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

The operator of time in quantum mechanics and an extension to the relativistic case

Vítor Cavalheri Pereira

Published Mar 23, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The question of time in quantum mechanics has been a topic of intense discussion since its inception.Dating back to the works of the founders of the subject, the notion of time and how it fit in the theory was already a point with a lack of a formal explanation, especially in aspects such as the uncertainty principle and canonical commutation relations.A theorem by Pauli set in stone that any attempt at trying to understand time with the formalism in use at the time for quantum mechanics was impossible.Through studies on the logical basis of the subject and establishing different sets of axioms, more modern works were able to relax sufficiently the impositions on the concept of observables so that time could then be understood as a 'generalized' observable.Not only that, but it was shown that the correct way to interpret eventual time measurements was through the formalism of Positive Operator Valued Measures.Latest works then were focused in the direction of constructing either direct measures and time operators, or, in the case that was followed throughout this work, to establish a procedure to construct measures.This work was then an in-depth study of the work done by Brunetti and Fredenhagen, with the intent to do the first steps in generalizing their ideas by establishing their method to be covariant with respect to Poincaré transformations.

DOI
10.11606/d.43.2023.tde-02052023-195529

Related papers

O operador de tempo na mecânica quântica e uma extensão para o caso relativístico

Vítor Cavalheri Pereira

The question of time in quantum mechanics has been a topic of intense discussion since its inception. Dating back to the works of the founders of the subject, the notion of time and how it fit in the theory was already a point with a lack of a formal explanation, especially in aspects such as the uncertainty principle and canonical commutation relations. A theorem by Pauli set in stone that any attempt at trying to understand time with the formalism in use at the time for quantum mechanics was impossible. Through studies on the logical basis of the subject and establishing different sets of axioms, more modern works were able to relax sufficiently the impositions on the concept of observables so that time could then be understood as a generalized observable. Not only that, but it was shown that the correct way to interpret eventual time measurements was through the formalism of Positive Operator Valued Measures. Latest works then were focused in the direction of constructing either direct measures and time operators, or, in the case that was followed throughout this work, to establish a procedure to construct measures. This work was then an in-depth study of the work done by Brunetti and Fredenhagen, with the intent to do the first steps in generalizing their ideas by establishing their method to be covariant with respect to Poincaré transformations.

•Mar 23, 2023•0 citations

Time of ocurrence observables: expanding to other symmetries

Vítor Cavalheri Pereira, J. C. A. Barata

Recent works have proposed the use of the formalism of Positive Operator Valued Measures to describe time measurements in quantum mechanics. This work aims to expand on the work done by other authors, by generalizing the previously proposed construction method of such measures to include causal Poincaré transformations, in order to construct measures which are covariant with respect to such transformations.

arXiv:2310.20074•Oct 30, 2023•1 citation

Quantum mechanics

Carlo Rovelli C

Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 15, 2004•0 citations

Complementarity and uncertainty in quantum interference

C. R. Shilladay

This thesis is concerned with the notions of complementarity and uncertainty encountered in quantum mechanics. Its starting point is an assessment of how these concepts have been represented and illustrated by various writers dating back to their inception. Following the survey a coherent account of the connections and contrasts between complementarity and uncertainty is developed in the context of Mach-Zehnder interferometry. The effect on the interference pattern contrast of path detection via entanglement with a probe system, is explored and a joint unsharp measurement scheme of the complementary pairs, path and interference, described. The Mach-Zehnder set-up proves sufficiently versatile to show that quantum erasure and quantitative quantum erasure constitute instances of joint unsharp measurement of complementary observables. The analysis uses the representation of observables as positive operator valued measures.Path detection and interference observation require different experimental set-ups but can be reconciled in the simultaneous unsharp measurement and preparation. This reconciliation is expressed as an uncertainty relation however the mutually exclusive feature of complementarity is not discarded. It is possible to recover strict complementarity as a limit case of the appropriate uncertainty relation.One motivation for this study is the effort some authors have made in trying to express the founding features of quantum mechanics in the form of a hierarchy of significance. Here it is shown that complementarity and uncertainty have separate identities but are not completely independent of each other. Consequently, establishing a hierarchy of these features within the present formalism of quantum mechanics is not possible.

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

On the problem of time in quantum mechanics

M Bauer

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.

arXiv:1606.02618•European Journal of Physics•Mar 1, 2017•18 citations

On Time in Quantum Physics

Jeremy Butterfield

First, I briefly review the different conceptions of time held by three rival interpretations of quantum theory: the collapse of the wave-packet, the pilot-wave interpretation, and the Everett interpretation (Section 2). Then I turn to a much less controversial task: to expound the recent understanding of the time-energy uncertainty principle, and indeed of uncertainty principles in general, that has been established by such authors as Busch, Hilgevoord and Uffink. Although this may at first seem a narrow topic, I point out connections to other conceptual topics about time in quantum theory: for example, the question under what circumstances there is a time operator (Section 4.3).

