1: \documentclass{article}  

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \textwidth 5.5in

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{Zeno meets modern science}  

8: \author{Z.K. Silagadze \\ Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 

9:         630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia}

10: 

11: \date{}

12: 

13: \maketitle  

14:               	

15: \begin{abstract}

16: ``No one has ever touched Zeno without refuting him''. We will not refute 

17: Zeno in this paper. Instead we review some unexpected encounters of Zeno with

18: modern science. The paper begins with a brief biography of Zeno of Elea 

19: followed by his famous paradoxes of motion. Reflections on continuity of 

20: space and time lead us to Banach and Tarski and to their celebrated paradox,

21: which is in fact not a paradox at all but a strict mathematical theorem,

22: although very counterintuitive. Quantum mechanics brings another flavour in

23: Zeno paradoxes. Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects are really paradoxical

24: but now experimental facts. Then we discuss supertasks and bifurcated 

25: supertasks. The concept of localization leads us to Newton and Wigner and to

26: interesting phenomenon of quantum revivals. At last we note that the 

27: paradoxical idea of timeless universe, defended by Zeno and Parmenides 

28: at ancient times, is still alive in quantum gravity. The list of references 

29: that follows is necessarily incomplete but we hope it will assist interested 

30: reader to fill in details. 

31:   

32: \end{abstract}

33: 	

34: \section{Introduction}

35: Concepts of localization, motion and change seems so familiar to our 

36: classical intuition:

37: everything happens in some place and everything moves from one place to

38: another in everyday life. Nevertheless it becomes a rather thorny issue

39: then subjected to critical analysis as witnessed long ago by Zeno's

40: paradoxes of motion. One can superficially think that the resolution of the

41: paradoxes was provided by calculus centuries ago by pointing out now the

42: trivial fact that an infinite series can have a finite sum. But on the

43: second thought we realize that this "resolution" assumes infinite

44: divisibility of space and time and we still do not know whether the physical

45: reality still corresponds to the continuous space and time at very small

46: (Plankian) scales. Even in pure mathematics the infinite divisibility leads

47: to paradoxical results like Banach-Tarski paradox which are hard to swallow

48: despite their irrefutable mathematical correctness.

49: 

50: More subtle under the surface truth about Zeno's paradoxes is that even if one

51: assumes the infinitely divisible space and time calculus does not really

52: resolves the paradoxes but instead makes them even more paradoxical and leads

53: to conclusion that things cannot be localized arbitrarily sharply. Of course

54: the latter is just what we expect from basic principles of quantum mechanics

55: and special relativity. But it is certainly amazing to find roots of these

56: pillars of the modern physics at Zeno's times!

57: 

58: \section{Zeno of Elea}

59: ``No one has ever touched Zeno without refuting him, and every century thinks 

60: it worthwhile to refute him'' \cite{1}. Therefore it seems that refuting Zeno 

61: is eternal and unchanging affair in complete accord with the Eleatic 

62: philosophy. According to this philosophy all appearances of multiplicity, 

63: change, and motion are mere illusions. Interestingly the foundation of the 

64: Eleatic philosophical school was preceded by turbulent events in drastic  

65: contrast with its teaching of the unique, eternal, and unchanging universe

66: \cite{2}. The school was founded by Xenophanes (born circa 570 BC), 

67: a wandering exile from his native city of Colophone in Ionia. Before finally   

68: joining the colony at Elea, he lived in Sicily and then in Catana. The Elea

69: colony itself was founded by a group of Ionian Greeks which seize the site 

70: from the native Oenotrians. Earlier these Ionian Greeks were expelled from 

71: their native city of Phocaea by an invading Persian army. Having lost their 

72: homes, they sailed to the Corsica island and invaded it after a awful  

73: sea battle with the Carthaginians and Etruscans, just to drive once again into 

74: the sea as refugees after ten years later (in 545 BC) their rivals regained 

75: the island. We can just wonder about psychological influence of these events 

76: on the Eleatic school's belief in permanent and unalterable universe\cite{2}.

77:    

78: Zeno himself had experienced all treacherous vicissitudes of life. Diogenes 

79: Laertius describes him \cite{3} as the very courageous man:

80: 

81: ``He, wishing to put an end to the power of Nearches, the tyrant (some, 

82: however, call the tyrant Diomedon), was arrested, as we are informed by 

83: Heraclides, in his abridgment of Satyrus. And when he was examined, as to his 

84: accomplices, and as to the arms which he was taking to Lipara, he named all 

85: the friends of the tyrant as his accomplices, wishing to make him feel himself 

86: alone. And then, after he had mentioned some names, he said that he wished to 

87: whisper something privately to the tyrant; and when he came near him he bit 

88: him, and would not leave his hold till he was stabbed. And the same thing 

89: happened to Aristogiton, the tyrant slayer. But Demetrius, in his treatise on 

90: People of the same Name, says that it was his nose that he bit off.

91: 

92: Moreover, Antisthenes, in his Successions, says that after he had given him 

93: information against his friends, he was asked by the tyrant if there was any 

94: one else. And he replied, "Yes, you, the destruction of the city." And that he 

95: also said to the bystanders, "I marvel at your cowardice, if you submit to be 

96: slaves to the tyrant out of fear of such pains as I am now enduring." And at 

97: last he bit off his tongue and spit it at him; and the citizens immediately 

98: rushed forward, and slew the tyrant with stones. And this is the account that 

99: is given by almost every one''. 

100: 

101: Although this account of Zeno's heroic deeds and torture at the hands of the 

102: tyrant is generally considered as unreliable \cite{4,5,6}, Zeno after all is 

103: famous not for his brevity but for his paradoxes \cite{7,8,9,10,11}.

104: 

105: \section{Zeno's paradoxes of motion}

106: Zeno was a disciple of Parmenides, the most illustrious representative of the 

107: Eleatic philosophy. According to Parmenides, many things taken for granted, 

108: such as motion, change, and plurality, are simply illusions and the  

109: reality is in fact an absolute, unchanging oneness. Of course, nothing 

110: contradicts more to our common sense experience than this belief. It is not

111: surprising, therefore, that Parmenides' views were ridiculed by contemporaries

112: (and not only). In his ``youthful effort'' Zeno elaborated a number of 

113: paradoxes in order to defend the system of Parmenides and attack the common 

114: conceptions of things. The four most famous of these paradoxes deny the 

115: reality of motion. The Dichotomy paradox, for example, states that it is 

116: impossible to cover any distance \cite{2}:

117: 

118: \begin{itemize}

119: \item

120: {\it There is no motion, because that which is moved must arrive at the 

121: middle before it arrives at the end, and so on ad infinitum.}

122: \end{itemize}

123: 

124: According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic after hearing this argument from

125: Zeno's followers silently stood up and walked, so pointing out that it is a 

126: matter of the most common experience that things in fact do move \cite{11}. 

127: This answer, very clever and effective perhaps, is unfortunately completely

128: misleading, because it is not the apparent motion what Zeno questions but

129: how this motion is logically possible. And the Diogenes's answer does not 

130: enlighten us at all in this respect \cite{12}:

131: \begin{verbatim}

132:     A bearded sage once said that there's no motion.

133:     His silent colleague simply strolled before him, --

134:     How could he answer better?! -- all adored him!

135:     And praised his wise reply with great devotion.

136:     But men, this is enchanting! -- let me interject,

137:     For me, another grand occurrence comes to play:

138:     The sun rotates around us every single day,

139:     And yet, the headstrong Galileo was correct.

140: \end{verbatim}

141: 

142: But what is paradoxical in Zeno's arguments? Let us take a closer look. He

143: says that any movement can be subdivided into infinite number of ever 

144: decreasing steps. This is not by itself paradoxical, if we assume infinite

145: divisibility of space and time. What is paradoxical is an ability to perform

146: infinite number of subtasks in a finite time -- to perform a supertask. Any

147: movement seems to be a supertask according to Zeno and it is by no means

148: obvious that it is ever possible to perform infinite number of actions in 

149: a finite time. Our intuition tells us just the contrary -- that it is a clear

150: impossibility for finite beings to manage any supertask. In the case of  

151: Dichotomy it is even not clear how the movement can begin at all because there

152: is no first step to be taken.

153: 

154: Aristotle tried to resolve this situation by distinguishing potential and

155: actual infinities \cite{13}: ``To the question whether it is possible to pass 

156: through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must 

157: reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual,

158: it is not possible; if they are potential, it is possible''. But Aristotle's

159: answer is not much better than Diogenes'. It is incomplete. In fact doubly

160: incomplete. According to it Zeno's infinite subdivision of a motion is purely

161: mathematical, just an action of imagination. But even if we accept Aristotle's

162: position it is desirable to show that in mathematics we have tools to handle

163: infinities in a logically coherent way. In fact no such tools were at 

164: Aristotle's disposal and they were only germinated after two thousand years 

165: when the notion of limit emerged, Calculus was developed and Georg Cantor 

166: created his set theory. We can say that Dichotomy is not mathematically 

167: paradoxical today. Either classical or non-standard \cite{14,15} analysis can 

168: supply sufficient machinery to deal with both the Dichotomy and its more 

169: famous counterpart, the Achilles and the tortoise paradox \cite{2}:

170: \begin{itemize}

171: \item

172: {\it The slower will never be overtaken by the quicker, for that which is 

173: pursuing must first reach the point from which that which is fleeing started, 

174: so that the slower must always be some distance ahead.}

175: \end{itemize}

176: This latter paradox is more impressively formulated in terms of two bodies

177: but in fact it is a symmetric counterpart of the Dichotomy and has a variant

178: involving only one moving body \cite{16}: ``To reach a given point, a body 

179: in motion must first traverse half of the distance, then half of what remains,

180: half of this latter, and so on ad infinitum, and again the goal can never be 

181: reached''. Therefore if the Dichotomy wonders how the motion can begin as

182: there is no first step, the Achilles makes it equally problematic the end of

183: the motion because there is no last step. Modern mathematics partly completes 

184: Aristotle's argument and provides a coherent mathematical picture of motion.

185: But all this mathematical developments, although very wonderful, do not 

186: answer the main question implicit in Aristotle's rebuttal of Zeno: how the 

187: real motion actually takes place and whether its present day mathematical 

188: image still corresponds to reality at the most fundamental level.

189: 

190: \section{Zeno meets Banach and Tarski}

191: Let us take, for example, infinite divisibility of space and time. This 

192: infinite divisibility is in fact paradoxical, even though the modern 

193: mathematics have no trouble to deal with this infinite divisibility. Let us 

194: explain what we have in mind.

195: 

196: Zeno's argument shows that any spatial or temporal interval contains 

197: uncountably many points. Nevertheless a moving body manages to traverse all 

198: these points in a finite time. Let us consider any division of the interval

199: into non-empty pairwise mutually exclusive subintervals (that is any pair of 

200: them have no common points). Then there exists at least one set N that 

201: contains one and only one point from each of the subintervals. indeed, a 

202: moving point body enters into a given subinterval sooner or later while 

203: traversing the initial interval and will remain into this subinterval for some

204: amount of time. We can take any point the moving body occupies during this 

205: time interval as an element of N. All this seems very natural and 

206: self-evident, and so does its natural generalization, the axiom of choice

207: \cite{17}:  

208: \begin{itemize}

209: \item

210: {\it If M is any collection of pairwise mutually exclusive, non-empty sets P,

211: there exists at least one set N that contains one and only one element from

212: each of the sets P of the collection M.}

213: \end{itemize}

214: \noindent If one may choose an element from each of the sets P of M, the set

215: N can evidently be formed -- hence the name of the axiom.

216: 

217: Now this innocently looking ``self-evident'' axiom leads to the most 

218: paradoxical result in the mathematics, the Banach-Tarski theorem, which is so

219: contrary to our intuition that is better known as the Banach-Tarski paradox. 

220: The most artistic presentation of this paradox can be found in the Bible 

221: \cite{18}:

222: ``As he went ashore he saw a great throng; and he had compassion on them, and 

223: healed their sick. When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said: 

224: "This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go 

225: into the villages and buy food for themselves". Jesus said: "They need not go 

226: away; you give them something to eat". They said to him: "We have only five 

227: loaves here and two fish". And he said: "Bring them here to me". Then he 

228: ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and 

229: the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the 

230: loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they 

231: all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken

232: pieces left over. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women

233: and children''.

234: 

235: In the more formal language the Banach-Tarski theorem states that \cite{17} 

236: \begin{itemize}

237: \item

238: {\it in any euclidean space of dimension $n>2$, any two arbitrary bounded sets 

239: are equivalent by finite decomposition provided they contain interior points.}

240: \end{itemize}

241: \noindent This theorem opens, for example, the door to the following 

242: mathematical alchemy \cite{17}: a ball of the size of orange can be

243: divided into a finite number of pieces which can be reassembled by using 

244: merely translations and rotations to yield a solid ball whose diameter is 

245: larger than the size of the solar system. Of course a real orange cannot be

246: chopped in such a way because atoms and molecules constitute a limit of 

247: divisibility of any chemical substance and the pieces required in the 

248: Banach-Tarski theorem are so irregular that they are nonmeasurable and the 

249: concept of volume (Lebesgue measure) does not make sense for them. 

250: But does space-time itself also have a limit of divisibility? It is yet an 

251: open question.

252: 

253: The comprehensive discussion of the Banach-Tarski theorem is given in 

254: \cite{19} and for an elementary approach with a full proof of the theorem see

255: \cite{20}. One can question whether paradoxical counter-intuitive 

256: decompositions like the ones implied by the Banach-Tarski theorem are of any 

257: use in physics. Surprisingly, there were several attempts in this direction.

258: Pitowsky was the first (to our knowledge) to consider a certain extension of

259: the concept of probability to nonmeasurable sets in connection with the

260: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell's inequalities \cite{21,22}. Another

261: examples can be traced trough \cite{23,24}.

262: 

263: One cannot blame the axiom of choice as the only culprit of such paradoxical 

264: mathematical results. Even without the use of this axiom one can argue that

265: there is some truth in the proverb that the world is small, because the 

266: results proved in \cite{25} entirely constructively, without the axiom of 

267: choice, imply that there is a finite collection of disjoint open subsets of 

268: the sun that fill the whole sun without holes of positive radius and that

269: nevertheless can be rearranged by rigid motions to fit inside a pea and remain

270: disjoint. 

271: 

272: Maybe the the Banach-Tarski theorem and analogous paradoxical decompositions

273: will appear a bit less paradoxical if we realize that the Achilles and the 

274: tortoise paradox illustrates that any two intervals contain the same number of 

275: points regardless their length. Indeed, during their race Achilles and the

276: tortoise cover desperately different intervals. Nevertheless one can arrange

277: a one-to-one correspondence between points of these intervals because for

278: every point A from the Achilles' track there is only one point B on the track

279: of tortoise which the tortoise occupied at the same instant of time when 

280: Achilles occupied A. In fact, as Cantor proved in 1877, there is a one-to-one

281: correspondence of points on the interval [0, 1] and points in a square, or 

282: points in any n-dimensional space. Cantor himself was surprised at his own 

283: discovery and wrote to Dedekind \cite{26} ``I see it, but I don't believe 

284: it!'' 

