{
  "annotation_id": "3f780c7e-e910-4631-80c8-38ef84b9c06a",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:02:48.057000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:02:48.057000Z",
  "file_hash": "b48bf8bd2717534c92dd7ee9b985d4d3f309bba28fa878e84930bde163600845",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "The process of dynamical decoherence may cause apparent superselection rules,\nwhich are sometimes called `environmentally induced\u0027 or `soft\u0027. A natural\nquestion is whether such dynamical processes are eventually also responsible\nfor at least some of the superselection rules which are usually presented as\nfundamentally rooted in the kinematical structure of the theory (so called\n`hard\u0027 superselection rules). With this question in mind, I re-investigate two\nwell known examples where superselection rules are usually argued to rigorously\nexist within the given mathematical framework. These are (1) the Bargmann\nsuperselection rule for the total mass in Galilei invariant quantum mechanics\nand (2) the charge superselection rule in quantum electrodynamics. I argue\nthat, for various reasons, the kinematical arguments usually given are not\nphysically convincing unless they are based on an underlying dynamical process.",
    "arxiv_id": "quant-ph/9906108",
    "authors": [
      "Domenico Giulini"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "quant-ph",
      "gr-qc",
      "hep-th"
    ],
    "journal_ref": "Lect.Notes Phys. 538 (2000) 87-100",
    "title": "States, Symmetries and Superselection",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906108"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "eb76948f-4a57-40e1-924c-83e75261cdc5",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}