Jan Hilgevoord's article, "Time in quantum mechanics," attempts to clarify problems with interpretations of time in quantum mechanics as well as other sciences. The main problem seen by most is that time itself is treated differently from all other physical variables. While space coordinates like x, y, and z are denoted by operators, the time coordinate t is simply a parameter, an ordinary number. This is seen as a problem for quantum mechanics because other fields such as relativity treat time differently, relating it to spatial coordinates through the Lorentz transformation.
The author argues that this problem isn't real, and is due in part to improper terminology. For the position of a particle, one commonly uses x. However, this should only be used when referring to a fixed coordinate in space. It is important to make the distinction between a fixed point in space (x) and the position of a particle in space (q).
Because time in its current quantum mechanical interpretation isn't a physical dynamical variable like the position q of a particle, the author proposes a physical dynamical system that would closely resemble time in the same way that particle position q closely resembles the spatial coordinate x. In this case, the author claims clocks as the dynamical answer to this problem. This "clock variable" that changes with time could be something as simple as an angle measurement. The author then explores implications of this on quantum mechanics.
I found this article very interesting, especially since I had never really considered there to be a difference between particle position q and fixed spatial coordinate x. However, it became apparent that they were not the same, and that quantum mechanics had seemingly been handling time differently (as a parameter) from other variables such as x, y, and z (as operators). Although much of the mathematical derivations was over my head, and I didn't quite understand some of the suppositions, it was still interesting to observe the implications and results of this theoretical investigation.
Published by Brian T.
1. I was born. 2. Now I live.3. ? View profile
- A Rational Cosmology: Why Predictive Power Does Not Imply Correctness in a Scienti...This 88th essay of "A Rational Cosmology" shows that simply because some theory, such as relativity or quantum mechanics, has produced useful practical results, does not mean that the theory is correct or reflects the...
Retrocausality, Space-Time, and Photon EntanglementGoing backwards in time is impossible, we all know that. Yet even as you read these words experiments are being prepared that could fundamentally alter our views of time - and...- Living in Mexico and Taking Spanish Classes: Why?The wife and I walked downtown from our East Guanajuato Barrio today. On the way back, I stopped in one of the local Spanish Schools. I wanted to talk with the guy in charge to see about making an appointment to talk...
- Tying Up Loose Ends: Topology Swallows Quantum ComputingAn introduction to topological quantum computing, with an eye to its applications to (and rooting in) yoga practice & the art/science of alchemy.
Is the Big Bang Theory in Trouble?A new theory of the origins of our Universe may displace the Big Bang theory.
- Time and God: God Recognizes Time but is Not Bound by Time
- A Rational Cosmology: Why Spin is Not the Defining Characteristic of Particles
- A Rational Cosmology: The Model of Force Fields
- The Nature of Reality
- A Rational Cosmology: The Impossibility of Infinite Force Exertions
- Modern Physics and T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
- Synthesis of the Book: If Harry Potter Were CEO?




1 Comments
Post a CommentThere is a saying, "If you completely understand quantum physics/mechanics, you didn't read/hear it right." It's very true, even the most intelligent people do not understand everything about quantum theory, it is so far away from what has been taught in "mainstream science". Good article, great subject.