285: 

286: \section{Zeno meets quantum mechanics}

287: Despite some paradoxical flavour, the infinite divisibility of real space-time,

288: although unwarranted at yet, is mathematically coherent. But Zeno's paradoxes

289: contain some other physical premises also that deserve careful consideration.

290: The Achilles and the tortoise paradox, for example, assumes some observation

291: procedure:

292: \begin{itemize}

293: \item check the positions of the contenders in the race.

294: \item check again when Achilles reach the position the tortoise occupied

295: at previous step.

296: \item repeat the previous instruction until Achilles catch the tortoise

297: (and this is an infinite loop because he never does).

298: \end{itemize}

299: \noindent Calculus teach us that the above observational process covers only

300: finite interval of time in spite of its infinitely many steps. And during

301: this time interval the tortoise will be indeed always ahead of Achilles.

302: The observational procedure Zeno is offering simply does not allow us to check

303: the contenders positions later when Achilles overtake the tortoise. So the 

304: paradox is solved? Not at all. Zeno's procedure implicitly assumes an ability

305: to perform position measurements. Therefore two questions remain: whether it

306: is possible to perform infinitely frequent measurements taken for granted by

307: Zeno, and how the race will be effected by back-reaction from these 

308: measurements. The world is quantum mechanical after all and the measurement

309: process is rather subtle thing in quantum mechanics.   

310: 

311: Simple arguments \cite{27} show that something interesting is going on if the

312: observational procedure of Zeno is considered from the quantum mechanical 

313: perspective.

314: Let $|\Phi,0>$ denote the initial state vector of the system (Achilles and 

315: the tortoise in uniform motions). After a short time $t$ the state vector will

316: evolve into $$|\Phi,t>=\exp{\left (-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht\right )}|\Phi,0>\approx 

317: \left (1-\frac{i}{\hbar}Ht -\frac{1}{2\hbar^2} H^2t^2\right )|\Phi,0>\; ,$$ 

318: where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system assumed to be time independent. 

319: If now the position measurements of the competitors are performed we find that 

320: the initial state have still not changed with the probability

321: $$|<\Phi,0|\Phi,t>|^2\approx 1-\frac{(\Delta E)^2}{\hbar^2}t^2\; ,$$ where

322: $$(\Delta E)^2=<\Phi,0|H^2|\Phi,0>-<\Phi,0|H|\Phi,0>^2$$ is positive (there 

323: should be some energy spread in the initial state because we assume good 

324: enough localizations for Achilles and the tortoise). If these measurements 

325: are performed $n$-times, at intervals $t/n$, there is a probability

326: $$\left ( 1-\frac{(\Delta E)^2}{\hbar^2}\frac{t^2}{n^2}\right )^n$$ that at 

327: all times the system will be found in the initial state. But this probability

328: tends to unity when $n\rightarrow \infty$, because in this limit

329: $$\ln{\left ( 1-\frac{(\Delta E)^2}{\hbar^2}\frac{t^2}{n^2}\right )^n}\approx

330: -\frac{(\Delta E)^2}{\hbar^2}\frac{t^2}{n}\rightarrow 0.$$

331: Therefore, if the observations are infinitely frequent the initial state does

332: not change at all. Zeno was right after all: Achilles will never catch 

333: the tortoise under proposed observational scheme! This scheme implicitly 

334: assumes a continues monitoring of Achilles' position and therefore he

335: will fail even to start the race.

336: 

337: Matters are not as simple however. Repeated measurement of a system effects 

338: its dynamics much more complex and delicate way than just slowing the 

339: evolution \cite{28}. The above described Quantum

340: Zeno Effect became popular after seminal paper of Misra and Sudarshan 

341: \cite{29}, although it dates back to Alan Turing (see \cite{30,31} and 

342: references wherein) and was known earlier as ``Turing's paradox''. The initial

343: time $t^2$ dependence of quantum mechanical evolution, from which the Quantum

344: Zeno Effect follows most simply, is quite general though not universal. The

345: experimental difficulty resides in the fact that the $t^2$ dependence takes

346: place usually at very short times for natural unstable systems. For example,

347: the "Zeno" time of the 2P-1S transition of the hydrogen atom is estimated

348: to be approximately $3.6 \cdot 10^{-15}~{\mathrm s}$ \cite{32}. 

349: Nevertheless modern experimental techniques enable to prepare artificial 

350: unstable systems with long enough Zeno time. In beautiful experiment \cite{33} 

351: ultra-cold sodium atoms were trapped in a periodic optical potential created

352: by a accelerated standing wave of light. Classically atoms can be trapped

353: inside the potential wells but they will escape by quantum tunneling.

354: The number that remain is measured as a function of duration of the 

355: tunneling. The results are shown in the Fig.\ref{qz}.

356: \begin{figure}[htb]

357:  \begin{center}

358:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=qz.eps}}

359:   \end{center}

360: \caption {Observation of the Quantum Zeno Effect in the experiment \cite{33}.}

361: \label{qz}

362: \end{figure}

363: Hollow squares in this figure show  the probability of survival in the 

364: accelerated potential as a function of duration of the tunneling acceleration.

365: The solid line represents what is expected according to quantum mechanics

366: and we see a very good agreement with the experimental data. The Zeno time for 

367: this unstable system is of the order of about $\mu$s and during this short

368: time period the survival probability exhibits a $t^2$ drop. For longer times

369: we see a gradual transition from the $t^2$ dependence to linear $t$ dependence,

370: which corresponds to the usual exponential decay law. Such behaviour can be 

371: simply understood in the framework of time-dependent perturbation 

372: theory \cite{34}.

373: The probability of decay of some excited state $|i>$ under the influence of 

374: time independent small perturbation $V$ is given by the formula

375: \begin{equation}

376: Q(t)=\frac{1}{\hbar^2}\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty |<i|V|k>|^2\rho_k\sin^2{

377: \left (\frac{(E_k-E_i)t}{2\hbar}\right )}\left (\frac{2\hbar}{E_k-E_i}

378: \right )^2 dE_k,

379: \label{GR}

380: \end{equation}

381: where  $|i>,\; |k>$ are eigenstates of unperturbed Hamiltonian and $\rho_k$

382: is the density of states $|k>$. For very short times one has clearly a $t^2$

383: dependence:

384: $$Q(t)\approx\frac{1}{\hbar^2} \left ( \int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty 

385: |<i|V|k>|^2 \rho_k dE_k \right )t^2.$$

386: For longer times, when $$\frac{(E_k-E_i)t}{2\hbar}$$ is not small,

387: one cannot replace the sine function by the first term of its Taylor 

388: expansion. However we can expect that only states with small $|E_k-E_i|$ 

389: contribute significantly in the integral, because if  

390: $$z=\frac{(E_k-E_i)t}{2\hbar}\gg 1$$ the integrand oscillates quickly. But 

391: then it can be assumed that $|<i|V|k>|^2$ and $\rho_k$  are constant and by 

392: using $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty \frac {\sin^2{z}}{z^2} dz=\pi ,$$

393: one obtains linear $t$ dependence

394: $$Q(t)\approx \frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|<i|V|k>|^2\rho_k t.$$

395: 

396: In the experiment \cite{33} the number of atoms remaining in the potential

397: well after some time of tunneling was measured by suddenly interrupting the

398: tunneling by a period of reduced acceleration. For the reduced acceleration

399: tunneling was negligible and the atoms increased their velocity without being

400: lost out of the well. Therefore the remaining atoms and the ones having

401: tunneled out up to the point of interruption become separated in velocity

402: space enabling the experimenters to distinguish them. This measurement

403: of the number of remaining atoms projects the system in a new initial state

404: when the acceleration is switched back and the system returns to its unstable

405: state. The evolution must therefore start again with the non-exponential

406: initial segment and one expects the Zeno impeding of the evolution under

407: frequent measurements.

408: 

409: \begin{figure}[htb]

410:  \begin{center}

411:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=aqz.eps}}

412:   \end{center}

413: \caption {Observation of the Quantum Anti-Zeno Effect in the experiment 

414: \cite{33}.}

415: \label{aqz}

416: \end{figure}

417: Fig.\ref{qz} really shows the Zeno effect in a rather dramatic way. The solid

418: circles in this figure correspond to the measurement of the survival 

419: probability when after each tunneling segment of 1 $\mu$s an interruption of  

420: 50 $\mu$s duration was inserted. One clearly sees a much slower decay trend

421: compared to the measurements without frequent interruptions (hollow squares).

422: Some disagreement with the theoretical expectation depicted by the solid line

423: is attributed by the authors of \cite{33} to the under-estimate of the actual

424: tunneling time, so that in reality the decay might be slowed down even at

425: higher degree.

426: 

427: Uninterrupted decay curve shows damped oscillatory transition region between 

428: initial period of slow decay and the exponential decay at longer times. At

429: that a steep drop in the survival probability is observed immediately after 

430: the Zeno time. It is expected, therefore, that the decay will be not slowed

431: down but accelerated if frequent interruptions take place during the steep drop

432: period of evolution forcing the system to repeat the initial period of fast 

433: decay again and again after every measurement. This so called Quantum 

434: Anti-Zeno effect \cite{35,36,37} is experimentally demonstrated in 

435: Fig.\ref{aqz}. The solid circles in this figure show the evolution of the 

436: unstable system when after every 5 $\mu$s of tunneling the decay was 

437: interrupted by a slow acceleration segment. 

438: 

439: \section{Supertasks}

440: The Zeno and Anti-Zeno effects in quantum theory are of course very 

441: interesting phenomena and even some practical application of the Zeno effect

442: in quantum computing is foreseeable \cite{38}. But in the context of Zeno 

443: paradoxes we are more interested in the limit of infinitely frequent 

444: measurements with complete inhibition of evolution. Although such limit leads

445: to interesting mathematics \cite{39}, its physical realizability is dubious.

446: The Calculus argument that it is possible for infinite sum to converge to

447: a finite number is not sufficient to ensure a possibility to perform a 

448: supertask. This becomes obvious if we somewhat modify Zeno's arguments to 

449: stress the role supertasks play in them. The resulting paradox, Zeno Zigzag,

450: goes as follows \cite{2}. A light ray  is bouncing between an infinite 

451: sequence of mirrors as illustrated in the Fig.\ref{zzg}.

452: \begin{figure}[htb] 

453:   \begin{center}

454:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=zzg.eps}}

455:   \end{center}

456: \caption {The Zeno Zigzag.}

457: \label{zzg}

458: \end{figure}

459: The sizes of mirrors and their separations decrease by a factor of two on 

460: each step. The total length of the photon's zigzag path is finite (because

461: the geometric series 1+1/2+1/4+...converges), as well as the envelope box

462: size around the mirrors. Therefore the photon is expected to perform infinite

463: number of reflections in finite time and emerge on the other side of our

464: mirror box. But the absence of the last mirror the photon hit is obviously

465: troublesome now: there is no logical way for the photon to decide at what

466: direction to emerge from the box.

467: 

468: Of course, in reality it is impossible to realize the Zeno Zigzag for a number

469: of reasons. One cannot make arbitrarily small ``mirrors'', for example, 

470: because sharp localization leads to a significant momentum spread according

471: to uncertainty relations and then the relativity makes possible a pair 

472: production which will smear the ``mirror'' position. The wave-like behaviour

473: of the photon (or any other particle) will anyway make impossible to maintain

474: definite direction of the reflected photon if the mirror size is less than 

475: the photon wavelength.  

476: 

477: The question, however, naturally arises whether supertasks are logically 

478: impossible irrespective of the nature of physical reality which may restrict

479: their practical realization. To support the opinion that the very notion of

480: completing an infinite sequence of acts in a finite time is logically 

481: contradictory, Thomson suggested the following supertask \cite{40}. A lamp is

482: switched ON and OFF more and more rapidly so that at the end of the two 

483: minutes a supertask of infinite switching of the lamp is over. The question 

484: now is whether the lamp is in the ON state or in the OFF state after this two

485: minutes. Clearly the lamp must be in one of these states but both seem equally

486: impossible. The lamp cannot be in the ON state because we never turned it on

487: without immediately turning it off. But the lamp cannot be in the OFF state 

488: either because we never turned it off without at once turning it on. It seems

489: impossible to answer the question and avoid a contradiction.

490: 

491: \begin{figure}[htb] 

492:   \begin{center}

493:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=Tlamp.eps}}

494:   \end{center}

495: \caption {Alternative switching mechanisms for Thomson's lamp from \cite{42}.}

496: \label{Tlamp}

497: \end{figure}

498: The Thomson lamp argument is seductive but fallacious \cite{41,42}. 

499: Surprisingly there is a coherent answer to the Thomson's question without any

500: contradiction. To come to this answer, it is instructive to consider another

501: supertask \cite{42} which is not paradoxical in any obvious way. A ball

502: bounces on a hard surface so that on each rebound it loses $1-k$-fraction of 

503: its velocity prior to the bounce, where $0<k<1$. The ball will perform 

504: infinitely many bounces in a finite time because, in classical mechanics,

505: the time between bounces is directly proportional to the initial velocity of

506: the ball and the geometric series $1,\;k,\;k^2,\;k^3,...$ has finite sum

507: $1/(1-k)$. Now let us use this bouncing ball as a switching mechanism for the

508: Thomson's lamp. Then it is immediately obvious that depending on the 

509: organization of the circuit the lamp can be in either state (ON or OFF) after

510: the supertask is completed, see Fig.\ref{Tlamp}.  

511: 

512: Logic once again demonstrates its flexibility. Note that even such a weird

513: notion as the lamp being in a superposition of the ON and OFF states makes

514: perfect sense in quantum mechanics. Although, as was indicated above, we can

515: make the Thomson's lamp logically consistent without any such weirdness.

516: But other surprises with supertasks are lurking ahead.

517: 

518: In \cite{43} P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia constructed a beautifully simple 

519: supertask which demonstrates some weird things even in the context of 

520: classical mechanics. Fig.\ref{Balls} shows an infinite set of identical

521: particles arranged in a straight line. The distance between  the particles

522: and their sizes decrease so that the whole system occupies an interval of

523: unit length. Some other particle of the same mass approaches the system from 

524: the right with unit velocity. In elastic collision with identical particles 

525: the velocities are exchanged after the collision. Therefore a wave of elastic 

526: collisions goes through the system in unit time. And what then? Any particle

527: of the system and the projectile particle comes to rest after colliding its

528: left closest neighbor. Therefore all particles are at rest after the collision

529: supertask is over and we are left with paradoxical conclusion \cite{43} that 

530: the total initial energy (and momentum) of the system of particles can 

531: disappear by means of an infinitely denumerable number of elastic collisions, 

532: in each one of which the energy (and momentum) is conserved!

533: \begin{figure}[htb] 

534:   \begin{center}

535:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=balls.eps}}

536:   \end{center}

537: \caption {P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia's supertask.}

538: \label{Balls}

539: \end{figure}

540: 

541: If you fill uneasy about this energy-momentum nonconservation, here is the same

542: story in  more entertaining incarnation \cite{44}.

