Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:02:16 +0900
Stephen P. King <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Subject: [time 706] Re: [time 702] Time operator?
> > You are right again. I completely agree. This is the same problem if it is
> > possible to construct a four dimensional version of the Hilbert space.
> > proposed is that if the space of states could be thought as the totality
> > the QM orbits exp(-itH/h)Psi(x,t), then the conjugateness of t to H is
> > trivial. This is an identical propsoition by nature of positing the
> Matti, are you saying that the dynamical law is a priori to time? How?
> I see the "dynamical law" as defining a pattern of behavior of a system
> as it evolves in its time. When we say that we localize it in time, we
> are refering, to be consistent, to the time of the localizing agent, not
> the system in question's time. There is no "time" for all unless we are
> merely considering the trivial case when all systems are synchronized...
> Hitoshi, are the QM orbits constructed in a Hilbert space such that
> they are strictly orthogonal to each other? This, to me, says that the
> LS are independent and thus have independent space-time framings of
> their observations. Does this affect your argument?
No. E.g., consider two orbits Psi(x,t) = exp(-itH/h)Psi(x,0) and Phi(x,t) =
exp(-itH/h)Phi(x,0) in the same LS. The inner product of these wrt the usual 3
dimensional Hilbert space is
(Psi(t), Phi(t)) = (Psi(0), Phi(0)).
This is not equalt to zero unless the initial states are orthogonal.
But two orbits in different LS's are of course orthogonal by definition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST