Why can't we define a time related operator?

Thread starter fluidistic
Start date Mar 22, 2013
Tags

Operator Time

Click For Summary

The discussion centers on the inability to define time as an operator in quantum mechanics, contrasting it with position, which can be measured and represented as an operator. Participants note that while time is not considered an observable, it can be referenced through external clocks, similar to how position is defined relative to a reference frame. The conversation references historical arguments, particularly Pauli's, which suggest that a time operator is mathematically problematic due to the bounded nature of the energy spectrum. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is mentioned as a framework that treats time and space equally, avoiding the need for a time operator by using observables that are functions of both. Overall, the complexities of integrating time into quantum mechanics remain a significant topic of debate.

Mar 26, 2013

Demystifier

Science Advisor

Insights Author

strangerep said:

I was under the impression that unparticles are still a speculative line of research. Is this no longer the case?

This requires a more extensive response/discussion, which might be off-topic (or at the wrong level) for this thread. Do you already have an old thread for these papers which could be reactivated, or should we start a new one?

Unparticles are indeed speculative, in the sense that there is no evidence that they exist in nature. But they are a consistent theoretical concept demonstrating that some features we are not used to are possible at least in principle.

Concerning the other topic, you may start a new thread and I will be happy to contribute to it.