ corresponds to the situation in which inside the region $`A`$ there are $`N`$ particles and the total spin component along the direction $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ of all these particles is equal to $`\lambda _N`$.

As in the previous section, let $`p(\lambda ,\lambda ^{})`$ denote the probability that $`𝒜`$ receives the value $`\lambda `$ and $``$ the value $`\lambda ^{}`$. We define the correlation function by the formula

$$𝒞(𝐚,𝐛)=\underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}\lambda \lambda ^{}p(\lambda ,\lambda ^{}).$$
(53)
This function differs from zero when each observer registers one particle or when one observer registers two particles and the second one registers one or two particles. If one of them registers no particle, then the corresponding $`\lambda `$ is equal to zero. We take into account only the case in which each observer registers one particle.

Performing similar steps as in the case of distinguishable particles and taking into account Eqs. (51) and (52), we get

$$p(\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{})=\mathrm{Tr}\{[𝒰_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A)\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,𝐚}^{(1,\lambda _1)}𝒰_{t_A}(𝐯_A)]\rho (t_A)[𝒰_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A)\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,𝐚}^{(1,\lambda _1)}𝒰_{t_A}(𝐯_A)][𝒰(t_Bt_A)𝒰_{t_B}^{}(𝐯_B)\mathrm{\Pi }_{B,𝐛}^{(1,\lambda _1^{})}𝒰_{t_B}(𝐯_B)𝒰^{}(t_Bt_A)]\},$$
(54)
where, as previously

$$𝒰_t(𝐯)=U_t(𝐯)U_t(𝐯),𝒰(t)=U(t)U(t)$$
(55)
and $`U_t(\stackrel{}{v})`$, $`U(t)`$ are defined in the Appendix; see Eqs. (71), (74), (82), Eqs. (93). Inserting Eq. (54) into Eq. (53), we arrive at the following formula for the correlation function:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒞(𝐚,𝐛)& =\mathrm{Tr}\{\underset{\lambda _1}{}[𝒰_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A)\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(1,\lambda _1)}𝒰_{t_A}(𝐯_A)]\rho (t_A)[𝒰_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A)\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(1,\lambda _1)}𝒰_{t_A}(𝐯_A)][𝒰(t_Bt_A)𝒰_{t_B}^{}(𝐯_B)\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}𝒰_{t_B}(𝐯_B)𝒰^{}(t_Bt_A)]\hfill \\ & \times [𝒰_{t_A}^{}(𝐯_A)\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,𝐚}𝒰_{t_A}(𝐯_A)]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
Let us consider the simplest case in which both the observers rest with respect to $`𝒪`$ and the measurements are performed at the same time. It means that we put in Eq. (56)

$$𝐯_A=\mathrm{𝟎},𝐯_B=\mathrm{𝟎},t_A=t_B=t.$$
(57)
The result is the following

$$𝒞(𝐚,𝐛)=\underset{\lambda _1}{}\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(1,\lambda _1)}\rho (t)\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,𝐚}^{(1,\lambda _1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,𝐛}\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,𝐚}\}.$$
(58)
Furthermore, if we assume that the regions $`A`$ and $`B`$ are disjoint (as it happens in the real EPR-type experiments) we find from (32),33, (40), (42), and (43) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,\stackrel{}{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A,\stackrel{}{a}}^{(1,\lambda _1)}`$ commute. Thus changing the order in Eq. (58) and using Eq. 51 we get

$$𝒞(𝐚,𝐛)=\mathrm{Tr}\{\rho (t)\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,𝐚}\mathrm{\Delta }_{B,𝐛}\}.$$
(59)
## III Conclusions

In this paper, we have presented the detailed calculation of the spin correlation functions in the EPR-type experiments. In opposition to the standard approach, we considered the space part of the wave function and the relative motion of the observers. We also took into account the fact that every measurement of the spin component is connected with the simultaneous localization of the particle inside the detector. Thus we assumed that observers perform measurements in some bounded regions of space. We performed our calculations in the framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. There were two main reasons for this. First, to take into account the localization in the regions of the detectors, we need the well-defined notion of the localization (in the standard formulation of relativistic quantum mechanics, the notion of localization of the particles is ill-defined, however see Caban and Rembieliński (1999)). Secondly, to the best of our knowledge, any systematic review of EPR correlations in the framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in the general case mentioned above does not exist in the literature. Moreover, we considered separately the case of identical and distinguishable particles. In both cases, we found the general formula for the correlation function under the assumption that the initial two-particle state is arbitrary. In addition, we also considered some important special cases.

