Hawton Position Operator. (Was: EM field of photon)

This thread seems to have gone quiet, but without a satisfying
resolution. I'd like to request further discussion about MargH's
position operator, and Arnold Neumaier's objections.

Summarizing....

Arnold Neumaier wrote:

[...objections to MargH's position operator...]

[...] the position vector must satisfy the standard commutation rules (3) with
the angular momentum, which is violated, as she says explicitly on p.5. [...]

MargH said:

I don't agree that the standard commutation relations must be obeyed.

I don't understand your reasons behind this opinion. It seems natural to
me that the position vector should satisfy the standard commutation
rules with the angular momentum, so I was surprised that you think
differently. Could you elaborate on your reasons, please?

There is a very nice blog that discusses our position operator at
http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/consistent-histories-and-...

??? This seems to be about consistent histories, not about photon
positions...

There is discussion about the Hawton position operator further down on
that webpage. (Note that the rather puzzling statement therein about
"our probabilities will end up not as real numbers, but instead as real
multiples of matrices" must be read carefully in the context of the
preceding consistent histories stuff to understand what is meant.)

.