LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters are selected for their expected interest for our readers. Some letters are sent to reviewers for
advice; some are accepted or declined by the editor without review. Letters must be brief and may be
edited, subject to the author’s approval of significant changes. Although some comments on published
articles and notes may be appropriate as letters, most such comments are reviewed according to a
special procedure and appear, if accepted, in the Notes and Discussions section. 共See the ‘‘Statement
of Editorial Policy’’ in the January issue.兲 Running controversies among letter writers will not be
published.

7
THE SPIN-STATISTICS to construct his proof of the Spin-Statistics Arthur A. Broyles, ‘‘Spin and statistics,’’ Am.
Theorem, plays no other role, and is to be J. Phys. 44共4兲, 340–343 共1976兲.
THEOREM 8
As one further note, Berry and Robbins have
deleted from the lexicon of quantum me-
In a 1994 ‘‘question’’ in this journal, recently published an interesting article on the
chanics.’’ And Hilborn 共Ref. 2兲 writes:
Neuenschwander1 asked whether anyone subject 关M. V. Berry and J. M. Robbins, ‘‘In-
‘‘关Broyles’s兴 argument establishes a spin- distinguishability for quantum particles: spin,
had yet met Feynman’s challenge of pro-
statistics connection at the expense of an statistics and the geometric phase,’’ Proc. R.
viding an elementary proof of the spin-
additional assumption...’’ 共italics added兲. Soc. London, Ser. A 453, 1771–1790 共1997兲兴.
statistics theorem. This innocent question In spite of the importance of the spin- See also Berry and Robbins in Hilborn and
led to a series of supposed answers, then a statistics theorem and the attention that Tino 共Ref. 3, pp. 3–15兲. The Berry and Rob-
‘‘meta-answer’’ by Hilborn,2 who pointed has been devoted to it, the physics commu- bins argument surely does not merit the adjec-
out that several earlier answers were per- nity still waits—probably in vain—for an tive ‘‘elementary’’; further, their argument
haps interesting but in fact not truly rel- elementary proof.8 We are all indebted seems potentially vulnerable to the same sorts
evant to the theorem in question, a long of criticisms as those directed by Hilborn 共Ref.
to Neuenschwander for reminding us of
article by Duck and Sudarshan,3 and a Feynman’s challenge; though the direct an-
2兲 at the initial AJP ‘‘answers’’.
9
book4 by the same authors. Although Duck swer to Neuenschwander’s question is still
What Neuenschwander actually asked was
and Sudarshan had hoped to find a proof whether anyone had made any progress toward
negative, publication of his question has an elementary argument for the spin-statistics
that would satisfy Neuenschwander, they led to a better understanding of the theorem theorem 共italics added兲. To that question, the
concluded, regretfully, that the best they and its implications for those of us who various items discussed in this letter might be
could provide was an argument that was have followed with interest the recent said to provide a cautiously positive answer. I
‘‘still not completely free from the compli- discussion.9 might also add that many physicists are actu-
cations of relativistic quantum field ally not quite clear on what the theorem is.
theory.’’5 1
Dwight E. Neuenschwander, ‘‘Question #7. Those who write most carefully on the subject
Recently, however, there was published The spin-statistics theorem,’’ Am. J. Phys. are careful to draw a distinction between the
in this journal a letter to the editor by 62共11兲, 972 共1994兲. spin-statistics theorem and the spin-statistics
Broyles,6 in which it was claimed that a
2
Robert C. Hilborn, ‘‘Answer to Question #7,’’ connection. Duck and Sudarshan write 共Ref. 3,
Am. J. Phys. 63共4兲, 298 –299 共1995兲. p. 301兲: ‘‘Although the Spin-Statistics Theo-
proof meeting Neuenschwander’s criteria 3
Ian Duck and E. C. G. Sudarshan, ‘‘Toward an rem is simply stated, it is by no means simply
had been published long ago. This letter understanding of the spin-statistics theorem,’’ understood or simply proved.’’ Hilborn would
gave no supporting details but merely re- Am. J. Phys. 66共4兲, 284 –303 共1998兲. See also probably disagree with the ‘‘simply stated’’
ferred the reader to an unpublished 1999 E. C. G. Sudarshan, in Spin-Statistics Connec- portion of that remark or would at least point
posting on the Los Alamos e-print archive, tion and Commutation Relations, edited by out that many of us harbor misconceptions as
a posting that primarily serves to point to a Robert C. Hilborn and Guglielmo M. Tino to what the theorem states. He writes 共Ref. 2兲:
共American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY,
1976 paper by Broyles himself.7 Contrary ‘‘Many physicists believe that the infamous
2000兲, pp. 40–54. spin-statistics theorem of relativistic quantum
to what one might infer from Broyles’s re- 4
Ian Duck and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Pauli and
cent letter, AJP authors Hilborn, Duck and field theory provides the theoretical basis for
the Spin-Statistics Theorem 共World Scientific,
the spin connection. However, the theorem ac-
Sudarshan 共as well as the editors and refer- Singapore, 1997兲. See also the review of this
tually proves less than we would like, and it is
ees who worked on the Duck and Sudar- book by Arthur Wightman 关Am. J. Phys. 67共8兲,
742–746 共1999兲兴, and a summary of these vari- disappointing in both its limitations and its lack
shan manuscript兲 were well aware of of a physical picture of why the connection ob-
ous items in the June 2001 issue of AJP 关Rob-
Broyles’s 1976 paper and did not find it tains. The theorem is actually a negative state-
ert H. Romer, ‘‘Editor’s choice,’’ Am. J. Phys.
convincing. Lest readers be left with the 69共6兲, 635– 647 共2001兲兴, especially pp. 635 and ment. It tells us what quantum field theory can-
impression that a definitive affirmative an- 641. not do. ...’’
5
swer to Neuenschwander’s question was Reference 4, p. 485. See also Ref. 3, p. 300
given a quarter of a century ago, it seems 共referring to a 1975 argument by Sudarshan兲:
‘‘Sudarshan’s proof eliminates the explicit de- Robert H. Romer
important to point out that there are those Department of Physics
pendence of the proof on relativistic quantum
who do not agree. To quote Duck and Su- Amherst College
field theory. A critical implicit dependence on
darshan 共Ref. 3, p. 291兲: ‘‘We conclude that relativity is still present, however.’’ Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
Broyles’ Postulate A is ad hoc special 6
Arthur A. Broyles, ‘‘Spin-statistics theorem,’’ Electronic mail: [email protected]
pleading which has no other purpose than Am. J. Phys. 70共2兲, 103 共2002兲. 2 April 2002

791 Am. J. Phys. 70 共8兲, August 2002 http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/ © 2002 American Association of Physics Teachers 791