In the most interesting case of the singlet state of two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles, we determined, as one might expect, that the correlation function depends on the vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$ in the standard way, i.e., it behaves like a cosine of an angle between vectors $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐛`$. The only difference is the presence of the term $`_Ad^3𝐱_Bd^3𝐲\left|\psi _{\text{singlet}}(𝐱𝐯_At,𝐲𝐯_Bt)\right|^2`$, which influences the intensity of the correlations. Note that the low velocity limit of the relativistic correlation function for the singlet state of two spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles derived in Czachor (1997a, b) and in Rembieliński and Smoliński (2002) differs from our results. The correlation function obtained in Czachor (1997a, b) depends on the state of motion of the particles, while the function derived in Rembieliński and Smoliński (2002) contains a correction of second order in velocities to our nonrelativistic formula. However, in this second case, when both measurements are performed in the same inertial frame, the limiting correlation function coincides with our results.

*

## Appendix A Galilean group

To establish notation and conventions, we summarize here the main facts concerning the Galilean group and its unitary representations. Let $``$ be the one-particle Hilbert space of states. In this space, the following basic observables exist: $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}`$ (position), $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}`$ (momentum), $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}`$ (spin). They fulfil the following relations:

$$[\widehat{X_i},\widehat{X}_j]=0,[\widehat{P_i},\widehat{P}_j]=0,$$
(60)
$$[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{P}_j]=i\delta _{ij},[\widehat{X}_i,\widehat{S}_j]=0,$$
(61)
$$[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{S}_j]=0,[\widehat{S}_i,\widehat{S}_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{S}_k.$$
(62)
The Galilean group and its algebra act in the space $``$. As is well known, classical Galilean transformations have the following form

$$𝐱^{}=R𝐱+𝐚𝐯t,$$
(63)
$$t^{}=t+\tau ,$$
(64)
where $`𝐯`$ denotes the velocity of the frame $`(𝐱^{},t^{})`$ with respect to the frame $`(𝐱,t)`$ and we adopt the passive point of view. In the Hilbert, space the rotation $`R`$ is generated by the total angular momentum $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{J}}`$, the translation $`𝐚`$ is generated by the momentum $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}`$, the time translation is generated by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$ and Galilean boost is generated by $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{G}}`$. The basic commutation relations of the Galilean algebra (in fact its central extension) read

$$[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{P}_j]=0,[\widehat{P}_i,\widehat{G}_j]=i\delta _{ij}MI$$
(65)
$$[\widehat{G}_i,\widehat{G}_j]=0,[\widehat{H},\widehat{P}_i]=0,$$
(66)
$$[\widehat{J}_i,\widehat{J}_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{J}_k,[\widehat{H},\widehat{G}_i]=i\widehat{P}_i,$$
(67)
$$[\widehat{J}_i,\widehat{P}_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{P}_k,[\widehat{H},\widehat{J}_i]=0,$$
(68)
$$[\widehat{J}_i,\widehat{G}_j]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{G}_k,i,j,k=1,2,3,$$
(69)
where $`M`$ is the mass of the system. All generators of Galilean transformations can be expressed by observables (60)–(62). We have

$$\widehat{\stackrel{}{J}}=\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}+\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{P}},\widehat{\stackrel{}{G}}=t\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}M\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}.$$
(70)
Moreover in the case of a free particle $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}^2/2M`$.

Irreducible unitary ray representations of the Galilean group are determined by two numbers: the eigenvalue of $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}^2`$, which has the form $`s(s+1)`$, where $`s`$ is an integer or a half-integer and the non-negative real constant $`M`$. In the sequel we will use the Schrödinger picture. Since $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{G}}`$ depends on time explicitly, this dependence remains also in Schödinger picture. In momentum representation, we will denote the basis vectors of the carrier space of the determined irreducible unitary representation of the Galilean group (the space of states of the system at time $`t`$) by $`|𝐤,m_t`$, where $`𝐤`$ is an eigenvalue of momentum operator $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}`$, and $`m`$ is the spin component along the $`z`$ axis. We will denote elements of the unitary representation of the Galilean group as follows:

$$U(𝐚)=e^{i𝐚\widehat{\stackrel{}{P}}},U(𝐯)=e^{i𝐯\widehat{\stackrel{}{G}}},$$

$$U(R)=e^{i𝝋\widehat{\stackrel{}{J}}},U(\tau )=e^{i\tau \widehat{H}},$$
(71)
where $`𝐚`$, $`𝐯`$, $`𝝋`$, and $`\tau `$ are parameters corresponding to pure translations, Galilean boosts, rotations, and time translation, respectively. The action of operators (71) on basis vectors is the following:

