Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In non-relativistic QM, on one hand we have the following relations:

$$\langle x | P | \psi \rangle ~=~ -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \psi(x),$$

$$\langle p | X | \psi \rangle ~=~ i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial p} \psi(p).$$

On the other hand, despite the similarities, the relations cannot be directly applied to energy and time:

$$\langle t | H | \psi \rangle ~=~ i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi(t),$$

$$\langle E | T | \psi \rangle ~=~ -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial E} \psi(E).$$

Just wondering, how can one mathematically prove that the "classical time" (which means no QFT or relativity involved), unlike its close relative "position", is not a Hermitian operator?

I ask your pardon if you feel the question clumsy or scattered. But to be honest, if I can clearly point out where the core issue of the problem is, I may have already answered it by myself :/

share|cite|improve this question
Just to add to the answers. I believe that the first time it was shown that time cannot be described by an operator was a theorem of Pauli. You can google it. – MBN Mar 10 '11 at 4:48
Link to time operator and Pauli's objection and – Qmechanic Mar 30 '11 at 18:46
up vote 14 down vote accepted

Time is not a variable in Quantum Mechanics (QM), it's a parameter — much in the same way as it is in Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics.

So, if you have a Hamiltonian, e.g., for the harmonic oscillator, you have $\omega$ as a parameter, as well as the masses of the particle(s) involved, say $m$, and you also have time — even though it's not something that shows up explicitly in the Hamiltonian (remember explicit time dependency from Classical Mechanics: Poisson Brackets, Canonical Transformations, etc — in fact, you could get your answer straight from these kinds of arguments).

In this sense, just like you don't have a 'transformation pair' between $m$ and $\omega$, you also don't have one between time and Energy.

What do you say to convince yourself that $\omega \neq -i\, \partial_m$? Why can't you use this same argument to justify $E \neq -i\, \partial_t$? ;-)

I think Roger Penrose makes a nice illustration of how this whole framework works in his book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe: check chapter 17.

share|cite|improve this answer

The energy spectrum is bounded from below. A time operator would contradict the Stone–von Neumann theorem. This isn't really a problem. All it means is we have limits as to how accurate clocks can be in quantum mechanics.

share|cite|improve this answer

protected by Qmechanic Mar 18 '14 at 6:21

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.