Abstract

A dynamical analysis of standard procedures for subensemble selection is used to show that the state restriction violation proposal in Part I of the paper cannot be realized by employing familiar correlation schemes. However, it is shown that measurement of an observable not commuting with the superselection operator is possible, a violation of the observable restrictions. This is interpreted as supporting the position that each of these restrictions is sufficient but not necessary for the superselection rule. The results do constitute a proposal for superselection rule violation in theories requiring both restrictions, e.g., the axiomatic treatment by Bogolubov, Logunov, and Todorov. It is also concluded that superselection rules place restrictions on procedures for selective state preparations using correlations. More generally, it is conjectured that a mathematically conceivable decomposition of a given density operator does not necessarily represent a possibility for partitioning of the corresponding ensemble into subensembles by any physically realizable means