$$U(𝐚)|𝐤,m_t=e^{i𝐚𝐤}|𝐤,m_t,$$
(72)
$$U(R)|𝐤,m_t=𝒟^s(R)_{m^{}m}|R𝐤,m^{}_t,$$
(73)
$$U_t(𝐯)|𝐤,m_t=e^{it[𝐯𝐤(Mv^2/2)]}|𝐤M𝐯,m_t,$$
(74)
where $`𝒟^s(R)`$ is the spin $`s`$ irreducible unitary representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. Moreover we, assume that

$$e^{i𝜶\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}}|𝐤,m_t=|𝐤+𝜶,m_t.$$
(75)
The phase factors in Eqs. (74) and (75) determine the following form of the vector $`|𝐤,m_{t+\tau }`$:

$$|𝐤,m_{t+\tau }=e^{i\tau (𝐤^2/2M)}|𝐤,m_t.$$
(76)
We denote eigenvectors of the position operator $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}`$ by $`|𝐱,m_t`$. We have

$$\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}|𝐱,m_t=𝐱|𝐱,m_t,$$
(77)
$$|𝐱,m_t=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}d^3𝐤e^{i𝐤𝐱}|𝐤,m_t.$$
(78)
The Galilean group and operator $`e^{i𝜶\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}}`$ act on vectors $`|𝐱,m_t`$ as follows:

$$U(𝐚)|𝐱,m_t=|𝐱𝐚,m_t,$$
(79)
$$U(R)|𝐱,m_t=𝒟^s(R)_{m^{}m}|R𝐱,m^{}_t,$$
(80)
$$U_t(𝐯)|𝐱,m_t=e^{iM[(t𝐯^2/2)𝐯𝐱]}|𝐱t𝐯,m_t,$$
(81)
$$e^{i𝜶\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}}|𝐱,m_t=e^{i𝜶𝐱}|𝐱,m_t.$$
(82)
In discussion of EPR-like experiments, it is convinient to use a position basis in which vectors are numbered by spin component along an arbitrary axis (not necessarily the $`z`$ axis). Thus let $`𝐧`$ be an arbitrary unit vector. Observable $`𝐧\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}`$ measures spin component along an axis in direction $`𝐧`$. Since $`𝐧\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}}`$ commutes with $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}`$, these observables possess a common set of eigenvectors. We denote them by $`|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda `$,

$$(𝐧\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}})|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =(𝐧𝚺)_{\sigma \lambda }|𝐱,𝐧,\sigma =\lambda |𝐱,𝐧,\lambda ,$$
(83)
$$\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =𝐱|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda ,$$
(84)
where values of $`\lambda `$ are the same as values of $`m`$ ($`\lambda =s,s+1,\mathrm{},s`$) and $`𝚺`$ denotes the generators of the representation $`𝒟^s`$. If we parametrize $`𝐧`$ explicitly as follows:

$$𝐧=(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(85)
we get

$$|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =𝒟^s(e^{i\theta 𝝎𝚺})_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }|𝐱,\lambda ^{}_t,$$
(86)
where the vector $`𝝎`$ is orthogonal to $`𝐧`$ and

$$𝝎=(\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\phi ,0).$$
(87)
We define also the vectors $`|𝐤,𝐧,\lambda `$ as follows:

$$|𝐤,𝐧,\lambda =\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}d^3𝐤e^{i𝐤𝐱}|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda .$$
(88)
One can also check that the following relations hold:

$$𝐲,m|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =\delta (𝐱𝐲)𝒟^s(e^{i\theta 𝝎𝚺})_{m\lambda },$$
(89)
$$𝐩,m|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =\frac{e^{i𝐩𝐱}}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}𝒟^s(e^{i\theta 𝝎𝚺})_{m\lambda }.$$
(90)
The Galilean group and operator $`e^{i𝜶\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}}`$ act on the vectors $`|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda `$ as follows:

$$U(𝐚)|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =|𝐱𝐚,𝐧,\lambda ,$$
(91)
$$U(R)|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =𝒟^s(R)_{\lambda ^{}\lambda }|R𝐱,R𝐧,\lambda ^{},$$
(92)
$$U_t(𝐯)|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =e^{iM[(tv^2/2)𝐯𝐱]}|𝐱t𝐯,𝐧,\lambda ,$$
(93)
$$e^{i𝜶\widehat{\stackrel{}{X}}}|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda =e^{i𝜶𝐱}|𝐱,𝐧,\lambda .$$
(94)
In the case $`s=\frac{1}{2}`$, we have $`𝚺=\frac{1}{2}𝝈`$, so

$$|𝐱,𝐧,\frac{1}{2}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|𝐱,\frac{1}{2}+e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|𝐱,\frac{1}{2},$$
(95)
$$|𝐱,𝐧,\frac{1}{2}=e^{i\phi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|𝐱,\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|𝐱,\frac{1}{2}.$$
(96)