543: 

544: Suppose you have some amount of one dollar bills and the Devil approaches you

545: in a nefarious underground bar. He says that he has a hobby of collecting

546: one dollar bills of particular serial numbers and it happened that you do have

547: one such bill. So he is offering you a bargain: he will give you ten one 

548: dollar bills for this particular one. Should you accept the bargain? Why not,

549: it seems so profitable. You agreed and the bargain is done. After half an hour

550: the Devil appears again with the similar offer. Then after a quarter-hour and

551: so on. The time interval between his appearances decreases by a factor of two

552: each time. The amount of your money increases quickly. After an hour infinite

553: number of bargains are done and how much money will you have? You would have

554: a lot if the Devil wanted you to succeed. But he tries to perish your soul not

555: to save it and during the bargains is indeed very selective about bill serial

556: numbers: he always takes the bill with smallest serial number you posses and 

557: instead gives the bills with serial numbers greater than any your bill's 

558: at that moment. Under such arrangement any bill you posses will end its path

559: into Devil's pocket. Indeed, for any particular bill at your disposal at some 

560: instant you will have only finite amount of bills with less serial numbers and 

561: you never will get additional bills with smaller serial numbers. Therefore

562: sooner or later this particular bill will become the bill with smallest serial 

563: number among your bills and hence subject of the exchange. We come again to 

564: the strange conclusion that in spite of your money's continuous growth during

565: the transaction you will have no bill at all left after the infinite 

566: transaction is over! 

567:  

568: Of course, this example does not enlighten us much about how the initial energy

569: disappears in the P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia's supertask. However it clearly 

570: shows a somewhat infernal flavour the supertasks have. And not only the 

571: energy-momentum conservation is on stake. Classical dynamics is time reversal

572: invariant. Therefore the following process, which is the time reversal of the

573: P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia's supertask, is also possible \cite{43}: 

574: a spontaneous self-excitation can propagate through the infinite system of

575: balls at rest causing the first ball to be ejected with some nonzero velocity.

576: The system displays not only the energy-momentum non-conservation but also

577: indeterminism \cite{43,45,46}.

578: 

579: The locus of the difficulty is the same as in the Zeno paradoxes: there is no

580: last member in a sequence of acts (collisions) and therefore there is no last

581: ball to carry off the velocity \cite{47}. The supertask illustrate the 

582: indeterminism of classical Newtonian or even relativistic dynamics as far as

583: infinite localization of bodies is admissible. In quantum mechanics balls 

584: cannot be simultaneously at rest and infinitely localized thanks to 

585: uncertainty relations. Therefore P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia's supertask will not

586: persist in quantum theory. However, it was shown \cite{48} that 

587: a (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanical supertask can be envisaged in which

588: the deterministic time development of the wave function is lost and 

589: spontaneous self-excitation of the ground state is allowed. Yet

590: pathologies disappear if one demands normalizability of the state vector.

591: In this sense quantum mechanical supertasks  are better behaved than their 

592: classical counterparts \cite{48}.

593:  

594: Surprisingly and  contrary to common wisdom, classical Newtonian physics is 

595: more hostile and unfriendly to determinism than either quantum mechanics or 

596: special relativity \cite{49}. Another example of esoteric behaviour of 

597: seemingly benign Newtonian system was given by Xia \cite{50} while solving 

598: the century-old intriguing problem of noncollisional singularities. Xia's

599: construction constitutes in fact a supertask and involves only five bodies

600: interacting via familiar Newtonian inverse square force law. The essentials 

601: of this supertask can be explained as follows \cite{51}. Imagine a system of

602: two equal masses $M$ moving in the $x-y$ plane under Newton's law of 

603: attraction with center of mass at rest, and the third mass $m\ll M$ (so that

604: it does not disturb the motion of the first two) on the $z$-axis which goes

605: through the center of mass of the planar binary system. It is clear from the 

606: symmetry that the total force of gravitational attraction acting on the mass 

607: $m$ has only $z$-component and therefore the third mass will experience a one 

608: dimensional motion along the $z$-axis. When the mass $m$ passes through and 

609: is lightly above the binary plane, we can arrange extremely powerful downward

610: pull on $m$ if the highly elliptical binary has its closest approach at that 

611: moment. In fact, assuming an ideal case of point masses, the downward force 

612: acting on $m$ can be made arbitrarily strong by just adjusting the separating

613: distances among the bodies. As a result the third mass is jolted down with

614: high velocity while the binary starts separating and loses significantly its

615: braking effect on $m$.

616: 

617: The mirror replica of the binary, see Fig.\ref{Xia}, is placed at large 

618: distance (not to disturb the first binary) further down to prevent the mass

619: $m$ from being expelled to infinity. In case of proper timing, the second

620: binary will break $m$'s downward motion and will thrust it upwards with even 

621: higher velocity.   

622: \begin{figure}[htb] 

623:   \begin{center}

624:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=xia.eps}}

625:   \end{center}

626: \caption {Xia's five body supertask.}

627: \label{Xia}

628: \end{figure} 

629: 

630: Xia was able to show that there exists a Cantor set of the initial conditions

631: allowing to repeat this behaviour infinitely often in a finite time. As 

632: a result the four of five bodies from the Xia's construction will escape

633: to spatial infinity in a finite time, while the fifth will oscillate back and

634: forth among the other four with ever increasing speed.

635: 

636: Xia's supertask does not violate energy conservation, the bodies drawing out

637: their energies  from the infinitely deep $1/r$ potential well. However it 

638: implies indeterminacy in idealized Newtonian world. The time reverse of this

639: supertask is an example of ``space invaders'' \cite{49}, particles appearing

640: from spatial infinity in a surprise attack. Note that \cite{49} ``the 

641: prospects for determinism brighten considerably when we leave classical 

642: spacetimes  for Minkowski spacetime, the spacetime setting for special 

643: relativistic theories''. Because with no superluminal propagation there are 

644: no space invaders.

645: 

646: Leaving aside interesting philosophical questions raised by Xia's supertask,

647: it seems otherwise completely artificial and far from reality. Curiously, some

648: ideas involved in this construction can be used by mankind, admittedly in the

649: very long run, to transfer orbital energy from Jupiter to the Earth by 

650: a suitable intermediate minor space body, causing the Earth's orbit to expand

651: and avoid an excessive heating from enlarging and brightening Sun at the last 

652: stage of its main sequence life \cite{52}.

653: 

654: \section{Bifurcated supertasks}

655: Let us return to Zeno. Hermann Weyl pointed out \cite{53} another possibility

656: mankind can benefit from Zeno supertask: ``if the segment of length 1 really 

657: consists of infinitely many subsegments of length 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, . . ., as of

658: ``chopped-off'' wholes, then it is incompatible with the character of the 

659: infinite as the ``incompletable'' that Achilles should have been able to 

660: traverse them all. If one admits this possibility, then there is no reason 

661: why a machine should not be capable of completing an infinite sequence of 

662: distinct acts of decision within a finite amount of time; say, by supplying 

663: the first result after 1/2 minute, the second after another 1/4 minute, the 

664: third 1/8 minute later than the second, etc. In this way it would be possible,

665: provided the receptive power of the brain would function similarly, to 

666: achieve a traversal of all natural numbers and thereby a sure yes-or-no 

667: decision regarding any existential question about natural numbers!''

668: 

669: Relativity brings additional flaviour in discussion of Weyl's infinity 

670: machines. One can imagine, for example, bifurcated supertasks \cite{42,54}.

671: To check the Goldbach's conjecture whether every even number greater than two 

672: can be written as the sum of two primes, the Master organizes two space 

673: missions. In one of them a computer, the Servant, is sent with constant 

674: acceleration which examines all even numbers one case after the other. In 

675: another space mission the Master himself contrives to accelerate in such a way

676: to keep the Servant within his causal horizon. It is possible to arrange

677: Master's acceleration so that the Servant disappears from his causal shadow

678: only after spending infinite amount of time on the Goldbach's conjecture,

679: while in the Master's frame the amount of time passed remains finite. If the

680: Servant finds a counterexample to the Goldbach's conjecture it sends 

681: a message to the Master and the latter will know that the conjecture is false.

682: If no message is received, however, the Master will know in a finite time that

683: Goldbach was wright.

684: 

685: This looks too good to be true and indeed the realization of such Pitowsky 

686: \cite{55} infinite machine is suspicious for a number of reasons \cite{42,54}.

687: The Servant moves with constant acceleration during infinite proper time. 

688: Therefore it needs an infinite fuel supply. Moreover, the Master's 

689: acceleration increases without limit and eventually he would be crushed to

690: death by artificial gravity. There is a conceptual problem also. At no point

691: on his world line does the Master have a causal access to all events on the

692: Servant's world line. This means there is no Moment of Truth, if the 

693: Goldbach's conjecture is true, at which the Master attained that knowledge.

694: Emergence of the knowledge about validity of the Goldbach's conjecture will

695: be as mysterious in Pitowsky bifurcated supertask as is the disappearance

696: of energy in P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia's supertask.

697: 

698: But general relativity allows to improve the above construction by admitting

699: the so called Malament-Hogarth spacetimes \cite{54,56}. In such a spacetime

700: there is a point (the Malament-Hogarth point) at Master's world line such that

701: entire infinite history of the Servant's world line is contained in this 

702: point's causal shadow. From that event on the Master will be enlightened about

703: validity of that particular number theoretic problem through the Servant's 

704: infinite labors.

705: 

706: Some Malament-Hogarth spacetimes seem quite reasonable physically. Among them

707: are such well known spacetimes as the anti-de Sitter spacetime, 

708: Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m spacetime and Kerr-Newman spacetime \cite{57}, the 

709: latter being the natural outcome of the late-time evolution of a collapsed 

710: rotating star. Therefore it is not excluded that ``if the Creator had 

711: a taste for the bizarre we might find that we are inhabiting one of them'' 

712: \cite{42}. Even if this proves to be the case, the practical realization of

713: infinite computation is not at all guaranteed. Physics beyond the classical 

714: general relativity, for example proton decay and other issues related to the 

715: long term fate of the universe \cite{58}, can prohibit the infinite 

716: calculations. There is still another reason that can make a practical 

717: realization of bifurcated supertasks dubious \cite{55}: the Servant might 

718: have infinite time to accomplish its labors but not enough computation space. 

719: the argument goes as follows \cite{59,60}.

720: 

721: Any system which performs computation as an irreversible process will 

722: dissipate energy. Many-to-one logical operations such as AND or ERASE are not

723: reversible and require dissipation of at least $kT\ln{2}$ energy per bit of 

724: information lost when performed in a computer at temperature $T$. While 

725: one-to-one logical operations such as NOT are reversible and in theory can be 

726: performed without dissipation \cite{61}.  

727: 

728: That erasure of one bit information has an energy cost $kT\ln{2}$ (the 

729: Landauer's principle) can be demonstrated by Maxwell's demon paradox 

730: originally due to Leo Szilard \cite{62,63}.

731: \begin{figure}[htb]

732:  \begin{center}

733:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=demon.eps}}

734:   \end{center}

735: \caption {Szilard's demon engine.}

736: \label{demon}

737: \end{figure}

738: 

739: A schematic view of the Szilard's demon engine is shown in the 

740: Fig.\ref{demon}. Initially the entire volume of a cylinder is available to 

741: the one-atom working gas (step (a)). At step (b) the demon measures the 

742: position of the atom and if it is found in the right half of the cylinder 

743: inserts a piston. At step (c) the one-atom gas expands isothermally by 

744: extracting  necessary heat from the reservoir and lifts the load. At step

745: (d) the piston is removed and the system is returned to its initial state ready

746: to repeat the cycle.

747: 

748: It seems the Szilard's demon engine defeats the second law of thermodynamics:

749: the heat bath, which has transferred energy to the gas, has lowered its 

750: entropy while the engine has not changed its entropy because it returned to 

751: the initial state. But this reasoning is fallacious because it misses an 

752: important point: the demon has not returned to his initial state. He still

753: possesses one bit information about left-right position of the atom he 

754: recorded. The system truly to return to its initial state it is necessary to

755: erase this information from the demon's memory. According to the 

756: Landauer's principle, one has to pay $kT\ln{2}$ energy cost for this erasure.

757: On the other hand work done during isothermal expansion equals

758: $$\int\limits_{V/2}^V pdV=\int\limits_{V/2}^V \frac{m}{\mu}RT \frac{dV}{V}=

759: \frac{m}{\mu}RT \ln{2}$$

760: and normalized to one atom this is just $(R/N_A)T \ln{2}=kT\ln{2}$. Therefore

761: all extracted work is paid back for erasure of the demon's memory and the net 

762: effect of the circle is zero. The second law defeats the demon. 

763:   

764: In principle all computations could be performed using reversible logical 

765: operations and hence without energy cost \cite{61}. Interestingly enough, some 

766: important stages of biomolecular information processing, such as 

767: transcription of DNA to RNA, appear to be accomplished by reversible chemical

768: reactions \cite{64}. Real computers, however, are subject to thermal 

769: fluctuations that cause errors. To perform reliable computations, therefore,

770: some error-correcting codes must be used to detect inevitable errors and

771: reject them to the environment at the cost of energy dissipation \cite{61}.

772: 

773: The Servant computer from bifurcated supertask needs to consume energy from

774: surrounding universe to perform its task. Different energy mining strategies

775: were considered in \cite{59} and it was shown that none of them allows to

776: gather infinite amount of energy even in infinite time irrespective assumed

777: cosmological model. To perform infinite number of computations with finite

778: available energy the Servant should be able to continuously decrease its

779: operating temperature to reduce the energy cost of computations. But the 

780: Servant is not completely free to choose its temperature: the waste heat 

781: produced while performing computations must be radiated away to avoid 

782: overheating. But physical laws place limits on the rate at which the waste 

783: heat can be radiated. Assuming that the electromagnetic dipole radiation by 

784: electrons is the most efficient way to get rid of the heat, Dyson argued

785: \cite{65} that there is a lower limit on the operating temperature

786: $$T>\frac{Q}{N_e}10^{-12}K,$$

787: where $Q$ is a measure of the complexity of the computing device ($Q\sim

788: 10^{23}$ for humans) and $N_e$ is the number of electrons in the computer.

789: Since $Q/N_e$ cannot be made arbitrarily small, it seems infinite

790: computations are impossible.

791: 

792: But where is a way out \cite{65}: hibernation. The Servant can compute 

793: intermittently while continuing to radiate waste heat into space during its 

794: periods of hibernation. This strategy will allow to operate below the Dyson

795: limiting temperature. But eventually the wavelength of thermal radiation will 

796: become very large compared to the characteristic size of the computer, the 

797: thermal energies will be small compared to the characteristic quantized 

798: energy levels of the system and radiation will be suppressed by an exponential

799: factor compared to the estimates of Dyson \cite{59}. Therefore the Servant 

800: must increase its size as time goes by. It also needs more and more memory to

801: store digital codes of ever increasing even and prime numbers. This is another

802: reason it to increase in size. But as was mentioned above there is only finite

803: amount of energy, and hence material, available. Therefore it appears the 

804: servant will not be able to accomplish its infinite labors. 

