Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:28:16 +0300 (EET DST)
Dear Hitoshi et al,
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Stephen,
> Stephen P. King <email@example.com> wrote:
> Subject: [time 706] Re: [time 702] Time operator?
> > [HK]
> > > You are right again. I completely agree. This is the same problem if
> > > possible to construct a four dimensional version of the Hilbert
> > > What I
> > > proposed is that if the space of states could be thought as the
> > > of
> > > the QM orbits exp(-itH/h)Psi(x,t), then the conjugateness of t to H
> > > trivial. This is an identical propsoition by nature of positing the
> > > problem.
> > 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
> > 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,
> > the system in question's time. There is no "time" for all unless we
> > merely considering the trivial case when all systems are
Did this make sense? I see LS's as fundamental clocks, and thus it
should be possible to consider an "ensemble of clocks" as given by a
ensemble of LSs. But, I am very sketchy in my thinking of this. :-(
[MP] I cannot say. One should need a quantative model for clock.
Clock as oscillator is a nice model but based on the existence of
time! You want to derive time from the existence of clocks, I
am happy in deriving the existence of clocks from the existence
By the way, quantum jump sequence is the ultimate syncronizer in
TGD: every self makes quantum jump simultaneously, whatever its
psychological time is!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:40 JST