Abstract Quantum mechanics rests on the assumption that time is a classical variable. As such, classical time is assumed to be measurable with infinite accuracy. However, all real clocks are subject to quantum fluctuations, which leads to the existence of a nonzero uncertainty in the time variable. The existence of a quantum of time modifies the Heisenberg evolution equation for observables. In this letter we propose and analyse a generalisation of Heisenberg’s equation for observables evolving in real time (the time variable measured by real clocks), that takes the existence of a quantum of time into account. This generalisation of Heisenberg’s equation turns out to be a delay– differential equation. 1
Abstract Quantum mechanics rests on the assumption that time is a classical variable. As such, classical time is assumed to be measurable with infinite accuracy. However, all real clocks are subject to quantum fluctuations, which leads to the existence of a nonzero uncertainty in the time variable. The existence of a quantum of time modifies the Heisenberg evolution equation for observables. In this letter we propose and analyse a generalisation of Heisenberg’s equation for observables evolving in real time (the time variable measured by real clocks), that takes the existence of a quantum of time into account. This generalisation of Heisenberg’s equation turns out to be a delay– differential equation. 1
Quantum mechanics rests on the assumption that time is a classical variable. As such, classical time is assumed to be measurable with infinite accuracy. However, all real clocks are subject to quantum fluctuations, which leads to the existence of a nonzero uncertainty in the time variable. The existence of a quantum of time modifies the Heisenberg evolution equation for observables. Here we propose and analyse a generalisation of Heisenberg's equation for observables evolving in real time (the time variable measured by real clocks), that takes the existence of a quantum of time into account. This generalisation of Heisenberg's equation turns out to be a delay-differential equation.
Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics assumes the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relations. One of these concerns time: the energy–time uncertainty relation. Unlike the canonical position–momentum uncertainty relation, the energy–time relation is not reflected in the operator formalism of quantum theory. Indeed, it is often said and taken as problematic that there is not a so-called “time operator” in quantum theory. This chapter sheds light on these questions and others, including the absorbing matter of whether quantum mechanics allows for the existence of ideal clocks. The second section notes that quantum mechanics does not involve a special problem for time, and that there is no fundamental asymmetry between space and time in quantum mechanics over and above the asymmetry which already exists in classical physics. The third section studies time operators in detail. The fourth section discusses various uncertainty relations involving time.
Abstract The problem of time in quantum mechanics (QM) concerns the fact that in the Schrödinger equation time is a parameter, not an operator. Pauli's objection to a time–energy uncertainty relation analogue to the position–momentum one, conjectured by Heisenberg early on, seemed to exclude the existence of such an operator. However Dirac's formulation of an electron's relativistic QM does allow the introduction of a dynamical time operator that is self-adjoint. Consequently, it can be considered as the generator of a unitary transformation of the system, as well as an additional system observable subject to uncertainty. In the present paper these aspects are examined within the standard framework of relativistic QM.
The usual Heisenberg uncertainty relation, ΔX ΔP ≥ ℏ/2, may be replaced by an exact equality for suitably chosen measures of position and momentum uncertainty, which is valid for all wavefunctions. This exactuncertainty relation, δX ΔPnc ≡ ℏ/2, can be generalised to other pairs of conjugate observables such as photon number and phase, and is sufficiently strong to provide the basis for moving from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics. In particular, the assumption of a nonclassical momentum fluctuation, having a strength which scales inversely with uncertainty in position, leads from the classical equations of motion to the Schrödinger equation.
Abstract The new mechanics of the atom introduced by Heisenberg may be based on the assumption that the variables that describe a dynamical system do not obey the commutative law of multiplication, but satisfy instead certain quantum conditions. One can build up a theory without knowing anything about the dynamical variables except the algebraic laws that they are subject to, and can show that they may be represented by matrices whenever a set of uniformising variables for the dynamical system exists. It may be shown, however (see 3), that there is no set of uniformising variables for a system containing more than one electron, so that the theory cannot progress very far on these lines. A new development of the theory has recently been given by Schrödinger. Starting from the idea that an atomic system cannot be represented by a trajectory, i. e., by a point moving through the co-ordinate space, but must be represented by a wave in this space, Schrödinger obtains from a variation principle a differential equation which the wave function ψ must satisty. This differential equation turns out to be very closely connected with the Hamiltonian equation which specifies the system, namely, if H (qr, Pr - W = 0 is the Hamiltonian equation of the system, where the qr, Pr are canonical variables, then the wave equation for ψ is {H(qr, ih ∂/∂q) - W} ψ = 0.
In quantum theory it is possible to explain time, and dynamics, in terms of entanglement. This is the timeless approach to time, which assumes that the universe is in a stationary state, where two noninteracting subsystems, the ``clock'' and the ``rest,'' are entangled. As a consequence, by choosing a suitable observable of the clock, the relative state of the rest of the universe evolves unitarily with respect to the variable labeling the clock observable's eigenstates, which is then interpreted as time. This model for an ``evolution without evolution'' (Page and Wootters, 1983), albeit elegant, has never been developed further, because it was criticized for generating severe ambiguities in the dynamics of the rest of the universe. In this paper we show that there are no such ambiguities; we also update the model, making it amenable to possible new applications.