805: 

806: \section{Zeno meets Newton and Wigner}

807: Our discussion of Zeno's paradoxes indicates a rather subtle role the concept

808: of localization plays in description of motion.

809: It is not surprising therefore that the notion of localization in

810: relativistic quantum mechanics was intensively examined. Many concepts of

811: localization have been proposed but we focus on the one known as the

812: Newton-Wigner localization \cite{66,67}. 

813: Initially this concept of localization and the

814: corresponding position operators were suggested in the context of the single

815: particle relativistic quantum mechanics. But later their result was

816: reformulated in quantum field theory also, where the concept of local

817: observables is the central concept leading to numerous troubles (infinities)

818: which are swept under carpet with great artistic skill by renormalization.

819: Many troubles related to localization in relativistic quantum field theory have

820: their formal root in the Reeh-Schlieder theorem which in the non-formal

821: artistic formulation of Hans Halvorson \cite{68} 

822: states that the vacuum is  seething

823: with activity  at the local level: any local event has the nonzero

824: probability to occur in the vacuum state for the standard localization scheme.

825: The Newton-Wigner localization scheme avoids some consequences of the

826: Reeh-Schlieder theorem and leads to a mathematical structure which seems

827: more comfortable for our a priori physical intuition about localization 

828: \cite{69}. But the story is not yet over. The suggested generalizations of the

829: Newton-Wigner localization are still not immune against the full strength of

830: the Reeh-Schlieder theorem and have their own counterintuitive features

831: \cite{68,70}.

832: 

833: Let us sketch the derivation of the Newton-Wigner position operator for Dirac

834: particles \cite{71}. The Newton-Wigner operator $\hat Q^k$ can be defined as

835: the operator whose eigenvalues are the most localized wave-packets formed

836: from only positive-energy solutions of the Dirac equation. Let $\psi^{(s)}

837: _{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})$ be such a wave-function describing an electron with 

838: spin projection $s$ localized at the point $\vec{y}$ at the time $t=0$. 

839: Defining the scalar product by

840: $$(\psi,\phi)=\int \psi^+(\vec{x})\phi(\vec{x})\; d\vec{x}=

841: \int \psi^+(\vec{p})\phi(\vec{p})\; d\vec{p},$$

842: the natural normalization condition for these states is

843: \begin{equation}

844: \left (\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})},\psi^{(r)}_{(\vec{z})}\right )=

845: \delta_{rs}\delta(\vec{z}-\vec{y}).

846: \label{norm}

847: \end{equation}

848: Translational invariance implies

849: $$\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})=\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y}+\vec{a})}(\vec{x}+

850: \vec{a}),$$

851: or in the momentum space

852: \begin{equation}

853: \psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=e^{i\vec{p}\cdot \vec{a}}

854: \psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y}+\vec{a})}(\vec{p}),

855: \label{trans}

856: \end{equation}

857: where momentum space wave-functions are defined through

858: $$\psi(\vec{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int \psi(\vec{x})

859: e^{-i\vec{p}\cdot \vec{x}}\; d\vec{x}. $$

860: Equations (\ref{norm}) and (\ref{trans}) imply

861: \begin{equation}

862: \psi^{(s)+}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})\;\psi^{(r)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=

863: \frac{\delta_{rs}}{(2\pi)^3}.

864: \label{eq4}

865: \end{equation}  

866: On the other hand

867: \begin{equation}

868: \psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=f_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})\;u(\vec{p},s),

869: \label{eq5}

870: \end{equation}

871: where $u(\vec{p},1/2)$ and $u(\vec{p},-1/2)$ are two independent 

872: positive-energy solutions of the Dirac equation, which can be

873: taken in the form

874: $$u(\vec{p},s)=\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\;u(\vec{0},s),$$

875: where the rest state four-component spinors are

876: $$u(\vec{0},1/2)=(1,0,0,0)^T,\;\;\; u(\vec{0},-1/2)=(0,1,0,0)^T,$$

877: and $\Lambda_+(\vec{p})$ is a positive-energy projection operator

878: for a Dirac particle of mass $m$:

879: $$\Lambda_+(\vec{p})=\frac{1}{2}\left ( 1+\frac{\vec{\alpha}\cdot\vec{p}+

880: \beta m}{p_0}\right)=\frac{(\hat p+m)\gamma_0}{2p_0},\;\;p_0=\sqrt{\vec{p}^2+

881: m^2}.$$

882: The normalization of $u(\vec{p},s)$ is

883: \begin{equation}

884: u^{+}(\vec{p},s)u(\vec{p},s^\prime)=u^{+}(\vec{0},s)\Lambda_+(\vec{p})

885: u(\vec{0},s^\prime)=\frac{p_0+m}{2p_0}\delta_{ss^\prime}.

886: \label{eq6}

887: \end{equation}

888: From equations (\ref{eq4}-\ref{eq6}) we get

889: $$|f_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})|^2=(2\pi)^{-3}\frac{2p_0}{p_0+m}.$$

890: We fix the phase of $f_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})$ by assuming

891: $$f^*_{(\vec{0})}(\vec{p})=f_{(\vec{0})}(\vec{p}).$$

892: Then (\ref{trans}) indicates that the momentum space wave-function for the 

893: electron localized at $\vec{y}$ at the time $t=0$ has the form 

894: \begin{equation}

895: \psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\sqrt{\frac{2p_0}{p_0+m}}

896: e^{-i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{y}}\;u(\vec{p},s).

897: \label{eq7}

898: \end{equation}

899: Now we construct the Newton-Wigner position operator $\hat Q^k$ for which 

900: (\ref{eq7}) is the eigenfunction with eigenvalue $y^k$:

901: $$\hat Q^k\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=y^k \psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}

902: (\vec{p}).$$

903: Assuming that $\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}$ eigenfunctions form a complete system 

904: for positive-energy solutions, we get for any positive-energy wave-function

905: $\psi (\vec{p})$

906: $$\hat Q^k\psi (\vec{p})=\hat Q^k \sum_s\int d\vec{y} \left (\psi^{(s)}_

907: {(\vec{y})},\psi\right)\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=

908: \sum_s\int d\vec{y} y^k \left (\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})},\psi\right)\psi^{(s)}_

909: {(\vec{y})}(\vec{p}). $$

910: Substituting (\ref{eq7}) and performing $y$-integration we get

911: $$\hat Q^k\psi (\vec{p})=\int d\vec{q} \frac{2\sqrt{q_0p_0}}{(q_0+m)(p_0+m)}

912: \sum_s u(\vec{p},s)\,u^+(\vec{q},s)\left( -i\frac{\partial}{\partial q^k}

913: \delta(\vec{q}-\vec{p})\right ) \psi(\vec{q}).$$

914: But

915: $$\sum_s u(\vec{p},s)\,u^+(\vec{q},s)=\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\left (\sum_s 

916: u(\vec{0},s)\,u^+(\vec{0},s)\right )\Lambda_+(\vec{q})=\frac{1}{2}

917: \Lambda_+(\vec{p})(1+\gamma_0)\Lambda_+(\vec{q}).$$

918: Therefore

919: $$\hat Q^k\psi (\vec{p})=\Lambda_+(\vec{p})(1+\gamma_0)\sqrt{\frac{p_0}

920: {p_0+m}}\left( i\frac{\partial}{\partial p^k}\right )\sqrt{\frac{p_0}

921: {p_0+m}}\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\psi (\vec{p}).$$

922: From this equation it is clear that

923: \begin{equation}

924:  \hat Q^k=\Lambda_+(\vec{p})(1+\gamma_0)\sqrt{\frac{p_0}

925: {p_0+m}}\left( i\frac{\partial}{\partial p^k}\right )\sqrt{\frac{p_0}

926: {p_0+m}}\Lambda_+(\vec{p}).

927: \label{eq8}

928: \end{equation}

929: Newton-Wigner position operator simplifies in the Foldy-Wouthuesen 

930: representation. In this representation its eigenfunctions are obtained 

931: via unitary transformation \cite{72,73,74}:

932: $$\phi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=e^{iW}\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p}),$$

933: where the Foldy-Wouthuesen unitary operator is

934: $$e^{iW}=\sqrt{\frac{2p_0}{p_0+m}}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)

935: \Lambda_+(\vec{p})+\frac{1}{2}(1-\gamma_0)\Lambda_-(\vec{p})\right\}.$$

936: Using the identity

937: $$\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\,u(\vec{0},s)=

938: \frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)

939: \,u(\vec{0},s)=\frac{p_0+m}{2p_0}u(\vec{0},s)$$

940: we get

941: $$\phi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{p})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}e^{-i\vec{p}\cdot

942: \vec{y}}u(\vec{0},s).$$

943: These are Newton-Wigner position operator eigenstates in the Foldy-Wouthuesen

944: representation. The corresponding position operator can be derived from them

945: in the above described manner. The result is (in the momentum space)

946: $$\hat {\vec{Q}}_{(W)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)i\frac{\partial}

947: {\partial \vec{p}}\;,$$

948: or in configuration space

949: $$\hat {\vec{Q}}_{(W)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)\vec{x}=\frac{1}{2}

950: (1+\gamma_0)\vec{x}\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0).$$

951: Therefore the Newton-Wigner position operator appears to be just the 

952: positive-energy projection of the Foldy-Wouthuesen ``mean position operator''

953: \cite{72,73,74} and hence (\ref{eq8}) is equivalent to

954: \begin{equation}

955: \hat{\vec{Q}}=\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\left\{i\frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{p}}+

956: i\frac{\beta \vec{\alpha}}{2p_0}-\frac{i\beta(\vec{\alpha}\cdot\vec{p})\vec{p}

957: +(\vec{\sigma}\times\vec{p})p_0}{2p_0^2(p_0+m)}\right\}\Lambda_+(\vec{p}),

958: \label{FWmp}

959: \end{equation}

960: where $\vec{\sigma}=(1/2i)\vec{\alpha}\times\vec{\alpha}.$

961: 

962: Let us compare time evolutions of the conventional (Dirac) and 

963: Newton-Wigner position operators in the Heisenberg picture \cite{75,76}.

964: The Dirac position $\vec{x}(t)=e^{i\hat Ht}\vec{x}e^{-i\hat Ht}$ 

965: satisfies the Heisenberg equation of motion

966: $$\frac{d\vec{x}(t)}{dt}=i[\hat H,\vec{x}(t)]=e^{i\hat Ht}\vec{\alpha}

967: e^{-i\hat Ht}=\vec{\alpha}(t),$$

968: where we have used $\hat H=\vec{\alpha}\cdot\hat{\vec{p}}+\beta m$ and the 

969: canonical commutation relations (we are using $\hbar=c=1$ convention 

970: throughout this section)

971: $$[x_i,\hat p_j]=i\delta_{ij}.$$

972: On the other hand by using

973: $$[\alpha_i,\alpha_j]=2(\delta_{ij}-\alpha_j\alpha_i)=2(\alpha_i\alpha_j-

974: \delta_{ij}),\;\;[\beta,\vec\alpha]=2\beta\vec\alpha=-2\vec\alpha\beta,$$

975: we get

976: $$\frac{d\vec{\alpha}(t)}{dt}=i[\hat H,\vec{\alpha}(t)]=

977: ie^{i\hat Ht}[\hat H,\vec{\alpha}]e^{-i\hat Ht}=2i[\hat{\vec{p}}-\vec{\alpha}

978: (t)\hat H]=2i[\hat H \vec{\alpha}(t)-\hat{\vec{p}}].$$

979: Differentiating once more, we obtain

980: \begin{equation}

981: \frac{d}{dt}\dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(t)=-2i\dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(t)\hat H=

982: 2i\hat H\dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(t).

983: \label{dadot}

984: \end{equation}

985: Therefore

986: $$\dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(t)\hat H=-\hat H \dot{\vec{\alpha}}(t)$$

987: and the solution of (\ref{dadot}) is

988: \begin{equation}

989: \dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(t)\equiv \frac{d\vec{\alpha}(t)}{dt}=

990:  \dot{ \vec{\alpha}}(0)e^{-2i\hat H t}=2i(\hat{\vec{p}}-\vec{\alpha}

991: \hat H)e^{-2i\hat H t}.

992: \label{adot}

993: \end{equation}

994: One can integrate (\ref{adot}) by using

995: $$\int\limits_0^t e^{-2i\hat H \tau} d\tau=\frac{i}{2}\hat{H}^{-1}\left (

996: e^{-2i\hat H t}-1\right )$$

997: and the result is 

998: $$\vec{\alpha}(t)=\hat{\vec{p}}\hat{H}^{-1}+(\vec{\alpha}-\hat{\vec{p}}

999: \hat{H}^{-1})e^{-2i\hat H t}.$$

1000: Inserting this into

1001: $$\frac{d\vec{x}(t)}{dt}=\vec{\alpha}(t)$$

1002: and  integrating the resulting equation, we get the Dirac position operator

1003: in the Heisenberg picture

1004: \begin{equation}

1005: \vec{x}(t)=\vec{x}+\hat{\vec{p}}\hat{H}^{-1}t+\frac{i}{2}(\vec{\alpha}-

1006: \hat{\vec{p}}\hat{H}^{-1})\hat{H}^{-1}\left (e^{-2i\hat H t}-1\right ).

1007: \label{xdirac}

1008: \end{equation}

1009: This equation shows that a free electron surprisingly performs a very 

1010: complicated oscillatory motion. The first two terms are just what is expected,

1011: because

1012: $$\vec{p}H^{-1}=\frac{\vec{p}}{p_0}\frac{H}{p_0}=\frac{\vec{p}}{p_0}\left (

1013: \Lambda_+(\vec{p})-\Lambda_-(\vec{p})\right )$$

1014: is essentially the conventional relativistic velocity for positive-energy

1015: wave functions. But the last term in (\ref{xdirac}) is at odds with our 

1016: classical intuition. According to it the Dirac electron executes rapid 

1017: oscillatory motion, which Schr\"{o}dinger called ``Zitterbewegung''.

1018: As $\vec\alpha(t)\cdot\vec\alpha(t)=1$, the instantaneous value of electron's

1019: velocity during this trembling motion is always 1 (that is the velocity of 

1020: light). The Zitterbewegung is a result of an interference between positive 

1021: and negative frequency Fourier components of the particle wave-packet. The way

1022: the Zitterbewegung shows itself depends on the character of the particle 

1023: wave-packet \cite{75}. In the case of plane wave (not localized particles)

1024: one has a steady-state violent oscillations with amplitude $\sim 1/m$ and

1025: angular frequency $\sim 2m$ ($\hbar/mc$ and $2mc^2/\hbar$ if $\hbar$ and $c$

1026: are restored. For the electron $\hbar/mc=3.85\cdot 10^{-3}$~{\rm \AA} and

1027: $2mc^2/\hbar=1.55\cdot 10^{21}~\mathrm{Hz}$).

