← Back to article

Equation 59 · The Atlas That Refuses to Close

What does this equation mean?

Xμ(u,Σ)X^\mu(u,\Sigma)

Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.

This mathematical expression combines the displayed quantities; its precise role follows from the surrounding article text. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.

Read it piece by piece

XμX^\mu

Symbol X^mu

XmX^mu is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.

Understand this part →

uu

Symbol u

u is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.

Understand this part →

Σ\Sigma

Symbol Sigma

Sigma is a part of this expression. Its role is fixed by the surrounding article and by the operations shown in the formula.

Understand this part →

How to interpret it

Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.

What the article says around this equation

The first, the covariant centre of energy, transforms simply as the spatial part of a four-vector under a change of Lorentz frame — exactly the property Xμ(u,Σ)X^\mu(u,\Sigma) was built with above — but its three spatial components fail to commute with each other once spin is present, by an amount proportional to the spin itself. The second, constructed by Newton and Wigner for exactly this purpose and reproduced in Pryce’s classification as a distinct case, has strictly commuting components, [XNWiX_{\mathrm{NW}}^i, XNWjX_{\mathrm{NW}}^j] = 0 , the property any operator called “position” ought to have if it is to support ordinary probability densities and wavefunction localization at all, at the price of…
Read the full surrounding passage
The first, the covariant centre of energy, transforms simply as the spatial part of a four-vector under a change of Lorentz frame — exactly the property Xμ(u,Σ)X^\mu(u,\Sigma) was built with above — but its three spatial components fail to commute with each other once spin is present, by an amount proportional to the spin itself. The second, constructed by Newton and Wigner for exactly this purpose and reproduced in Pryce’s classification as a distinct case, has strictly commuting components, [XNWiX_{\mathrm{NW}}^i, XNWjX_{\mathrm{NW}}^j] = 0 , the property any operator called “position” ought to have if it is to support ordinary probability densities and wavefunction localization at all, at the price of no longer transforming as a four-vector: an observer in a different inertial frame does not simply Lorentz-boost the Newton–Wigner operator into the new frame’s Newton–Wigner operator, because the two are built from a boost generator that itself carries spin-dependent, frame-tied structure [ 2 ] . Fleming’s manifestly covariant reformulation makes the trade-off explicit rather than incidental: commuting components and simple four-vector transformation cannot both be had from the same operator whenever spin is nonzero, and every choice in the literature buys one property by sacrificing the other [ 4 ] .

Read the equation in its article →

Sources cited in the surrounding passage

These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.

Return to The Atlas That Refuses to Close

See this formula across 7 published contexts →

Browse the mathematical compendium →