In this paper I am concerned with analyzing in detail how ideas and expectations regarding the role of time in quantum theory arose and evolved in the early years of quantum mechanics. The general theme is that expectations which seemed reasonable from the point of view of matrix mechanics and Dirac's q-number formalism became implausible in light of Dirac-Jordan transformation theory, and were dashed by von Neumann's Hilbert space formalism which came to replace it. Nonetheless, I will identify two concerns (...) that remain relevant today, and which blunt the force of Hilgevoord's claim that the demand that time feature as an observable arose as the result of a simple conceptual error. (shrink)

A little-known movie by Alfred Hitchcock, Torn Curtain — admittedly not one of his best — tells a story of spying and science. It features a strange scene, where two physicists confront one another on some theoretical question. Their “discussion”, if it may be so called, consists solely in one of them writing some equations on the blackboard, only to have the other angrily grabbing the eraser and wiping out the formulas to write new ones of his own, etc., without (...) ever uttering a single word. This picture of theoretical physics as an aphasic knowledge entirely consisting of mathematical symbols, as common as it may be in popular representations, we know to be wrong, of course, and we have to acknowledge that, far from being mute, we are a very talkative kind; physics is made out of words. What I wish to question here, however, is the very nature of our relationship with language, particularly as concerns quantum theory. My thesis will be that we have been somewhat offhand and rather indifferent with respect to the words we use, or rather without respect for them, and that this attitude has reinforced, and sometimes perhaps even produced some of the persisting epistemological and pedagogical difficulties in our field — not to speak of the new cultural problems that we are facing. (shrink)

Time, along with concepts as space and matter, is bound to be a central concept of any physical theory. The chapter first discusses how time is treated similarly in quantum and classical theories. It then provides a few references on time‐reversal. The chapter discusses three chosen authors' (Paul Busch, Jan Hilgevoord and Jos Uffink) clarifications of uncertainty principles in general. Next, the chapter follows Busch in distinguishing three roles for time in quantum physics. They are external time, intrinsic time and (...) observable time. It also provides a brief discussion on time operators, in particular Pauli's influential proof. Finally, the chapter talks about time‐energy uncertainty principles with intrinsic times. (shrink)

In the Schrödinger equation, time plays a special role as an external parameter. We show that in an enlarged system where the time variable denotes an additional degree of freedom, solutions of the Schrödinger equation give rise to weights on the enlarged algebra of observables. States in the associated GNS representation correspond to states on the original algebra composed with a completely positive unit preserving map. Application of this map to the functions of the time operator on the large system (...) delivers the positive operator valued maps which were previously proposed by two of us as time observables. As an example we discuss the application of this formalism to the Wheeler-DeWitt theory of a scalar field on a Robertson-Walker spacetime. (shrink)

The current status of localization and related concepts, especially localized statevectors and position operators, within Lorentz-invariant Quantum Theory (LIQT) is ambiguous and controversial.1 Ever since the early work of Newton & Wigner (1949), and the subsequent extensions of their work, particularly by Hegerfeldt (1974, 1985), it has seemed impossible to identify localized statevectors or position operators in LIQT that were not counterintuitive—strange—in one way or another; the most striking strange property being the superluminal propagation of the localized states. The ambiguous (...) and controversial status of these concepts arises from the varied reactions that workers have to the strange properties. Some regard them, particularly the superluminal propagation, as utterly unacceptable, and conclude that no precise concepts of localized statevectors and position operators exist in LIQT (Wigner 1973, p. 325-327; 1983, pp. 310-313; Malament 1996). Others downplay the whole issue, on the grounds that current theoretical and experimental practice has no need of sharply formulated concepts of localization, localized states etc. (Birrell & Davies 1984, pp. 48-59; Haag 1992, p. 34). Still others, including ourselves, believe that the superluminal propagation does not lead to causal contradictions, and is not in conflict with available empirical data: so that it should not be ruled out. We also believe that the other strange properties are merely unfamiliar novelties of LIQT which we must simply learn to accept. (Like the superluminal propagation, they do not lead to causal contradictions, nor conflict with available data.) So in this paper, we aim to help remove the ambiguous and controversial status of localization concepts in LIQT. Overall, our strategy will be to assess a number of localization concepts, and thereby clarify the often complex relationships among them. (shrink)