1028: 

1029: For the Newton-Wigner position operator we will have

1030: $$\frac{d\hat{\vec{Q}}(t)}{dt}=i[\hat H,\hat{\vec{Q}}(t)]=

1031: ie^{-iW}e^{i\hat{H}_{(W)}t}[\hat{H}_{(W)},\hat{\vec{Q}}_{(W)}]

1032: e^{-i\hat{H}_{(W)}t}e^{iW}.$$

1033: But in the Foldy-Wouthuesen representation

1034: $$\hat{H}_{(W)}=\beta p_0,\;\; \hat{\vec{Q}}_{(W)}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\beta)

1035: i\frac{\partial}{\partial \vec{p}}$$

1036: and 

1037: $$[\hat{H}_{(W)},\hat{\vec{Q}}_{(W)}]=-\frac{i}{2}(1+\beta)\frac{\vec{p}}

1038: {p_0}.$$

1039: Therefore

1040: $$\frac{d\hat{\vec{Q}}(t)}{dt}=ie^{-iW}\frac{1}{2}(1+\beta)\frac{\vec{p}}

1041: {p_0}\,e^{iW}=\frac{\vec{p}}{p_0}\Lambda_+(\vec{p})$$

1042: and

1043: \begin{equation}

1044: \hat{\vec{Q}}(t)=\hat{\vec{Q}}+\frac{\vec{p}}{p_0}\Lambda_+(\vec{p})t,

1045: \label{QNW}

1046: \end{equation}

1047: where $\hat{\vec{Q}}\equiv \hat{\vec{Q}}(0)$ is the initial value of the

1048: Newton-Wigner position operator given by (\ref{FWmp}).

1049: As we see, the Zitterbewegung is absent in the time development of the 

1050: Heisenberg picture Newton-Wigner position operator. This is not surprising

1051: because only positive frequencies are present in the Fourier components

1052: of wave packets that are localized in the Newton-Wigner sense. However this

1053: absence of trembling has a price: Newton-Wigner wave-packets cannot be 

1054: localized sharper than $1/m$. To see this, let us consider the Newton-Wigner

1055: eigenfunction (\ref{eq7}) in configuration space. 

1056: $$\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int e^{i\vec{p}\cdot 

1057: (\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\sqrt{\frac{2p_0}{p_0+m}}\Lambda_+(\vec{p})\,u(\vec{0},s)\,

1058: d\vec{p}.$$

1059: By using

1060: $$u(\vec{0},s)=\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)u(\vec{0},s),\;\;

1061: \Lambda_+(\vec{p})\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_0)=\frac{1}{2p_0}

1062: \left ( \begin{array}{cc} p_0+m & 0 \\ \vec{p}\cdot\vec{\sigma} & 0  

1063: \end{array} \right ),$$

1064: we get

1065: $$\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int e^{i\vec{p}\cdot

1066: (\vec{x}-\vec{y})}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2p_0(p_0+m)}}\left ( \begin{array}{cc}

1067: p_0+m & 0 \\ \vec{p}\cdot\vec{\sigma} & 0 \end{array} \right )u(\vec{0},s)\,

1068: d\vec{p},$$

1069: or

1070: $$\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})=\left ( \begin{array}{cc} A(\vec{z};m) & 0 

1071: \\ -2i\vec{\sigma}\cdot\frac{\partial^2 A(\vec{z};m)}{\partial \vec{z}

1072: \partial m} & 0 \end{array} \right )u(\vec{0},s),$$

1073: where $\vec{z}=\vec{x}-\vec{y}$ and

1074: $$A(\vec{z};m)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3}\int e^{i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{z}}\sqrt{\frac{

1075: p_0+m}{2p_0}}\,d\vec{p}.$$

1076: For evaluation of the latter function, it is convenient to decompose

1077: $$\sqrt{1+\frac{m}{p_0}}=1+\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n \left (\frac{m}{p_0}

1078: \right )^n.$$

1079: Then

1080: \begin{equation}

1081: A(\vec{z};m)=\frac{\delta(\vec{z})}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{(2\pi)^2}

1082: \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n\int\limits_0^\infty p \left (\frac{m}{p_0}

1083: \right )^n \frac{\sin{(pz)}}{z}\, dp,

1084: \label{Az}

1085: \end{equation}

1086: where $p=|\vec{p}|$ and $z=|\vec{z}|$.

1087: But

1088: $$I=m^n \int\limits_0^\infty \frac{p}{p_0^n} \frac{\sin{(pz)}}{z} dp=

1089: -\frac{m^n}{z}\frac{d}{dz}\int\limits_0^\infty \frac{\cos{(pz)}}{(p^2+m^2)^

1090: \frac{n}{2}}\, dp.$$

1091: This latter integral can be evaluated by using \cite{77}

1092: $$K_\nu (mz)=\frac{\Gamma(\nu+\frac{1}{2}) (2m)^\nu}{\sqrt{\pi}z^\nu}

1093: \int\limits_0^\infty \frac{\cos{(pz)}}{(p^2+m^2)^{\nu+\frac{1}{2}}}\,dp$$

1094: and

1095: $$\frac{1}{z}\frac{d}{dz}\left [ z^\nu K_\nu (z)\right ]=-z^{\nu-1}

1096: K_{\nu-1} (z),$$

1097: where $K_\nu (z)$ is the Macdonald function. The result is

1098: $$I=\frac{\sqrt{\pi}m^3}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})2^{\frac{n-1}{2}}} (mz)^{\frac

1099: {n-3}{2}} K_{\frac{n-3}{2}} (mz).$$

1100: Substituting this into (\ref{Az}), we get

1101: $$A(\vec{z};m)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left [ \delta(\vec{z})+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}m^3}

1102: {(2\pi)^2}\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty \frac{a_n}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}\left (

1103: \frac{mz}{2}\right )^{\frac{n-3}{2}}K_{\frac{n-3}{2}} (mz)\right ].$$

1104: But for large arguments \cite{77}

1105: $$K_\nu(z)\approx \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2z}}e^{-z}\left \{1+\frac{4\nu^2-1}

1106: {8z}\right \}.$$

1107: Therefore the function $A(z;m)$ decays for large $|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|$ as 

1108: $e^{-m|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|}$ indicating that the localization provided by the

1109: $\psi^{(s)}_{(\vec{y})}(\vec{x})$ wave-function is no better than $1/m$.

1110: 

1111: It seems therefore that the quantum mechanics and relativity create conceptual

1112: problems for Zeno's prescription to observe Achilles and the tortoise

1113: race (check the tortoise position when Achilles reach the position tortoise

1114: occupied at previous step). If we use the Dirac position for this goal, we will

1115: face Zitterbewegung, and if we use the Newton-Wigner one, the contenders will 

1116: be not sharply localized. The notion of object's localization, which seems so 

1117: benignly obvious in classical mechanics, undergoes a radical change when 

1118: distances are smaller than the Compton wavelength of the object. At first sight

1119: the notion of localization at Compton scales appears as purely academic concept

1120: because even for electron the Compton wavelength is very small and the 

1121: Zitterbewegung frequency very high, far beyond the present day experimental

1122: accessibility. But this situation can be changed in near future thanks to 

1123: narrow-gap semiconductors \cite{78}.

1124: 

1125: In such semiconductors the dispersion relation between the energy and the 

1126: wavenumber for electrons is analogous to that of relativistic electrons in 

1127: vacuum and as a result effective relativity arises with  maximum velocity  

1128: of about $10^8~\mathrm{cm/sec}$ instead of the velocity of light \cite{78,79}.

1129: Such systems can be used to model various relativistic phenomena the 

1130: Zitterbewegung included. The amplitude of the corresponding trembling motion 

1131: in semiconductors can be quite large, as much as 64~{\rm \AA} for 

1132: InSb \cite{78}, and can be experimentally observed using high-resolution 

1133: scanning-probe microscopy imaging techniques \cite{80}.

1134: 

1135: \section{Quantum revivals of Zeno}

1136: Achilles is localized not only at the initial instant but remains so during 

1137: the whole race. Maybe for Zeno this facet of classical world was not 

1138: paradoxical at all but it appears not so trivial at modern times, after the 

1139: quantum revolution. In quantum mechanics wave-packets spread as time goes by

1140: and it is not after all obvious how the classical reality with its definiteness

1141: arises from the weird quantum world. It is assumed, usually, that classical

1142: behaviour of macroscopic objects, like Achilles and tortoise, is something 

1143: obvious and always guaranteed. But this is not correct. For example, a 

1144: cryogenic bar gravity-wave detector must be treated as a quantum harmonic 

1145: oscillator even though it may weigh several tons \cite{81}. Superconductivity

1146: and superfluidity provide another examples of quantum behaviour at 

1147: macroscopic scales.

1148: 

1149: To illustrate surprises that a quantum particle on a racetrack can offer, let 

1150: us consider a wave packet of an electron in a hydrogen atom constructed from 

1151: a superposition of highly excited stationary states centered at a large 

1152: principal quantum number $\bar n =320$ \cite{82}. Initially the wave packet is

1153: well-localized near a point on the electron's classical circular orbit. Then

1154: it propagates around the orbit in accordance with the correspondence principle.

1155: During the propagation the wave packet spreads along the orbit and after 

1156: a dozen classical periods $T_{Kepler}$ appears as nearly uniformly distributed

1157: around the orbit (Fig.\ref{kepler})

1158: \begin{figure}[htb] 

1159:   \begin{center}

1160:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=kepler.eps}}

1161:   \end{center}

1162: \caption {Circular-orbit wave packet at initial stages of its time evolution

1163: \cite{82}.

1164: }

1165: \label{kepler}

1166: \end{figure}

1167: 

1168: If we wait long enough something extraordinary will happen: after some time

1169: $T_{rev}$ the wave packet contracts and reconstructs its initial form 

1170: (Fig.\ref{revival}). This resurrection of the wave packet from the dead is 

1171: called a quantum revival and it is closely related to the Talbot effect in

1172: optics \cite{83}. In many circumstances the revivals are almost perfect and 

1173: repeat as time goes on. At times $(k_1/k_2)T_{rev}$, where $k_1$ and 

1174: $k_2$ are two mutually prime numbers, fractional revivals happen and the

1175: wave packet consists of several high-correlated smaller clones of the original 

1176: packet.

1177: \begin{figure}[htb] 

1178:   \begin{center}

1179:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=revival.eps}}

1180:   \end{center}

1181: \caption {Wave-packet revival and fractional revivals \cite{82}.}

1182: \label{revival}

1183: \end{figure}

1184: 

1185: To explain the origin of quantum revivals, let us consider a particle of 

1186: mass $m$ in an infinite square well of width $L$ \cite{84,85}. The energy 

1187: spectrum of the system is given by

1188: $$E_n=\frac{1}{2m}\left (\frac{\pi\hbar}{L}\right)^2 n^2.$$

1189: Suppose the initial wave function is

1190: $$\psi(x;0)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n \phi_n(x),$$

1191: where $\phi_n(x)$ are the energy eigenfunctions. Time evolution of this wave

1192: function is described by

1193: $$\psi(x;t)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}E_n t}\phi_n(x).$$

1194: Therefore, if there exists such a revival time $T_{rev}$ that

1195: \begin{equation}

1196: \frac{E_n}{\hbar}T_{rev}=2\pi N_n +\varphi

1197: \label{Trev}

1198: \end{equation}

1199: for all nonzero $a_n$, where  $N_n$ is an integer that can depend on $n$

1200: and $\varphi$ does not depend on $n$, then $\psi(x;T_{rev})$ will describe

1201: exactly the same state as $\psi(x;0)$.

1202: 

1203: But (\ref{Trev}) is fulfilled if

1204: $$T_{rev}=\frac{4mL^2}{\pi\hbar}$$

1205: and $\varphi=0$. Therefore any quantum state in an infinite square well will

1206: be exactly revived after a time $T_{rev}$. Note that the classical period of

1207: bouncing back and forth between the walls is

1208: $$T_{cl}=\sqrt{\frac{2m}{E}}L$$

1209: and for highly excited states ($n\gg 1$)

1210: $$T_{cl}=\frac{2mL^2}{n\pi\hbar}\ll T_{rev}.$$

1211: 

1212: Now let us consider the quantum state $\psi(x;t)$ at half of revival time

1213: $$\psi(x;T_{rev}/2)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n e^{-i\pi n^2}\phi_n(x)=

1214: \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^n a_n \phi_n(x),$$

1215: where we have used $e^{-i\pi n^2}=(-1)^n$ identity. But

1216: $$\phi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}\sin\frac{n\pi x}{L}=-(-1)^n\phi_n(L-x).$$

1217: Therefore

1218: $$\psi(x;T_{rev}/2)=-\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n \phi_n(L-x)=

1219: -\psi(L-x;0)$$

1220: and we have the perfect revival of the initial quantum state but at a location 

1221: $L-x$ which mirrors the initial position about the center of the well.

1222: 

1223: At one quarter of the revival time

1224: $$\psi(x;T_{rev}/4)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty a_n e^{-i\pi n^2/2}\phi_n(x).$$

1225: But 

1226: $$e^{-i\pi n^2/2}=\cos{\frac{n^2\pi}{2}}-i\sin{\frac{n^2\pi}{2}}=

1227: \left \{\begin{array}{c} 1,\;\; {\mathrm if} \;\; n \;\;{\mathrm even} \\ 

1228: -i,\;\; {\mathrm if}\;\; n \;\;{\mathrm odd} \end{array} \right .$$

1229: Therefore

1230: $$\psi(x;T_{rev}/4)=\sum\limits_{n\;even} a_n \phi_n(x)-i

1231: \sum\limits_{n\;odd} a_n \phi_n(x).$$

1232: Comparing this expression to

1233: $$\psi(x;0)=\sum\limits_{n\;even} a_n \phi_n(x)+

1234: \sum\limits_{n\;odd} a_n \phi_n(x)$$

1235: and

1236: $$\psi(L-x;0)=-\sum\limits_{n\;even} a_n \phi_n(x)+

1237: \sum\limits_{n\;odd} a_n \phi_n(x),$$

1238: we deduce that \cite{85}

1239: $$\psi(x;T_{rev}/4)=\frac{1-i}{2}\psi(x;0)-\frac{1+i}{2}\psi(L-x;0).$$

1240: Therefore we have the perfect fractional revival at a time $T_{rev}/4$

1241: when two smaller copies of the initial wave packet appear at locations

1242: $x$ and $L-x$. 

1243: 

1244: Space-time structure of the probability density $|\psi(x;t)|^2$ is also

1245: very interesting. When plotted over long time periods (of the order of

1246: $T_{rev}$) it exhibits fine interference patterns  known as quantum carpets

1247: \cite{86,87}. Some examples are shown in Fig.\ref{carpet}. 

