Time as a Basis Vector in Quantum Mechanics

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sol66
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Basis Time Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of time in quantum mechanics, particularly whether time should be considered a basis vector, a unitary operator, or an observable. Participants explore the implications of these views on the understanding of quantum states and the relationship between time and space in the context of Hilbert space and quantum relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that time may not qualify as an eigenbasis but rather as a transform or observable on eigenkets, questioning its status as the fourth dimension.
  • Another participant argues that time and space are not part of the basis vectors of Hilbert space, emphasizing that they are dimensions in classical spacetime but not in the quantum mechanical representation of states.
  • A later reply clarifies that the Hamiltonian corresponds to time translations and is a unitary operator, while noting that the existence of a position operator is not guaranteed and can depend on the specific quantum theory.
  • One participant reflects on their understanding of position as a state vector |x> and considers it a projection onto a basis of vectors in Hilbert space, acknowledging their self-taught background and upcoming formal education in quantum mechanics.
  • Another participant confirms that position operators have eigenvectors |x> that form a basis for the Hilbert space, but clarifies that "position" corresponds to infinitely many dimensions rather than just three.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of time in quantum mechanics, with some asserting that it is not a basis vector while others explore its potential as a unitary operator or observable. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise nature of time in relation to quantum states.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge technical difficulties and the complexity of the relationship between classical and quantum descriptions of time and space. There are also indications of varying levels of familiarity with the subject matter among participants.

sol66
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
I was explaining basis vectors to my brother, I said that in quantum mechanics that when you have a number of dimensions, each dimension being an eigenket in vector space, that every dimension is independent of all the other basis vectors. It is however interesting to think that if this is the case, then time would not qualify as an eigenbasis but as rather transform or observable on your eigenkets. Is time suppose to be a unitary operator or something? This would mean time cannot be the 4th dimension. I suppose this would effect relative quantum mechanics given that all states of a particle must be in the same time state making time negligible as an eigenbasis. I suppose my question is, what is time considered to be(a dimension or unitary operator) and how is it treated in quantum relativity ( a course I have yet to take ).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Neither time nor space has anything to do with the basis vectors of the Hilbert space. Space and time are "dimensions" in the classical description of spacetime, but not in the mathematical representation of quantum mechanical "states". The symmetries of that classical theory do however correspond to symmetries of the quantum theory, in a way that ensures the existence of certain operators in the mathematical representation of "observables". The one that corresponds to translations in time is the Hamiltonian (energy) and the ones that correspond to translations in space are the momentum components. (The time translation operator is unitary and can be written as exp(-iHt) where H is the Hamiltonian).

The existence of a position operator isn't guaranteed by this, but one can usually be constructed. It depends on the details of the specific quantum theory of matter that we're considering. The theory of photons is especially problematic. There's no position operator for photons (or other massless particles).
 
Oh, ok .. I suppose that makes a bit of sense, its just that in my classes it seemed that position was described as a state vector |x> and so I thought it was indeed part of a basis vectors of Hilbert Space. I guess what |x> really is is a projection onto a basis of vectors in Hilbert Space. And as you mentioned the Hamiltonian being the time evolution, though unitary not effecting probabilities of a particular state, seems to effect properties of that state while preserving probabilities; in the case that I am referring to the components of |x> eigenkets are changed.

Hmmm, I'll be honest I've never taken a class in this stuff and everything I've done up to now is self taught, I'm taking my first quantum class this upcoming semester. I'm still dumb in this stuff but I feel like I'm getting somewhat of a grasp on it. If hopefully my interpretation of the material is now correct. Thanks.
 
If we ignore some technical difficulties, it is essentially correct to say that the position operator has eigenvectors that we can write as |x>, and that the set of such position eigenvectors is a kind of basis for the Hilbert space of state vectors. Note however that "position" doesn't correspond to three dimensions of the Hilbert space, but rather all of them (infinitely many), and that the same thing can be said about any observable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K