# Questions on the concept of time

## Abstract

Some notes and questions about the concept of time are exposed. Particular reference is given to the problem in quantum mechanics, in connection with the indeterminacy principle.

PACS: 03.65.-w Quantum mechanics.   
03.65.Bz Foundations, theory of measurement, miscellaneous theories.

“How much time”, “It took quite some time”, “There is plenty of time”. These are some examples only of our common way to think about time: an interval between two instants. In physics as well time is seen as an interval. Asher Peres stressed that the measurement of time is the observation of a dynamical variable, which law of motion is known and it is uniform and constant in time . There is a kind of self–reference in this definition and nothing is said about time. On the other hand, time is considered simply as a parameter and, according to this, the above definition is completely satisfactory. Moreover, time is sometimes neglected (e.g. steady state phenomena), which is useful to understand some physical concepts.

However, when we deal with quantum mechanics the problem of the time explodes in all its complexity. In classical mechanics (hamiltonian formulation) the dynamical state of a physical system is described by a point in a phase space, that is we have to know position $`q`$ and momentum $`p`$ at a given time $`t`$. Even though it can appear a sophism, it is not possible, strictly speaking, to know simultaneously $`q`$ and $`p`$ of any object. However, in classical physics, we may neglect variations during the lapse of time between the measurement of $`q`$ and $`p`$, because the quantum of action is so small when compared to macroscopic actions. It is very interesting to note how Sommerfeld stressed this question when he wrote about the Hamilton’s principle of least action: the trajectory points $`q`$ and $`q+\delta q`$ are considered *at the same time instant* .

In quantum mechanics this approximation is not valid, because actions are comparable with the quantum of action. The hamiltonian formalism is not anymore a useful language to investigate nature and, as known, it was necessary to settle quantum mechanics.

The impossibility to neglect time in quantum mechanics is well described by the Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy. Nevertheless, the role of the time in quantum indeterminacy is often neglected. In the history of physics, we can often find authors which claimed to have found a way to avoid the obstacle of indeterminacy. However they all missed the target, that is the question of the time. Heisenberg clearly stated that indeterminacy relationships do not allow a simultaneous measurement of $`q`$ and $`p`$, while do not prevent from measuring $`q`$ and $`p`$ taken in isolation . It is possible to measure, with great precision, complementary observables in two different time instants: this is not forbidden by Heisenberg’s principle. Later on, it is also possible to reconstruct one of the observables at the reference time of the other observable, but this is questionable. In the interval between two measurements observables change because time flows. What happened during this interval? We can reconstruct observables by making hypoteses, but we have to remember that these are hypoteses and not measurements.

We have to take into account the so–called “energy–time uncertainty relationship”. As known, time is a $`c`$–number and therefore it have to commute with each operator. Nevertheless, the relationship exists, but it is worth to note its dynamical nature, whereas indeterminacy is kinematic . That is, it follows from the evolution of the system during the measurement. Bohr had already stated this and he had often pointed out the time issue , along with Landau and Peierls . We refer to  in which the question is stated in a better way. The relationship:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t>\mathrm{}$$
(1)   
means that we have to consider the system evolution during the measurement, that is the difference between the measurement result and the state after the measurement. The energy difference between the two states cannot be less than $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The energy–time relationship has important consequences particularly as regards the momentum measurement and, therefore, on double–slit experiment .

Eq. (1) suggests that, given a certain energy, it is possible to construct a state with a huge $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in order to obtain a very small $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. However, in a recent paper, Margolus and Levitin  give a strict bound that depends on the difference between the average energy of the system and its ground state energy. Is it a step toward a quantization of the time?

In addition, if we consider the equation of motion (written with Dirac’s notation ):

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{d|Pt>}{dt}=H(t)|Pt>$$
(2)   
we can see that $`H(t)`$ is $`i\mathrm{}`$ times an operator of time–translation. If the system is closed we can consider $`H`$ constant and equal to the total energy of the system; but if not, if energy depends on time, this means that the system is under the action of external forces (e.g. measurement). The measurement introduce an energy exchange that does not follow causality.

Moreover, it is worth to note that a closed system is an abstraction. A real closed system is not observable, without introducing energy exchange which would change $`H`$: therefore that would not be a closed system. We can say, by means of Rovelli’s words that there is no way to get information about a system without physically interacting with it for a certain time .

Would you consider it a sophism? Of course not. We should always bear in mind that quantum physics is only an interpreted language we use to speak about Nature, though it does not describe Nature itself (on logic–linguistic structure of quantum physics see, for example, ). In classical physics we made many approximations, which are no longer valid in quantum physics. In particular, we can no more neglect time. As Heraclitus stated, you cannot plunge your hands twice in the same stream.