1248: \begin{figure}[htb] 

1249:   \begin{center}

1250:     \mbox{\epsfig{figure=carpet.eps}}

1251:   \end{center}

1252: \caption {The quantum carpets for the P\"{o}schel-Teller and Rosen-Morse 

1253: potentials \cite{85}.}

1254: \label{carpet}

1255: \end{figure}

1256: 

1257: Contemporary experimental technique allows to investigate quantum revivals and

1258: carpets and many theoretical results have been confirmed by experiments 

1259: \cite{83,88}. Of course, nothing remotely similar to this weird phenomena

1260: happens during the Achilles and the tortoise race. And we come to one more

1261: paradox: why Zeno's paradoxes, formulated purely in classical terms, make 

1262: complete sense for us? The answer may sound like this \cite{81}: ``The 

1263: environment surrounding a quantum system can, in effect, monitor some of the 

1264: systems observables. As a result, the eigenstates of these observables 

1265: continuously decohere and can behave like classical states''. Objects have no

1266: a priori classical properties. These properties are emergent phenomenon and

1267: come into being only through the very weak interaction with the ubiquitous 

1268: degrees of freedom of the environment. Amazingly, the emergence of the 

1269: classical world seems to be just another side of the quantum Zeno effect.

1270: As an example one can consider a large chiral molecule (like sugar) which can 

1271: have both left-handed and right-handed classical spatial structures 

1272: \cite{89,90}. For symmetry reasons, the ground state is equal mixture of both 

1273: chiral states. Chiral molecules are never found in energy eigenstates and this 

1274: is probably not surprising because such states are examples of Schr\"{o}dinger 

1275: cat states (like a superposition of a dead and an alive cat) which look truly 

1276: absurd from classical viewpoint. But the real reason why nonclassical states

1277: of the Chiral molecules are not observed is that it is chirality (not parity)

1278: that is recognized by the environment, for example by scattered air molecules.

1279: The chirality of the molecule is thus continuously ``observed'' by the 

1280: environment and therefore cannot change because of quantum Zeno effect.

1281: 

1282: \section{Zeno meets quantum gravity}

1283: Another twist to the story of localization is added when one tries to

1284: incorporate gravity into a quantum theory. Any sharp localization of the

1285: system creates a significant local energy density due to uncertainty

1286: relations and therefore changes the space-time metric according to the

1287: philosophy of general relativity. This can effect another localization

1288: effort nearby in an unavoidable manner \cite{91} and as a result it will 

1289: matter whether x-position measurement is carried before or after y-position

1290: measurement. Moreover, localization sharper than the Plankian scale creates a

1291: singularity in the space-time metric and therefore is problematic. We expect

1292: consequently that any coherent quantum gravity theory will not only bring the 

1293: fundamental Plankian scale as the limit of space-time divisibility with it, 

1294: but also a non-commutative space-time geometry.

1295: 

1296: Not only the concept of localization of material objects but also operational 

1297: meaning of the space-time itself is expected to be lost at Plankian scales.

1298: The principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity limit the accuracy

1299: of space-time distance measurements. The argument goes as follows \cite{92}.

1300: 

1301: Suppose we want to measure the initial distance between Achilles and the 

1302: tortoise. We can attach a small mirror to the tortoise while a clock with 

1303: light-emitter and receiver to Achilles. When the clock reads zero a light

1304: signal is sent to be reflected by the mirror. If the reflected signal arrives

1305: back at time $t$ then the distance is $l=ct/2$. Note that this is a quite

1306: realistic scheme used, for example, in Lunar Laser Ranging experiments 

1307: \cite{93}. Quantum mechanics sets some limits on ultimate precision which

1308: can be reached in such distance measurements. Let, for example, the initial

1309: uncertainty in the clock's position be $\Delta x$. Then according to 

1310: uncertainty relation its speed is also uncertain with the spread

1311: $$\Delta v\ge \frac{1}{2}\frac{\hbar}{m\Delta x}.$$

1312: where $m$ is the mass of the clock. At time $t$ the uncertainty of the 

1313: clock's position will be larger

1314: $$\Delta x(t)= \Delta(x(0)+vt)=\sqrt{(\Delta x)^2+(t\Delta v)^2}=

1315: \sqrt{(\Delta x)^2+\frac{1}{4}\frac{t^2\hbar^2}{m^2(\Delta x)^2}}.$$

1316: The optimal uncertainty at initial time that minimizes the uncertainty at time

1317: $t$ is given by

1318: $$(\Delta x)^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{t\hbar}{m}.$$

1319: Therefore the minimal uncertainty at time $t$ is

1320: $$\Delta x(t)=\sqrt{\frac{t\hbar}{m}}=\sqrt{\frac{2l\hbar}{mc}}

1321: =\lambda_C\sqrt{\frac{2l}{\lambda_C}},$$

1322: where $\lambda_C=\hbar/mc$ is the Compton wavelength of the clock. The mirror

1323: contributes similarly to the overall uncertainty of the distance $l$ to be 

1324: measured. Therefore, ignoring small factors of the order of 2, we obtain an

1325: order of magnitude estimate \cite{92,94} (the argument actually goes back to 

1326: Wigner \cite{95,96})

1327: \begin{equation}

1328: \Delta l \ge \lambda_C\sqrt{\frac{l}{\lambda_C}}.

1329: \label{Deltal}

1330: \end{equation}

1331: Hence we need massive clock to reduce the uncertainty. But the mass of the 

1332: clock cannot be increased indefinitely because the distance $l$ should be

1333: greater than the clock's Schwarzschild radius. Otherwise the clock will 

1334: collapse into a black hole as it is assumed that its size is smaller than $l$. 

1335: Therefore 

1336: $$l\ge \frac{Gm}{c^2}$$

1337: and inserting this into (\ref{Deltal}) we get

1338: \begin{equation}

1339: \Delta l \ge l_P,

1340: \label{DeltaP}

1341: \end{equation}

1342: where

1343: $$l_P=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}$$

1344: is the Planck length.

1345: 

1346: Ng and Van Dam argue even for a more restrictive bound \cite{92}. suppose

1347: the clock consists of two parallel mirrors a distance $d$ apart. Then its one 

1348: tick cannot be less than $d/c$ and this implies $\Delta l \ge d$ if the clock

1349: is used for timing in distance measurements. But $d$ should be greater than 

1350: the clock's Schwarzschild radius. Therefore

1351: \begin{equation}

1352: \Delta l \ge \frac{Gm}{c^2}. 

1353: \label{DeltaG}

1354: \end{equation}

1355: Squaring (\ref{Deltal}) and multiplying the result by (\ref{DeltaG}), we 

1356: eliminate the clock's mass and obtain $(\Delta l)^3\ge  l l_P^2$. Therefore

1357: \begin{equation}

1358: \Delta l \ge l_P\left (\frac{l}{l_P}\right)^{1/3}. 

1359: \label{DeltalP}

1360: \end{equation}

1361: 

1362: It seems there is a common consensus about the validity of (\ref{DeltaP}).

1363: While the more stronger bound (\ref{DeltalP}) is still under debate (see,

1364: for example, \cite{94}). Nevertheless this latter bound is consistent with the 

1365: holographic principle \cite{97} which states that the information content of

1366: any region of space cannot exceed its surface area in Planck units. Indeed

1367: \cite{98}, suppose we have a cube of dimension $l\times l\times l$ and every

1368: cell $\Delta l\times \Delta l\times \Delta l$ of this cube can be used to 

1369: store one bit of information. $\Delta l$ cannot be made less than dictated

1370: by the bound (\ref{DeltalP}), otherwise it will be possible to measure the 

1371: size of the cube in $\Delta l$ units and reach the precision superior to the 

1372: limit (\ref{DeltalP}). Therefore the information content of the cube 

1373: $$N=\frac{l^3}{(\Delta l)^3}\le \frac{l^2}{l_P^2}.$$

1374: 

1375: In any case, we can conclude that basic principles of quantum mechanics and

1376: general relativity strongly suggest discreteness of space-time at some

1377: fundamental scale. Zeno anticipated such possibility and attacked it with

1378: another couple of paradoxes. The first one, the Arrow, states that \cite{2}

1379: \begin{itemize}

1380: \item

1381: {\it If everything is either at rest or moving when it occupies a space equal 

1382: to itself, while the object moved is always in the instant, a moving arrow is 

1383: unmoved.}

1384: \end{itemize}

1385: Stated differently, if a particle exists only at a sequence of discrete 

1386: instants of time, what is the instantaneous physical properties of a moving 

1387: particle which distinguishes it from the not moving one? And if there is no

1388: such properties (well, the notion of instantaneous velocity requires the 

1389: concept of limit and thus is inappropriate in discrete space-time) how the

1390: motion is possible?

1391: 

1392: Modern physics changed our perspective of particles and motion and the Arrow

1393: seems not so disturbing today. For example we can defy it by stating that the

1394: arrow cannot be at rest at definite position according to the uncertainty

1395: principle. Alternatively, we can evoke special relativity and say that there

1396: is a difference how the world looks for a moving arrow and for an arrow at

1397: rest \cite{2}: they have different planes of simultaneity. Special relativity

1398: can cope also with the second Zeno paradox against space-time discreteness,

1399: the Stadium: 

1400: \begin{itemize}

1401: \item

1402: {\it Consider two rows of bodies, each composed of an equal number of bodies 

1403: of equal size.  They pass each other as they travel with equal velocity in 

1404: opposite directions.  Thus, half a time is equal to the whole time.}

1405: \end{itemize}

1406: If motion takes place in discrete quantum jumps then there should be an 

1407: absolute upper bound on velocity. The maximum velocity is achieved

1408: then all jumps are in the same direction. The Stadium is intended to show

1409: logical impossibility of the maximum relative velocity. Suppose the rows

1410: of bodies from the paradox move at maximum or nearly maximum speed. Then 

1411: in the rest frame of the first row other bodies are approaching  at twice or 

1412: so the maximum possible speed. Now we know that the latter  inference is

1413: not sound. But Zeno was right that radical change of classical concepts of 

1414: space and time is necessary to assimilate an  observer-independent maximum

1415: velocity. ``Space by itself and time by itself are to sink fully into shadows 

1416: and only a kind of union of the two should yet preserve autonomy'' - to quote

1417: Minkowski from his famous Cologne lecture in 1908.

1418: 

1419: In fact space-time discreteness coupled with the relativity principle assumes

1420: two invariant scales: not only the maximum velocity but also the minimum 

1421: length. In this respect the special relativity refutation of Zeno is not 

1422: complete. Only recently a significant effort was invested in developing

1423: Doubly Special Relativity \cite{99,100} -  relativity theories with two 

1424: observer-independent scales. These developments, although interesting, still

1425: are lacking experimental confirmation.

1426: 

1427: Doubly Special Relativity, if correct, should be a limiting case of quantum

1428: gravity - an ultimate theory of quantum space-time and a major challenge of

1429: contemporary physics to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics.

1430: This synthesis is not achieved yet but curiously enough its outcome may

1431: turn out to vindicate Parmenidean view that time and change are not 

1432: fundamental reality. In any case the problem of time seems to be central in 

1433: quantum gravity because time plays conceptually different roles in quantum

1434: mechanics and general relativity not easy to reconcile \cite{101,102,103,104,

1435: 105}.

1436: 

1437: In quantum mechanics time is an external parameter, not an observable in the 

1438: usual sense -- it is not represented by an operator. Indeed, suppose there is

1439: an operator $\hat T$, representing a perfect clock, such that in the 

1440: Heisenberg picture $\hat T(t)=e^{i\hat Ht}\hat T e^{-i\hat Ht}=t$. Then

1441: (we are using again $\hbar=1$ convention)

1442: $$i[\hat H,\hat T(t)]=\frac{d}{dt}\hat T(t)=1.$$

1443: Therefore  $[\hat T(t),\hat H]=i$ and $[\hat H,e^{i\alpha\hat T}]=\alpha 

1444: e^{i\alpha\hat T}$. If $\psi$ is an energy eigenstate with energy $E$ then

1445: $$\hat H e^{i\alpha\hat T}\psi=\left \{ [\hat H, e^{i\alpha\hat T}]+

1446: e^{i\alpha\hat T} \hat H\right \}\psi=(E+\alpha)e^{i\alpha\hat T}\psi.$$

1447: Therefore $e^{i\alpha\hat T}\psi$ is also the energy eigenstate with energy

1448: $E+\alpha$ and the Hamiltonian spectrum cannot be bounded from below as it 

1449: usually is. This argument goes back to Pauli \cite{106}. Alternatively we can

1450: resort to the Stone-von Neumann theorem \cite{107} and argue that the 

1451: canonically conjugate $\hat T$ and $\hat H$ are just the disguised versions of 

1452: the position and momentum operators and therefore must have unbounded spectra.

1453: 

1454: However, there are subtleties in both the Pauli's argument \cite{106} 

1455: as well as

1456: in the Stone-von Neumann theorem \cite{108} and various time operators are

1457: suggested occasionally. Note that many useful concepts in physics are 

1458: ambiguous or even incorrect from the mathematical point of view. In an 

1459: extremal manner this viewpoint was expressed by Dieudonn\'{e} \cite{109}: 

1460: "When one gets to the mathematical theories which are at the basis of quantum 

1461: mechanics, one realizes that the attitude of certain physicists in the 

1462: handling of these theories truly borders on the delirium''. Of course, this

1463: is an exaggeration but sometimes mathematical refinement leads to new physical

1464: insights and it is not excluded that the last word about the time operator is

1465: not said yet. In any case, subtle is the time in quantum mechanics!

1466: 

1467: The idea of an event happening at a given time plays a crucial role in quantum

1468: theory \cite{110} and at first sight introduces unsurmountable difference

1469: between space and time. For example \cite{101}, if $\Psi(\vec{x},t)$ is a 

1470: normalized wave function then $\int |\Psi(\vec{x},t)|^2 d\vec{x}=1$ for all 

1471: times, because the particle must be somewhere in space at any given instant of 

1472: time. While $\int |\Psi(\vec{x},t)|^2 dt$ can fluctuate wildly for various 

1473: points of space.

1474: 

1475: Nevertheless, the conceptual foundation of quantum theory is compatible with

1476: special relativity. Absolute Newtonian time is simply replaced by Minkowski 

1477: spacetime fixed background and unitary representations of the Poincar\'{e}

1478: group can be used to develop quantum theory. Situation changes dramatically

1479: in general relativity. ``There is hardly any common ground between the general

1480: theory of relativity and quantum mechanics'' \cite{95}. The central problem is

1481: that spacetime itself becomes a dynamical object in general relativity. Not

1482: only matter is influenced by the structure of spacetime but the metric

1483: structure of spacetime depends on the state of ambient matter. As a result,

1484: the spatial coordinate $\vec{x}$ and the temporal coordinate $t$ lose any

1485: physical meaning whatsoever in general relativity. If in 

1486: non-general-relativistic physics (including special relativity) the 

1487: coordinates correspond to readings on rods and clocks, in general relativity

1488: they correspond to nothing at all and are only auxiliary quantities which

1489: can be given arbitrary values for every event \cite{95,111}. 

