Why can't we define a time related operator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of defining time as an operator within quantum mechanics. Participants explore the implications of time as an observable, its relationship to position, and the challenges posed by integrating time with quantum field theory and relativity. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, historical context, and references to various academic sources.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why time cannot be defined as an operator, drawing parallels between time and position measurements.
  • Others mention that time is not universally accepted as an observable and refer to historical arguments against a time operator, including Pauli's reasoning.
  • A participant suggests that in quantum field theory, time and position are treated differently, with time as a parameter rather than an operator.
  • There are references to various texts and papers that discuss the possibility of a time operator, with some arguing that existing arguments against it may be flawed.
  • Concerns are raised about the mathematical difficulties associated with defining a time operator and its implications for quantum mechanics and relativity.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the rigor of arguments presented in the literature regarding the time operator.
  • A question is posed about the existence of measuring devices associated with a potential time operator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of defining a time operator, with no consensus reached. Some argue against the possibility based on established reasoning, while others propose that the arguments may be incorrect or incomplete.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to specific academic papers and textbooks, highlighting the complexity and ongoing debate surrounding the topic. Participants acknowledge the historical context and the challenges of reconciling quantum mechanics with relativity.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and researchers in quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and those exploring the philosophical implications of time in physics.

  • #31
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K