arXiv:1406.4745•Jun 18, 2014•0 citations
The question of time in quantum mechanics has been a topic of intense discussion since its inception.Dating back to the works of the founders of the subject, the notion of time and how it fit in the theory was already a point with a lack of a formal explanation, especially in aspects such as the uncertainty principle and canonical commutation relations.A theorem by Pauli set in stone that any attempt at trying to understand time with the formalism in use at the time for quantum mechanics was impossible.Through studies on the logical basis of the subject and establishing different sets of axioms, more modern works were able to relax sufficiently the impositions on the concept of observables so that time could then be understood as a 'generalized' observable.Not only that, but it was shown that the correct way to interpret eventual time measurements was through the formalism of Positive Operator Valued Measures.Latest works then were focused in the direction of constructing either direct measures and time operators, or, in the case that was followed throughout this work, to establish a procedure to construct measures.This work was then an in-depth study of the work done by Brunetti and Fredenhagen, with the intent to do the first steps in generalizing their ideas by establishing their method to be covariant with respect to Poincaré transformations.
The question of time in quantum mechanics has been a topic of intense discussion since its inception. Dating back to the works of the founders of the subject, the notion of time and how it fit in the theory was already a point with a lack of a formal explanation, especially in aspects such as the uncertainty principle and canonical commutation relations. A theorem by Pauli set in stone that any attempt at trying to understand time with the formalism in use at the time for quantum mechanics was impossible. Through studies on the logical basis of the subject and establishing different sets of axioms, more modern works were able to relax sufficiently the impositions on the concept of observables so that time could then be understood as a generalized observable. Not only that, but it was shown that the correct way to interpret eventual time measurements was through the formalism of Positive Operator Valued Measures. Latest works then were focused in the direction of constructing either direct measures and time operators, or, in the case that was followed throughout this work, to establish a procedure to construct measures. This work was then an in-depth study of the work done by Brunetti and Fredenhagen, with the intent to do the first steps in generalizing their ideas by establishing their method to be covariant with respect to Poincaré transformations.
Quantum mechanics (QM) is not just a theory of micro-objects: it is our current fundamental theory of motion. It expresses a deeper understanding of Nature than classical mechanics. Precisely as classical mechanics, the conventional formulation of QM describes evolution of states and observables in time. Precisely as classical mechanics, this is not sufficient to deal with general relativistic systems, because these systems do not describe evolution in time; they describe correlations between observables. Therefore, a formulation of QM slightly more general than the conventional one – or a quantum version of the relativistic classical mechanics discussed in the previous chapter – is needed. In this chapter I discuss the possibility of such a formulation. In the last section I discuss the general physical interpretation of QM. QM can be formulated in a number of more or less equivalent formalisms: canonical (Hilbert spaces and self-adjoint operators), covariant (Feynman's sum-over-histories), algebraic (states as linear functionals over an abstract algebra of observables) and others. Generally, but not always, we are able to translate these formalisms into one another, but often what is easy in one formulation is difficult in another. A generalrelativistic sum-over-histories formalism has been developed by Jim Hartle. Here I focus on the canonical formalism, because the canonical formalism has provided the mathematical completeness and precision needed to explicitly construct the mathematical apparatus of quantum gravity. Later I will consider alternative formalisms.
This thesis is concerned with the notions of complementarity and uncertainty encountered in quantum mechanics. Its starting point is an assessment of how these concepts have been represented and illustrated by various writers dating back to their inception. Following the survey a coherent account of the connections and contrasts between complementarity and uncertainty is developed in the context of Mach-Zehnder interferometry. The effect on the interference pattern contrast of path detection via entanglement with a probe system, is explored and a joint unsharp measurement scheme of the complementary pairs, path and interference, described. The Mach-Zehnder set-up proves sufficiently versatile to show that quantum erasure and quantitative quantum erasure constitute instances of joint unsharp measurement of complementary observables. The analysis uses the representation of observables as positive operator valued measures.Path detection and interference observation require different experimental set-ups but can be reconciled in the simultaneous unsharp measurement and preparation. This reconciliation is expressed as an uncertainty relation however the mutually exclusive feature of complementarity is not discarded. It is possible to recover strict complementarity as a limit case of the appropriate uncertainty relation.One motivation for this study is the effort some authors have made in trying to express the founding features of quantum mechanics in the form of a hierarchy of significance. Here it is shown that complementarity and uncertainty have separate identities but are not completely independent of each other. Consequently, establishing a hierarchy of these features within the present formalism of quantum mechanics is not possible.
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.
First, I briefly review the different conceptions of time held by three rival interpretations of quantum theory: the collapse of the wave-packet, the pilot-wave interpretation, and the Everett interpretation (Section 2). Then I turn to a much less controversial task: to expound the recent understanding of the time-energy uncertainty principle, and indeed of uncertainty principles in general, that has been established by such authors as Busch, Hilgevoord and Uffink. Although this may at first seem a narrow topic, I point out connections to other conceptual topics about time in quantum theory: for example, the question under what circumstances there is a time operator (Section 4.3).