1490: 

1491: Already at classical level, general relativity is a great deal Parmenidean

1492: and usually some tacit assumptions which fix the coordinate system is needed

1493: to talk meaningfully about time and time-evolution. To quote Wigner \cite{95}

1494: ``Evidently, the usual statements about future positions of particles, as

1495: specified by their coordinates, are not meaningful statements in general

1496: relativity. This is a point which cannot be emphasized strongly enough and is 

1497: the basis of a much deeper dilemma than the more technical question of the

1498: Lorentz invariance of the quantum field equations. It pervades all the general

1499: theory, and to some degree we mislead both our students and ourselves when we

1500: calculate, for instance, the mercury perihelion motion without explaining how

1501: our coordinate system is fixed in space, what defines it in such a way that it

1502: cannot be rotated, by a few seconds a year, to follow the perihelion's 

1503: apparent motion''.

1504: 

1505: In quantum theory the situation only worsens. The Hamiltonian generates the 

1506: time evolution of quantum system. But the equations of motion of general 

1507: relativity are invariant under time reparametrization. Therefore the time 

1508: evolution is in fact unobservable - it is a gauge. The Hamiltonian vanishes

1509: and the Schr\"{o}dinger equation in cosmology - the Wheeler-DeWitt equation

1510: does not contain time. ``General relativity does not describe evolution in 

1511: time: it describes the relative evolution of many variables with respect to

1512: each other'' \cite{111}. Zeno and Parmenides with their strange idea that

1513: time and change are some kind of illusion still have chance in quantum 

1514: gravity!

1515: 

1516: \section{Conclusion} 

1517: The main conclusion of this paper is that physics is beautiful. Questions 

1518: aroused two and half millennium ago and scrutinized many times are still not

1519: exhausted. Zeno's paradoxes deal with fundamental aspects of reality like

1520: localization, motion, space and time. New and unexpected facets of these 

1521: notions come into sight from time to time and every century finds it 

1522: worthwhile to return to Zeno over and over. The process of approaching to 

1523: the ultimate resolution of Zeno's paradoxes seems endless and our 

1524: understanding of the surrounding world is still incomplete and fragmentary.  

1525: 

1526: ``Nevertheless, I believe that there is something great in astronomy, in 

1527: physics, in all the natural sciences that allows the human being to look 

1528: beyond its present place and to arrive at some understanding of what goes on 

1529: beyond the insignificant meanness of spirit that so often pervades our 

1530: existence. There is a Nature; there is a Cosmos; and we walk towards the 

1531: understanding of it all. Is it not wonderful? There are many charms in the 

1532: profession; as many charms as in love provided, of course, that they are not 

1533: in the service of mercantile aims'' \cite{112}.

1534: 

1535: 

1536: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1537: \bibitem{1} 

1538: Whitehead, A.N. {\it Essays in Science and Philosophy}; 

1539: Philosophical Library: New York, 1948; p. 87.

1540: \bibitem{2} 

1541: Brown, K., {\it Reflections on Relativity}; pp. 210 - 216.

1542: \newline http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm

1543: \bibitem{3} 

1544: Diogenes Laertius, {\it The Lives and Opinions of Eminent 

1545: Philosophers}, translated by C.D. Yonge; Henry G. Bohn: London, 1853;

1546: \newline  http://classicpersuasion.org/pw/diogenes/dlzeno-eleatic.htm

1547: \bibitem{4} 

1548: O'Connor, J.~J., \& Robertson, E.~F. {\it Zeno of Elea};\newline

1549: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/$\sim$history/Mathematicians/

1550: Zeno\_of\_Elea.html

1551: \bibitem{5} 

1552: Burnet, J. {\it Early Greek Philosophy}; Black: London, 1930. 

1553: \bibitem{6} 

1554: Makin, S. {\it Zeno of Elea}; Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Routledge: 

1555: London, 1998; Vol. 9, pp. 843-853.

1556: \bibitem{7}

1557: Fairbanks, A. {\it The First Philosophers of Greece};

1558: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner: London, 1898; p. 112. \newline

1559: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/zeno.htm

1560: \bibitem{8}

1561: Cajori, F. {\it History of Zeno's Arguments on Motion}; Amer. Math. Monthly 

1562: 1915,  Vol. 22, pp. 1-6; 39-47; 77-82; 109-115; 143-149; 179-186; 215-220;

1563: 253-258; 292-297.

1564: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,1;%%

1565: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,39;%%

1566: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,77;%%

1567: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,109;%%

1568: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,143;%%

1569: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,179;%%

1570: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,215;%%

1571: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,253;%%

1572: %%CITATION = AMMYA,22,292;%%

1573: \bibitem{9} 

1574: Grunbaum, A. {\it Modern Science and Zeno's Paradoxes};

1575: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.: London, 1968.

1576: \bibitem{10}

1577: Salmon, W.~C. {\it Zeno's Paradoxes}; Bobbs Merrill: New York, 1970.

1578: \bibitem{11} 

1579: Huggett, N. {\it Zeno's Paradoxes}; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

1580: (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N.~Zalta (ed.); \newline

1581: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/paradox-zeno/

1582: \bibitem{12}

1583: Alexander Pushkin {\it Speaking In Tongues Guided by Voices}; Translated by 

1584: Andrey Kneller; \newline

1585: http://spintongues.vladivostok.com/pooshkin3.htm

1586: \bibitem{13}

1587: Aristotle {\it Physics}; Book 8; Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye;

1588: \newline http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Physics.htm

1589: \bibitem{14}

1590: McLaughlin, W.~I., \& Miller, S.~L. {\it An Epistemological Use of

1591: Nonstandard Analysis to Answer Zeno's Objections against Motion}; Synthese 

1592: 1992, Vol. 92, pp.371-384.

1593: %%CITATION = SYNTA,92,371;%%    

1594: \bibitem{15}

1595: McLaughlin, W. I. {\it Resolving Zeno's Paradoxes}; Scientific American 1994,

1596: Vol. 271, November issue, pp. 84-89.

1597: %%CITATION = SCAMA,271N5,84;%%

1598: \bibitem{16}

1599: Bell, J.~L. {\it The Art of the Intelligible: An Elementary Survey of 

1600: Mathematics in Its Conceptual Development}; Kluwer Academic Pub.: 

1601: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 1999; p. 175.

1602: \bibitem{17}

1603: Blumenthal, L.~M. {\it A Paradox, a Paradox, a Most Ingenious Paradox};

1604: Amer. Math. Monthly 1940,  Vol. 47, pp. 346-353.

1605: %%CITATION = AMMYA,47,346;%%  

1606: \bibitem{18}

1607: Runde, V. {\it The Banach-Tarski paradox or What mathematics and miracles 

1608: have in common}; $\pi$ in the Sky 2000, Vol. 2, pp. 13-15.

1609: \newline http://ru.arxiv.org/abs/math.GM/0202309

1610: \bibitem{19}

1611: Wagon, S. {\it The Banach-Tarski Paradox}; Cambridge University Press:

1612: New York, 1993.

1613: \bibitem{20}

1614: Stromberg, K. {\it The Banach-Tarski paradox}; Amer. Math. Monthly 1979,  

1615: Vol. 86, pp. 151-161. 

1616: %%CITATION = AMMYA,86,151;%%

1617: \bibitem{21}

1618: Pitowsky, I. {\it Resolution of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen and Bell 

1619: Paradoxes};  Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, Vol. 48, pp. 1299-1302; 1768;

1620: Vol. 49, p. 1216.

1621: %%CITATION = PRLTA,48,1299;%%

1622: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,1216;%%

1623: \bibitem{22}

1624: Pitowsky, I. {\it Deterministic model of spin and statistics}; 

1625: Phys. Rev. D 1983, Vol. 27, pp. 2316-2326.

1626: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D27,2316;%%

1627: \bibitem{23}

1628: Svozil, K., \& Neufeld, N. {\it 'Linear' chaos via paradoxical set 

1629: decompositions}; Chaos, Solitons \& Fractals 1996, Vol. 7(5), pp. 785-793.

1630: %%CITATION = CSFOE,7,785;%%

1631: \bibitem{24}

1632: Augenstein, B.~W. {\it Links Between Physics and Set Theory};

1633: Chaos, Solitons \& Fractals 1996, Vol. 7(11), pp. 1761-1798.

1634: %%CITATION = CSFOE,7,1761;%%

1635: \bibitem{25}

1636: Dougherty, R., \& Foreman, M. {\it Banach-Tarski Decompositions Using Sets 

1637: with the Property of Baire}; Journal of the American Mathematical 

1638: Society 1994, Vol.7(1), pp.75-124. 

1639: %%CITATION = 00052,7N1,75;%%

1640: \bibitem{26}

1641: O'Connor, J.~J., \& Robertson, E.~F. {\it Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp 

1642: Cantor}; \newline

1643: http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Cantor.html

1644: \bibitem{27}

1645: Peres, A. {\it Zeno paradox in quantum theory}; Am. J. Phys. 1980,

1646: Vol. 48, pp. 931-932.

1647: %%CITATION = AJPIA,48,931;%%

1648: \bibitem{28}

1649: Wallace, D. {\it Simple computer model for the quantum Zeno effect};

1650: Phys. Rev. A 2001, Vol. 63, 022109.

1651: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A63,022109;%%

1652: \bibitem{29}

1653: Misra, B., \& Sudarshan, E.~C.~G. {\it The Zeno's paradox in quantum theory};

1654: J. Math. Phys. 1977, Vol. 18, pp. 756­763. 

1655: %%CITATION = JMAPA,18,756;%%

1656: \bibitem{30}

1657: Home, D., \& Whitaker, M.~A.~B. {\it A Conceptual Analysis of Quantum Zeno; 

1658: Paradox, Measurement, and Experiment}; Annals of Physics 1997, Vol. 258, 

1659: pp. 237-285.

1660: %%CITATION = APNYA,258,237;%%

1661: \bibitem{31}

1662: Bokulich, A. {\it Quantum measurements and supertasks}; International Studies

1663: in the Philosophy of Science 2003, Vol. 17, pp. 127-136.

1664: %%CITATION = 00249,17,127;%%

1665: \bibitem{32}

1666: Facchi, P., \& Pascazio, S. {\it Temporal behavior and quantum Zeno time of 

1667: an excited state of the hydrogen atom}; Phys. Lett. A 1998, Vol. 241, 

1668: pp. 139-144.

1669: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 9905017;%%

1670: \bibitem{33}

1671: Fischer, M.~C., Guti\'{e}rrez-Medina, B., \& M. G. Raizen, M.~G.

1672: {\it  Observation of the Quantum Zeno and Anti-Zeno Effects in an Unstable 

1673: System}; Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, Vol. 87, 040402.

1674: %%CITATION = PRLTA,87,040402;%% 

1675: \bibitem{34}

1676: Home, D., \& Whitaker, M.~A.~B. {\it Reflections on the quantum Zeno paradox};

1677: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 1986, Vol. 19, pp. 1847-1854.

1678: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A19,1847;%%

1679: \bibitem{35}

1680: Kaulakys, B., \& Gontis, V. {\it Quantum anti-Zeno effect}; 

1681: Phys. Rev. A 1997, Vol. 56, pp. 1138-1141.

1682: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A56,1138;%%

1683: \bibitem{36}

1684: Kofman, A.~G., \& Kurizki, G. {\it Quantum Zeno effect on atomic excitation 

1685: decay in resonators}; Phys. Rev. A 1996, Vol. 54, pp. R3750-R3753. 

1686: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A54,R3750;%%

1687: \bibitem{37}

1688: Balachandran, A.~P., \& Roy, S.~M. {\it Quantum anti Zeno paradox};

1689: Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, Vol. 84, pp. 4019-4022.

1690: %%CITATION = PRLTA,84,4019;%%

1691: \bibitem{38}

1692: Franson, J.~D., Jacobs, B.~C., \& Pittman, T.~B. {\it Quantum computing using 

1693: single photons and the Zeno effect};  Phys. Rev. A 2004, Vol. 70, 062302.

1694: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A70,062302;%%

1695: \bibitem{39}

1696: Schmidt, A.~U. {\it Mathematics of the Quantum Zeno Effect}; \newline

1697: http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0307044  

1698: \bibitem{40}

1699: Thomson, J. {\it Tasks and super-tasks}; Analysis 1954, Vol.15, pp. 1-13. 

1700: \bibitem{41}

1701: Benacerraf, P. {\it Tasks, super-tasks, and the modern eleatics}; Journal of 

1702: Philosophy  1962, Vol.59, pp. 765-784.

1703: %%CITATION = JPHIB,59,765;%%

1704: \bibitem{42}

1705: Earman, J., \& Norton, J.~D. {\it Infinite pains: the trouble with 

1706: supertasks}; in: Adam Morton and  Stephen P. Stich (Eds.) {\it Benacerraf 

1707: and his Critics}; Blackwell: Oxford, 1996; pp. 231-261.

1708: \bibitem{43}

1709: P\'{e}rez Laraudogoitia, J. {\it A Beautiful Supertask}; 

1710: Mind 1996, Vol. 105, pp. 81-83.

1711: %%CITATION = JMNDDA,105,81;%%

1712: \bibitem{44}

1713: Hamkins, J.~D. {\it Supertask Computation}; \newline

1714: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0212049

1715: \bibitem{45}

1716: P\'{e}rez Laaraudogoitia J., Bridger M., \& Alper J.~S. {it Two Ways Of 

1717: Looking At A Newtonian Supertask}; Synthese 2002, Vol. 131, pp. 173-189.  

1718: %%CITATION = SYNTA,131,173;%%

1719: \bibitem{46}

1720: Alper, J.~S., Bridger, M., Earman, J., \& Norton, J.~D. {\it What is a 

1721: Newtonian System? The Failure of Energy Conservation and Determinism in 

1722: Supertasks}; Synthese 2000, Vol. 124, pp. 281-293.

1723: %%CITATION = SYNTA,124,281;%%

1724: \bibitem{47}

1725: Earman, J., \& Norton, J.~D. {\it Comments on Laraudogoitia's 'Classical 

1726: Dynamics, Indeterminism and a Supertask'}; British Journal for the Philosophy 

1727: of Science 1998, Vol. 49, pp.123-133.

1728: %%CITATION = BJPIA,49,123;%%

1729: \bibitem{48}

1730: Norton, J.~D. {\it A Quantum Mechanical Supertask}; 

1731: Foundations of Physics 1999, Vol. 29, pp. 1265-1302.

1732: %%CITATION = FNDPA,29,1265;%%

1733: \bibitem{49}

1734: Earman, J. {\it Determinism: What We Have Learned and What We Still Don't 

1735: Know}; in:  Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke and David Shier (Eds.)

1736: {\it Freedom and Determinism}; MIT Press: Cambridge, 2004; pp. 21-46. 

1737: \bibitem{50}

1738: Xia, Z. {\it The Existence of Noncollision Singularities in Newtonian 

1739: Systems};  Ann. of Math. 1992, Vol. 135, pp. 411-468.

1740: %%CITATION = ANMAA,135,411;%%

1741: \bibitem{51}

1742: Saari, D.~G., \& Xia, Z. {\it Off to infinity in finite time}; 

1743: AMS Notices 1995, Vol. 42, pp. 538-546.

1744: \bibitem{52}

1745: Korycansky,D.~G., Laughlin, G., \& Adams, F.~C. {\it Astronomical engineering:

1746: a strategy for modifying planetary orbits};  

1747: Astrophys. Space Sci. 2001, Vol. 275, pp. 349-366.

1748: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102126;%%

1749: \bibitem{53}

1750: Weyl, H. {\it Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science}; 

1751: Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1949; p. 42.

1752: \bibitem{54}

1753: Earman, J., \& Norton, J.~D. {\it Forever is a Day: Supertasks in Pitowsky and 

1754: Malament-Hogarth Spacetimes}; Philosophy of Science 1993, Vol. 60, pp. 22-42.

1755: %%CITATION = PHSCA,60,22;%%

1756: \bibitem{55}

1757: Pitowsky, I. {\it The Physical Church's Thesis and Physical Computational 

1758: Complexity};  Iyun 1990, Vol. 39, pp. 81-99.

1759: \bibitem{56}

1760: Hogarth, M. {\it Does General Relativity Allow an Observer to View an Eternity

1761: in a Finite Time?} Foundations of Physics Letters 1992, Vol. 5, pp. 173-181.

1762: %%CITATION = FPLEE,5,173;%%

1763: \bibitem{57}

1764: Etesi, G., \& Nemeti, I. {\it Non-Turing computations via Malament-Hogarth 

1765: space-times}; Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2002,  Vol. 41, pp. 341-370.

1766: %%CITATION = IJTPB,41,341;%%

1767: \bibitem{58}

1768: Adams, F.~C., \& Laughlin, G. {\it A Dying universe: The Long term fate and 

1769: evolution of astrophysical objects}; Rev. Mod. Phys. 1997, Vol. 69, 337-372.

1770: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9701131;%%

1771: \bibitem{59}

1772: Krauss, L.~M., \& Starkman, G.~D. {\it Life, The Universe, and Nothing: Life 

1773: and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe}; 

1774: Astrophys. J. 2000, Vol. 531, pp. 22-30.

1775: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9902189;%%

1776: \bibitem{60}

1777: Freese, K., \& Kinney, W.~H. {\it The ultimate fate of life in an accelerating 

1778: universe}; Phys. Lett. B 2003, Vol. 558, pp. 1-8. 

1779: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205279;%%

1780: \bibitem{61}

1781: Lloyd, S.{\it Ultimate physical limits to computation}; 

1782: Nature 2000, Vol. 406, pp. 1047-1054.

1783: %%CITATION = NATUA,406,1047;%%

1784: \bibitem{62}

1785: Plenio, M.~B., Vitelli, V. {\it The physics of forgetting: Landauer's erasure 

1786: principle and information theory}; 

1787: Contemporary Physics 2001, Vol. 42, pp. 25-60.

1788: %%CITATION = CTPHA,42,25;%%

1789: \bibitem{63}

1790: Leff, H.~S., \& Rex, A.~F. (Eds.) {\it Maxwell's Demon 2: Entropy, Classical 

1791: and Quantum Information, Computing};  IOP Publishing: Bristol, 2003.

1792: \bibitem{64}

1793: Bennett, C.~H. {\it Notes on Landauer's Principle, Reversible Computation, and

1794: Maxwell's Demon}; Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 2003,

1795: Vol. 34, pp. 501-510. 

1796: %%CITATION = 00218,34,501;%%

1797: \bibitem{65}

1798: Dyson, F.~J. {\it  Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe};

1799: Rev. Mod. Phys. 1979, Vol. 51, pp. 447-460.

1800: %%CITATION = RMPHA,51,447;%%

1801: \bibitem{66}

1802: Newton, T.~D., \& Wigner, E.~P. {\it Localized States For Elementary Systems};

1803: Rev. Mod. Phys. 1949, Vol. 21, pp. 400-406.

1804: %%CITATION = RMPHA,21,400;%%

1805: \bibitem{67}

1806: Wightman, A.~S {\it  On The Localizability Of Quantum Mechanical Systems};

1807: Rev. Mod. Phys. 1962, Vol. 34, 845-872.

1808: %%CITATION = RMPHA,34,845;%%

1809: \bibitem{68}

1810: Halvorson, H. {Reeh-Schlieder Defeats Newton-Wigner: On alternative 

1811: localization schemes in relativistic quantum field theory};

1812: Philosophy of Science 2001, Vol. 68, pp. 111-133.

1813: %CITATION = PHSCA,68,111;%%

1814: \bibitem{69}

1815: Fleming, G.~N. {\it Reeh-Schlieder meets Newton-Wigner};

1816: Philosophy of Science 2000, Vol. 67, pp. S495-S515.

1817: %CITATION = PHSCA,67,S495;%%

1818: \bibitem{70}

1819: Halvorson, H. {\it Locality, Localization, and the Particle Concept: Topics 

1820: in the Foundations of Quantum Field Theory}; \newline

1821: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000346/

1822: \bibitem{71}

1823: Silagadze, Z.~K. {\it The Newton-Wigner position operator and the domain of 

1824: validity of one particle relativistic theory}; 

1825: Preprint SLAC-PUB-5754-REV, 1993. 

1826: \bibitem{72}

1827: Foldy, L.~L., \& Wouthuysen, S.~A. {\it On The Dirac Theory Of Spin 1/2 

1828: Particle And Its Nonrelativistic Limit};

1829: Phys. Rev.  1950, Vol. 78, pp. 29-36.

1830: %%CITATION = PHRVA,78,29;%%

1831: \bibitem{73}

1832: Feshbach, H., \& Villars, F. {\it Elementary Relativistic Wave Mechanics Of 

1833: Spin 0 And Spin 1/2 Particles}; Rev. Mod. Phys. 1958, Vol. 30, pp. 24-45.

1834: %%CITATION = RMPHA,30,24;%%

1835: \bibitem{74}

1836: de Vries E. {it Foldy-Wouthuysen transformations and related Problems};

1837: Fortsch. der Physik 1970, Vol. 18, pp. 149-182.

1838: %%CITATION = FPYKA,18,149;%%

1839: \bibitem{75}

1840: Lock, J.~A. {\it The Zitterbewegung Of A Free Localized Dirac Particle};

1841: Am. J. Phys. 1979, Vol. 47, 797-802.

1842: %%CITATION = AJPIA,47,797;%%

1843: \bibitem{76}

1844: Barut, A.~O., \& Cruz, M.~G. {\it On the Zitterbewegung of the relativistic

1845: electron}; Eur. J. Phys. 1994, Vol. 15, pp. 119-120.

1846: %%CITATION = EJPHD,15,119;%%

1847: \bibitem{77}

1848: Abramowitz, M., \& Stegun, I.~A. (Eds.) {\it Handbook of Mathematical 

1849: Functions With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables}; 

1850: U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, 1972; pp. 374-378. 

1851: \bibitem{78}

1852: Zawadzki, W. {\it Zitterbewegung and its effects on electrons in 

1853: semiconductors}; \newline

1854: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0411488

1855: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 0411488;%%

1856: \bibitem{79}

1857: Zawadzki, W., Klahn, S., \& Merkt, U. {\it Semirelativistic Behavior of 

1858: Electrons in InSb in Crossed Magnetic and Electric Fields};

1859: Phys. Rev. Lett. 1985, Vol. 55, pp. 983-986.

1860: %%CITATION = PRLTA,55,983;%%

1861: \bibitem{80}

1862: Schliemann, J., Loss, D.,\& Westervelt, R.~W. {\it Zitterbewegung of 

1863: electronic wave packets in semiconductor nanostructures}; \newline

1864: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410321

1865: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 0410321;%%

1866: \bibitem{81}

1867: Zurek, W.~H. {\it Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical};

1868: Phys. Today 1991, Vol. 44, pp. 36-44. \newline

1869: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0306072

1870: %%CITATION = PHTOA,44,36;%%

1871: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 0306072;%%

1872: \bibitem{82}

1873: Gaeta, Z.~D., \& Stroud, C.~R. (Jr.) {\it Classical and quantum-mechanical 

1874: dynamics of a quasiclassical state of the hydrogen atom};

1875: Phys. Rev. A 1990, Vol. 42, pp. 6308-6313.

1876: %%CITATION = PHRVA,A42,6308;%%

1877: \bibitem{83}

1878: Berry, M.~V, Marzoli, I., \& Schleich, W {\it Quantum carpets, carpets of 

1879: light}; Physics World 2001, Vol. 14N6, pp. 39-44.

1880: %%CITATION = PHWOE,14N6,39;%%

1881: \bibitem{84}

1882: Styer, D.~F. {\it Quantum Revivals versus Classical Periodicity in the 

1883: Infinite Square Well}; Am. J. Phys. 2001, Vol. 69, pp. 56­62.

1884: %%CITATION = AJPIA,69,56;%%

1885: \bibitem{85}

1886: Loinaz, W., \& Newman, T.~J. {\it Quantum revivals and carpets in some 

1887: exactly solvable systems}; J. Phys. A 1999, Vol. 32, pp. 8889-8895.

1888: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 9902039;%%

1889: \bibitem{86}

1890: Kinzel, W. {\it Bilder elementarer Quantenmechanik};

1891: Physikalische Bl\"{a}tter 1995, Vol. 51, pp. 1190-1191.

1892: %%CITATION = PHBLA,51,1190;%%

1893: \bibitem{87}

1894: Berry, M.~V. {\it Quantum fractals in boxes}; 

1895: J. Phys. A 1996, Vol. 29, pp. 6617-6629.

1896: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A29,6617;%%

1897: \bibitem{88}

1898: Robinett, R.~W. {\it Quantum wave packet revivals}; \newline

1899: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0401031

1900: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 0401031;%%

1901: \bibitem{89}

1902: Kiefer, C., \& Joos, E. {\it Decoherence: Concepts and examples};  \newline

1903: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9803052

1904: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 9803052;%%

1905: \bibitem{90}

1906: Zeh, H.~D. {\it The Meaning of Decoherence};

1907: Lect. Notes Phys. 2000, Vol. 538, pp. 19-42.

1908: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 9905004;%%

1909: \bibitem{91}

1910: Ahluwalia, D.~V. {\it Quantum measurements, gravitation, and locality};

1911: Phys. Lett. B 1994, Vol. 339, pp. 301-303.

1912: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9308007;%%

1913: \bibitem{92}

1914: Ng, Y.~J., \& Van Dam, H. {\it Limit to space-time measurement};

1915: Mod. Phys. Lett. A 1994, Vol. 9, pp. 335-340.

1916: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A9,335;%%

1917: \bibitem{93}

1918: Williams, J.~G., Boggs, D.~H., Turyshev S.~G., \& Ratcliff, J.~T. 

1919: {\it Lunar Laser Ranging Science}; \newline

1920: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411095

1921: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0411095;%%

1922: \bibitem{94}

1923: Baez, J.~C., \& Olson, S.~J {\it Uncertainty in Measurements of Distance};

1924: Class. Quant. Grav. 2002, Vol. 19, pp. L121-L126.

1925: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0201030;%%

1926: \bibitem{95}

1927: Wigner, E.~P. {\it Relativistic invariance and quantum phenomena}; 

1928: Rev. Mod. Phys. 1957, Vol. 29, pp. 255-268.

1929: %%CITATION = RMPHA,29,255;%%

1930: \bibitem{96}

1931: H. Salecker, H., \& Wigner, E.~P. {\it Quantum limitations of the 

1932: measurement of space-time distances}; Phys. Rev. 1958, Vol. 109, pp. 571-577.

1933: %CITATION = PHRVA,109,571;%%

1934: \bibitem{97}

1935: Bousso, R. {\it The holographic principle};

1936: Rev. Mod. Phys. 2002, Vol. 74, pp. 825-874.

1937: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0203101;%%

1938: \bibitem{98}

1939: Ng, Y.~J., \& Van Dam, H. {\it Comment on Uncertainty in measurements of 

1940: distance}; Class. Quant. Grav. 2003, Vol. 20, pp. 393-396.

1941: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0209021;%%

1942: \bibitem{99}

1943: Amelino-Camelia, G. {\it Doubly special relativity};

1944: Nature 2002, Vol. 418, pp. 34-35.

1945: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0207049;%%

1946: \bibitem{100}

1947: Amelino-Camelia, G. {\it Doubly-Special Relativity: First Results and Key 

1948: Open Problems}; Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2002, Vol. 11, pp. 1643-1669.

1949: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0210063;%%

1950: \bibitem{101}

1951: Belot, G., \& Earman, J. {\it PreSocratic Quantum Gravity}; in: Callender, C. 

1952: \& Huggett, N. (Eds.) {\it Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale};

1953: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, pp. 213-255.

1954: \bibitem{102}

1955: Isham, C.~J. {\it Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time};

1956: \newline http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9210011

1957: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9210011;%%

1958: \bibitem{103}

1959: Rovelli, C. {\it Quantum Gravity}; 

1960: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2004.

1961: \bibitem{104}

1962: Unruh, W.~G. {\it Time, gravity, and quantum mechanics};

1963: \newline http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9312027

1964: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9312027;%%

1965: \bibitem{105}

1966: Kuchar, K.~V. {\it Time and interpretations of quantum gravity};

1967: In Kunstatter, G., Vincent, D.~E., \& Williams, J. G.(Eds.) {\it Proceedings 

1968: of the 4th Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic 

1969: Astrophysics}; World Scientific: Singapore, 1992, pp. 211-314.

1970: \bibitem{106}

1971: Wang, Z.~Y., \& Chen, B. {\it Time in quantum mechanics and quantum field 

1972: theory}; J. Phys. A 2003, Vol. 36, pp. 5135-5148.

1973: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 0211047;%%

1974: \bibitem{107} 

1975: Rosenberg, J. {\it A selective history of the Stone-von Neumann theorem};

1976: \newline http://www.math.umd.edu/~jmr/StoneVNart.pdf

1977: \bibitem{108}

1978: Summers, S.~J. {\it On the Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem and its 

1979: ramifications}; in R\'{e}dei, M., \& St\"{o}ltzner, M. (Eds.)

1980: {\it John von Neumann and the Foundations of Quantum Physics};  

1981: Kluwer: Dordrecht, 2001, pp. 135­152.

1982: \bibitem{109}

1983: Gieres, F. {\it Mathematical surprises and Dirac's formalism in quantum 

1984: mechanics}; Rep. Prog. Phys. 2000, Vol. 63, pp. 1893-1931.

1985: %%CITATION = QUANT-PH 9907069;%%

1986: \bibitem{110}

1987: Butterfield, J., \& Isham, C.~J. {\it Spacetime and the philosophical 

1988: challenge of quantum gravity}; in: Callender, C. \& Huggett, N. (Eds.) 

1989: {\it Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale}; 

1990: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, pp. 33-89. 

1991: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9903072;%%

1992: \bibitem{111}

1993: Rovelli, C. {\it Quantum space-time: What do we know?} 

1994: in: Callender, C. \& Huggett, N. (Eds.) 

1995: {\it Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale}; 

1996: Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2001, pp. 101-124.

1997: %%CITATION = GR-QC 9903045;%%

1998: \bibitem{112}

1999: Lopez-Corredoira, M. {\it What do astrophysics and the world's oldest 

2000: profession have in common?} \newline

2001: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310368

2002: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310368;%%

2003: 

2004: \end{thebibliography}

2005: 	

2006: \end{document}

2007: