Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0811.3312 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Reply to ‘Comment on ‘Almost-periodic time observables for bound quantum systems’’

Michael J. W. Hall

Published Nov 19, 2008• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent paper (Hall 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 41 255301), I made several critical remarks on a ‘Hermitian time operator’ proposed by Galapon (2002 Proc. R. Soc. A 458 2671). Galapon has correctly pointed out that remarks pertaining to ‘denseness’ of the commutator domain are wrong (Galapon 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 018001). However, the other remarks still apply, and it is further noted that a given quantum system can be a member of this domain only at a set of times of total measure zero.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/42/1/018002

Related papers

Comment on ‘Almost-periodic time observables for bound quantum systems’

Eric A. Galapon

Hall ( 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 255301 ) makes two claims on a time operator constructed in Galapon (2002 Proc. R. Soc. A 458 2671). We discuss why both claims are wrong.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Nov 19, 2008•3 citations

Reply to Comment on ``Time-dependent quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the unitary quantum evolution''

Miloslav Znojil

In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.

arXiv:0711.0514•Nov 5, 2007•6 citations

Comment on "Reply to Comment on Time-dependent Quasi-Hermitian Hamiltonians and the Unitary Quantum Evolution"

Mostafazadeh, Ali

I point out that if one defines the operator $U_R(t)$ as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of $U_R(t)$ as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator $H$ but an operator $H'$ which differs from $H$ if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian $H'$ is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.

arXiv:0711.1078•Nov 7, 2007•4 citations

Comment on “Quasi-coherent states for the Hermite oscillator” [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)]

Kevin Zelaya, Oscar Rosas-Ortiz

The paper of Ünal [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)], though worthy of attention, contains a conclusion that is in error and may mislead the efforts to extend his results. The aim of the present note is twofold: we provide a correction to such a conclusion and then we emphasize some missing points that are necessary to clarify the content of the paper.

arXiv:1810.03662•Journal of Mathematical Physics•May 1, 2019•4 citations

Reply to the Comment on ‘The operational foundations of PT-symmetric and quasi-Hermitian quantum theory’

Abhijeet Alase, Salini Karuvade, Carlo Maria Scandolo

Abstract This document is our reply to the Comment (Miloslav Znojil 2023 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56 038001) on our recent work titled ‘The operational foundations of PT-symmetric and quasi-Hermitian quantum theory’. The original Comment consists of three addenda to our work. The first addendum claims that our work is ill-motivated as the motivating question, namely whether PT-symmetric quantum theory extends the standard quantum theory, was already answered in the literature. The second addendum points to some missing references in our work, and the third addendum suggests what constraints could lead to an extension of standard quantum theory. In our reply, we explain that the claim in the first addendum is a result of a misinterpretation of our motivating question. When interpreted correctly, the third addendum in the Comment in itself elaborates on why our motivating question is interesting and relevant. We also briefly comment on the prospects of an extension of standard quantum theory along the lines suggested in the third addendum. As our response to the second addendum, we explain our rationale behind citing certain references while leaving out others.

arXiv:2303.14890•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 4, 2023•0 citations

Reply to "Comment on "Quantum Time Crystals from Hamiltonians with Long-Range Interactions""

Valerii K. Kozin, Oleksandr Kyriienko

In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.

arXiv:2005.06321•May 13, 2020•2 citations
In a recent paper (Hall 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 41 255301), I made several critical remarks on a ‘Hermitian time operator’ proposed by Galapon (2002 Proc. R. Soc. A 458 2671). Galapon has correctly pointed out that remarks pertaining to ‘denseness’ of the commutator domain are wrong (Galapon 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 018001). However, the other remarks still apply, and it is further noted that a given quantum system can be a member of this domain only at a set of times of total measure zero.
In his fresh "Comment" (arXiv:0711.0137v1), A. Mostafazadeh reacts on my very recent letter (arXiv:0710.5653v1) where I tried to clarify certain misunderstandings which occurred in A. M., Phys. Lett. B \textbf{650}, 208 (2007) [arXiv:0706.1872v2, "Paper"]. As long as the "Comment" offers a new support of the original assertions made in the "Paper", I feel obliged to re-clarify the matter by extending my argumentation. I insist that it is possible to escape the main conclusion of the "Paper", indeed. In particular, I point out a gap in the new calculations in "Comment", add a few remarks on the notation and reconfirm that the unitarity of the time-evolution DOES NOT require the time-independence of the metric operator.
I point out that if one defines the operator UR(t)U_R(t)UR​(t) as done by M. Znojil in his reply [arXiv:0711.0514v1] to my comment [arXiv:0711.0137v1] and also accepts the validity of the defining relation of UR(t)U_R(t)UR​(t) as given in his paper [arXiv:0710.5653v1], one finds that the time-evolution of the associated quantum system is not governed by the Schrödinger equation for the Hamiltonian operator HHH but an operator H′H'H′ which differs from HHH if the metric operator is time-dependent. In the latter case this effective Hamiltonian H′H'H′ is not observable. This is consistent with the conclusions of my paper [Phys. Lett. B 650, 208 (2007), arXiv:0706.1872v2] which allow for unitary time-evolution generated by unobservable Hamiltonians.
Abstract This document is our reply to the Comment (Miloslav Znojil 2023 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56 038001) on our recent work titled ‘The operational foundations of PT-symmetric and quasi-Hermitian quantum theory’. The original Comment consists of three addenda to our work. The first addendum claims that our work is ill-motivated as the motivating question, namely whether PT-symmetric quantum theory extends the standard quantum theory, was already answered in the literature. The second addendum points to some missing references in our work, and the third addendum suggests what constraints could lead to an extension of standard quantum theory. In our reply, we explain that the claim in the first addendum is a result of a misinterpretation of our motivating question. When interpreted correctly, the third addendum in the Comment in itself elaborates on why our motivating question is interesting and relevant. We also briefly comment on the prospects of an extension of standard quantum theory along the lines suggested in the third addendum. As our response to the second addendum, we explain our rationale behind citing certain references while leaving out others.
In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.