Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of a "clock" in quantum mechanics, specifically whether the time-evolved state represented by the unitary operator can be considered a time-keeping device. Participants explore the implications of time evolution in quantum systems and the conditions under which observables might serve as clocks.
Discussion Character
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- One participant questions if the time-evolved state can be viewed as a clock, seeking clarification on its usefulness.
- Another participant suggests that any observable phenomenon that behaves non-uniformly in time qualifies as a clock.
- A different viewpoint argues against the notion of the time-evolved state as a clock, stating that the unitary operator describes time evolution without measurement, which is necessary for a time-keeping device.
- It is proposed that, with certain caveats, an observable can function as a clock, referencing John Baez's article for further context.
- A reference is made to a paper by Unruh and Wald, which claims that no dynamical variable can act as a perfect clock due to the possibility of "running backwards."
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express differing views on whether the time-evolved state can be considered a clock, with some arguing against it and others suggesting that certain observables may qualify. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which a clock can be defined in quantum mechanics.
Contextual Notes
There are limitations regarding the definitions of "clock" and the assumptions about measurement in quantum mechanics that are not fully explored in the discussion.