# [time 739] Time operator revisited. Re: [time 701]

Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:02:19 +0900

Dear Stephen et al.,

The canonical conjugate operator to H could be defined by requiring only the
algebraic relation:

i[t, H] = h,

apart from the associated Hilbert space structure usually required. The reason
is that the local time t of an LS is a scalar and can define a multiplication
operator

f(t) |-> t f(t),

if we need not make a norm (including the integration wrt t) finite.

Matti's concerns in the following post would make sense in the usual
treatments, however these are not problems if we stop sticking to the usual
Hilbert space structure, as Stephen pointed out in [time 706]:

>Forgive my silly question, but is it necessary to define such a Hilbert
>space?

This is not at all silly, but in my formulation does have a meaning, for the
set of QM orbits exp(-itH/h)Psi(0) can be identified with the Hilbert space of
initial state functions Psi(0) by the relation

(exp(-itH/h)Psi(0), exp(-itH/h)Phi(0)) = (Psi(0), Phi(0)).

Thanks Stephen. I was bound by the ghost of the existing or passing science in
my reply [time 702] to Matti [time 701].

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

----- Original Message -----
From: Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com>; <time@kitada.com>;
<galh@actcom.co.il>
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 1:06 PM
Subject: [time 701] Re: [time 699] Re: [time 698] Re: [time 696] Re: [time
695] Re:[time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?

>
> Dear Hitoshi et all,
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
>
> > Dear Stephen,
> >
> >
> > > Dear Hitoshi et al,
> > >
> > > Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > snip
> > > [SPK]
> > > > > Space and Time, Matter and Mind : The Relationship Between Reality
and
> > > > > Space-Time by W. Schommers, (October 1994) World Scientific Pub Co;
> > > > > ISBN: 9810218516
> > >
> > > > > I will write up a relevant quote as soon as possible...
> > > [HK]
> > > > Thanks for the quotation.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know how to write the equations correctly in ascii, but would
> > > it not be similar to Schommers' notion?
> > >
> > > Quantum Theory and Picture of Reality, W. Schommers (ed.)
> > > Springer-Verlag (April 1989) pg. 220-1
> >
> > I read this book before.
> >
> > >
> > > "It was argued by Schrodinger and Pauli that such a time-energy relation
> > > should be a straightforward consequence of a commutation rule with the
> > > structure...
> > >
> > > [T^hat, H^hat] = i hbar I^hat (5.8)
> > >
> > > which is the commutation rule between the time operator T^hat and the
> > > Hamiltonian H^hat representing the variables t and E. Does there exist
> > > such a time-operator T^hat within the usual QT? The answer is no, for
> > > the following reason... [given the position-momentum relation [x^hat_i,
> > > p^hat_i] = i hbar I^hat, i = 1,2,3] ... it follows that there should
> > > exist the relation
> > >
> > > i hbar * (\partial f(T^hat))/(\patial T^hat) = [f(T^hat), H^hat] (5.9)
> > >
> > > which is completely equivalent to (5.6). [i hbar * (\partial
> > > f(x^hat_i))/(\patial x^hat_i) = [f(x^hat_i), p^hat] , i = 1, 2, 3 (5.6)]
> > > The application of (5.9) to the unitary operator
> > >
> > > f(T^hat) = exp{i \alpha T^hat} (5.10)
> > >
> > >
> > > -hbar \alpha f(T^hat) Phi_E = Ef(T^hat)Phi_E - H^hat f(T^hat) Phi_E,
> > > (5.11)
> > >
> > > where \alpha is a real number and Phi_E an eigenfunction of H^hat with
> > > eigenvalues E:
> > >
> > > H^hat Phi_E = E Phi_E . (5.12)
> > >
> > > With
> > >
> > > Psi_E = f(T^hat)Phi_E, (5.13)
> > >
> > > we have
> > >
> > > H(hat) Psi_E = (E + hbar\alpha)Psi_E
> > >
> > > i.e., Psi_E is also an eigen function of H^hat, but with eigenvalue E +
> > > \alpha hbar. Since \alpha is arbitrary, the eigenvalues of H^hat would
> > > take all real values from -\inf. to +\inf, and this is in contradiction
> > > with the existence of a discrete energy spectra."
> >
> > Yes, this is right, insofar as it is considered in the usual framework of
QM.
> > I.e. the state vectors are Psi(x), the functions of configuration
variables x
> > only.
> >
> > In my case of [time 692], the state vectors are Psi(x,t) =
> > exp(-itH/h)Psi(x,0), the functions of time and coordinates. By this
> > difference, one has
> >
> > i[t, H] = - i[H, t] = i[T, t] = h.
> >
> > Since H is an operator that acts on the functions Psi(x,t) of x and t, and
it
> > acts as H = -T on them, H naturally has the spectra that is the whole real
> > line, consistent with the argument you quoted.
> >
> > Namely the opeartor H newly defined in [time 692] is different from the
usual
> > Hamiltonian H. The former acts on the four dimensinal space functions
> > (exactly, on Psi(x,t) = exp(-itH/h)Psi(x,0)), while the latter on three
> > dimensional functions. So I reformulated the usual QM to 4 dimesnional
form,
> > then no contradiction and the canonical conjugateness of t to H follows.
>
> There is perhaps problem with the fact that multiplication by t takes
> you out from the space of energy eigenstates. Or is it a problem?
> Second problem is that localization in time is not possible due
> to constraints posed by Schrodinger equation: localization would break
> probability conservation. Thus one question whether time operator
> is a useful concept. The basic point is that Schrodinger equation
> or any field equation puts constraints on time behaviour and this
> means that one cannot anymore perform arbitrary operations like
> time localization affecting the time behaviour without conflict
> with dynamical law.
>
>
>
> Best,
> MP
>

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