**stephen p. king** (*stephenk1@home.com*)

*Wed, 08 Sep 1999 13:17:08 -0400*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**stephen p. king: "[time 714] Thoughts about NMP"**Previous message:**stephen p. king: "[time 712] Re: [time 708] Time operator => Ensembles of clocks?"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 701] Re: [time 699] Re: [time 698] Re: [time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 708] Re: [time 706] Re: [time 702] Time operator?"

Dear Matti,

Matti Pitkanen wrote:

snip

[SPK]

*> > Matti, are you saying that the dynamical law is a priori to time? How?
*

*>
*

*> [MP] Dynamical laws in sense of standard physics by definition assume
*

*> geometric time as an additional dimension. In QM Hamiltonian
*

*> is Lie-algebra generator of time translation symmetry and Lie symmetries
*

*> require manifold structure and metric.
*

So, are you saying that we have to have an a priori defined manifold

with a metric on it for Lie group symmetries to exist? Could we just say

that they are "co-existent"; this is a "chicken or egg" problem to me!

*> One can also consider formulations in which one has just a sequence of
*

*> events governed by some rule. The proposal of Smolin for spin network
*

*> dynamics is good example. The concept of energy becomes however
*

*> problematic since energy is symmetry related concept and symmetry assumes
*

*> geometric time plus time translation symmetry.
*

Is your "geometric time" the parameter of variation of the

differentiable manifold and the "symmetry" is given by the invertibility

of this parameter?

*> The nondeterministic dynamics of quantum jumps partially dictated by NMP
*

*> is second example.
*

Again, I must protest since I do not understand what "NMP" is!

*> What supports the concept of geometric time is the success of
*

*> quantum field theories: Hamiltonian is derived
*

*> from action principle as generator of time translation symmetry
*

*> and yields S-matrix which describes this world excellently!
*

*> Note the beauty and economy of all this: symmetry determines dynamics!
*

I fail to see how the particular symmetry that is observed was selected

in the first place!

[SPK]

*> > 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...
*

Does this mean anything to you?

Later,

Stephen

**Next message:**stephen p. king: "[time 714] Thoughts about NMP"**Previous message:**stephen p. king: "[time 712] Re: [time 708] Time operator => Ensembles of clocks?"**In reply to:**Matti Pitkanen: "[time 701] Re: [time 699] Re: [time 698] Re: [time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 708] Re: [time 706] Re: [time 702] Time operator?"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST
*