DOCSLIB.ORG

Time Observables in a Timeless Universe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Time Observables in a Timeless Universe Time Observables in a Timeless Universe Tommaso Favalli1,2 and Augusto Smerzi1 1QSTAR, INO-CNR and LENS, Largo Enrico Fermi 2, I-50125 Firenze, Italy 2Universitá degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Via Cinthia 21, I-80126 Napoli, Italy Time in quantum mechanics is peculiar: 1 Introduction it is an observable that cannot be associ- ated to an Hermitian operator. As a conse- 1.1 Time and Clocks quence it is impossible to explain dynam- Observables in quantum theory are represented ics in an isolated system without invoking by Hermitian operators with the exception of an external classical clock, a fact that be- time [1,2] (and of a few more observables, in- comes particularly problematic in the con- cluding phases [3]). In Quantum Mechanics, as in text of quantum gravity. An unconven- Newtonian physics, time is an absolute “external” tional solution was pioneered by Page and real valued parameter that flows continuously, in- Wootters (PaW) in 1983. PaW showed dependently from the material world. A change that dynamics can be an emergent prop- of perspective from this abstract Newtonian con- erty of the entanglement between two sub- cept was introduced in the theory of Relativity. systems of a static Universe. In this work Here time is an “internal” degree of freedom of the we first investigate the possibility to intro- theory itself, operationally defined by “what it is duce in this framework a Hermitian time shown on a clock”, with the clock being a wisely operator complement of a clock Hamilto- chosen physical system [4]. nian having an equally-spaced energy spec- An interesting question is if an operational ap- trum. An Hermitian operator complement proach would also be possible in Quantum Me- of such Hamiltonian was introduced by chanics by considering time as “what it is shown Pegg in 1998, who named it “Age”. We in a quantum clock” [5]. A proposal was for- show here that Age, when introduced in mulated in 1983 by Don N. Page and William the PaW context, can be interpreted as K. Wootters (PaW) [5,6]. Motivated by “the a proper Hermitian time operator conju- problem of time” in canonical quantization of gate to a “good”clock Hamiltonian. We gravity (see for example [7,8]) and considering therefore show that, still following Pegg’s a “Universe” in a stationary global state satis- formalism, it is possible to introduce in fying the Wheeler-DeWitt equation Hˆ |Ψi = 0, the PaW framework bounded clock Hamil- PaW suggested that dynamics can be consid- tonians with an unequally-spaced energy ered as an emergent property of entangled sub- spectrum with rational energy ratios. In systems, with the clock provided by a quan- this case time is described by a POVM tum spin rotating under the action of an applied and we demonstrate that Pegg’s POVM magnetic field. This approach has recently at- states provide a consistent dynamical evo- tracted a large interest and has stimulated sev- lution of the system even if they are not arXiv:2003.09042v2 [quant-ph] 28 Oct 2020 eral extensions and generalisations (see for exam- orthogonal, and therefore partially un- ple [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]), including distinguishables. an experimental illustration [18]. A brief sum- mary of the Page and Wootters theory is given in Appendix A. 1.2 Time Observables in a Timeless Quantum System Tommaso Favalli: [email protected]fi.it We consider here an isolated non-relativistic Augusto Smerzi: [email protected] quantum system that in the following we call Accepted in Quantum 2020-10-28, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 1 “Universe”. The Hilbert space of the “Universe” of the eigenvalues of Age. However, as Pegg em- is composed by a “clock-subspace” C that keeps phasized, and consistently with the Pauli objec- track of time and the “system-subspace” S of tion [1], the Age operator cannot be considered, the rest of the Universe. In absence of an ex- as a bona-fide time operator. This because Age is ternal temporal reference frame we write the a property of the system itself and crucially de- Schrödinger equation of the Universe as: pends on its state. In particular, while for partic- ular states the rate of change of Age’s mean value ˆ ∂ (Hs − i~ ) |Ψi = 0 (1) can be constant, for an energy eigenstate its mean ∂tc value does not evolve: a system in a stationary state would not age as time goes on [20]. Pegg The first term Hˆs is the Hamiltonian of the sub- system S. We interpret the second term as a also considered a larger set of Hamiltonians hav- (possibly approximate) time representation of the ing unequally-spaced energy eigenvalues. Also in clock-subspace Hamiltonian: this case it is possible to write down a comple- ment of the Hamiltonian whose eigenvalues can ∂ ˆ be used to construct a probability-operator mea- − i~ → Hc. (2) ∂tc sure (POVM). The central result of our work is to show that Under the implicit assumption that the two sub- the Pegg formalism finds a sound physical inter- systems C and S are not interacting, Eq. (1) pretation when incorporated in the Page-Wooters becomes: framework. We introduce as “good” clock a de- (Hˆ + Hˆ ) |Ψi = 0. (3) s c vice described by an Hamiltonian having equally The time representation of the clock Hamiltonian spaced eigenvalues. In this case time is described Eq. (2) would be correct, −i ∂ = Hˆ , only if Hˆ ~ ∂tc c c by an Hermitian operator. A device governed by has a continuous, unbounded spectrum. In this an Hamiltonian having rational energy differences case we could write the Hermitian time opera- can still provide a good clock mathematically de- tor in the energy representation as Tˆ = −i ∂ . ~ ∂Ec scribed by a POVM. We show that in both cases Since we consider here an isolated physical sys- we recover the Schrödinger dynamical evolution tem of finite size, the introduction of unbounded of the system S. Hamiltonians with a continuous spectrum would not be possible. As a consequence, an Hermi- tian time operator written in differential form as 2 Time from Entanglement in Eq. (1) cannot be introduced within standard 2.1 The Clock Subspace approaches [1]. In this work we explore the possibility to con- The first problem to deal with is the introduc- struct a time Hermitian observable that is conju- tion of a good clock. We define as good clock gate to a clock Hamiltonian having an eigenvalue a physical system governed by a lower-bounded spectrum with a finite lower bound. It is clear, as Hamiltonian having discrete, equally-spaced, en- already mentioned, that such exploration would ergy levels, see also [25, 26] (a generalisation to be fruitless for the simple reason that its exis- non-equally spaced levels will be discussed in Sec- tence would contradict the Stone-von Neumann tion IV): theorem. A way out was considered by D. T. s X Pegg [20] (see also [21]) who suggested a proto- Hˆc = En |Eni hEn| , (4) col to construct an Hermitian operator, named n=0 “Age”, complement of a lower-bounded Hamilto- where s + 1 is the dimension of the clock space nian with equally-spaced energy eigenvalues. The that, following D. T. Pegg [20], we first consider idea was to consider an Hamiltonian with an en- as finite. We now search for an Hermitian observ- ergy cut-off, calculate all quantities of interest, able τˆ in the clock space that is conjugated to the and eventually remove the cut-off by letting go clock Hamiltonian Hˆc. We define the time states to infinity the upper bound. (we set ~ = 1) Age is conjugate to the Hamiltonian in the s sense that it is the generator of energy shifts while 1 X −iEnτm |τmic = √ e |Enic (5) the Hamiltonian is the generator of translations s + 1 n=0 Accepted in Quantum 2020-10-28, click title to verify. Published under CC-BY 4.0. 2 T 2π with τm = τ0 +m s+1 , En = E0 +n T and m, n = 2.2 Dynamics 0, 1, ..., s. Eq. (5) provides an orthonormal and complete basis since We consider the total Hilbert space of the Uni- verse H = Hc ⊗ Hs, with Hc and Hs having hτm|τm0 i = δm,m0 (6) dimension dc = s + 1 and ds respectively. We require that our “good clock” has d d . A gen- and c s s X eral bipartite state of the Universe can be written |τmi hτm| = 1c. (7) as m=0 With the states (5) we can define the Hermitian dc−1 ds−1 X X time operator |Ψi = cn,k |Enic ⊗ |Ekis . (13) n=0 k=0 s τˆ = X τ |τ i hτ | (8) m m m ˆ m=0 We impose the constraint Eq. (3) H |Ψi = 0 and, under the assumption that the spectrum of the ˆ that is conjugated to the Hamiltonian Hc. It is clock Hamiltonian is sufficiently dense (namely, ˆ indeed easy to show that Hc is the generator of that to each energy state of the system S there is shifts in τm values and, viceversa, τˆ is the gener- a state of the clock for which Eq. (3) is satisfied), ator of energy shifts: we obtain for the state of the Universe ˆ |τ i = e−iHc(τm−τ0) |τ i (9) m c 0 c d −1 Xs and |Ψi = c˜k |E = −Ekic ⊗ |Ekis (14) iτˆ(En−E0) k=0 |Enic = e |E0ic . (10) A second important property of the clock states P 2 with k |c˜k| = 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM FIELD THEORY By Dr M Dasgupta University of Manchester Lecture presented at the School for Experimental High Energy Physics Students Somerville College, Oxford, September 2009 - 1 - - 2 - Contents 0 Prologue....................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Lagrangian formalism in classical mechanics......................................... 6 1.2 Quantum mechanics................................................................................... 8 1.3 The Schrödinger picture........................................................................... 10 1.4 The Heisenberg picture............................................................................ 11 1.5 The quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator ..................................... 12 Problems .............................................................................................................. 13 2 Classical Field Theory............................................................................. 14 2.1 From N-point mechanics to field theory ............................................... 14 2.2 Relativistic field theory ............................................................................ 15 2.3 Action for a scalar field ............................................................................ 15 2.4 Plane wave solution to the Klein-Gordon equation ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Time Evolution of Wavefunctions in Quantum Mechanics C
    On the Time Evolution of Wavefunctions in Quantum Mechanics C. David Sherrill School of Chemistry and Biochemistry Georgia Institute of Technology October 1999 1 Introduction The purpose of these notes is to help you appreciate the connection between eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian and classical normal modes, and to help you understand the time propagator. 2 The Classical Coupled Mass Problem Here we will review the results of the coupled mass problem, Example 1.8.6 from Shankar. This is an example from classical physics which nevertheless demonstrates some of the essential features of coupled degrees of freedom in quantum mechanical problems and a general approach for removing such coupling. The problem involves two objects of equal mass, connected to two different walls andalsotoeachotherbysprings.UsingF = ma and Hooke’s Law( F = −kx) for the springs, and denoting the displacements of the two masses as x1 and x2, it is straightforward to deduce equations for the acceleration (second derivative in time,x ¨1 andx ¨2): k k x −2 x x ¨1 = m 1 + m 2 (1) k k x x − 2 x . ¨2 = m 1 m 2 (2) The goal of the problem is to solve these second-order differential equations to obtain the functions x1(t)andx2(t) describing the motion of the two masses at any given time. Since they are second-order differential equations, we need two initial conditions for each variable, i.e., x1(0), x˙ 1(0),x2(0), andx ˙ 2(0). Our two differential equations are clearly coupled,since¨x1 depends not only on x1, but also on x2 (and likewise forx ¨2).
    [Show full text]
  • An S-Matrix for Massless Particles Arxiv:1911.06821V2 [Hep-Th]
    An S-Matrix for Massless Particles Holmfridur Hannesdottir and Matthew D. Schwartz Department of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Abstract The traditional S-matrix does not exist for theories with massless particles, such as quantum electrodynamics. The difficulty in isolating asymptotic states manifests itself as infrared divergences at each order in perturbation theory. Building on insights from the literature on coherent states and factorization, we construct an S-matrix that is free of singularities order-by-order in perturbation theory. Factorization guarantees that the asymptotic evolution in gauge theories is universal, i.e. independent of the hard process. Although the hard S-matrix element is computed between well-defined few particle Fock states, dressed/coherent states can be seen to form as intermediate states in the calculation of hard S-matrix elements. We present a framework for the perturbative calculation of hard S-matrix elements combining Lorentz-covariant Feyn- man rules for the dressed-state scattering with time-ordered perturbation theory for the asymptotic evolution. With hard cutoffs on the asymptotic Hamiltonian, the cancella- tion of divergences can be seen explicitly. In dimensional regularization, where the hard cutoffs are replaced by a renormalization scale, the contribution from the asymptotic evolution produces scaleless integrals that vanish. A number of illustrative examples are given in QED, QCD, and N = 4 super Yang-Mills theory. arXiv:1911.06821v2 [hep-th] 24 Aug 2020 Contents 1 Introduction1 2 The hard S-matrix6 2.1 SH and dressed states . .9 2.2 Computing observables using SH ........................... 11 2.3 Soft Wilson lines . 14 3 Computing the hard S-matrix 17 3.1 Asymptotic region Feynman rules .
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Quantum Mechanics
    Advanced Quantum Mechanics Rajdeep Sensarma [email protected] Quantum Dynamics Lecture #9 Schrodinger and Heisenberg Picture Time Independent Hamiltonian Schrodinger Picture: A time evolving state in the Hilbert space with time independent operators iHtˆ i@t (t) = Hˆ (t) (t) = e− (0) | i | i | i | i i✏nt Eigenbasis of Hamiltonian: Hˆ n = ✏ n (t) = cn(t) n c (t)=c (0)e− n | i | i n n | i | i n X iHtˆ iHtˆ Operators and Expectation: A(t)= (t) Aˆ (t) = (0) e Aeˆ − (0) = (0) Aˆ(t) (0) h | | i h | | i h | | i Heisenberg Picture: A static initial state and time dependent operators iHtˆ iHtˆ Aˆ(t)=e Aeˆ − Schrodinger Picture Heisenberg Picture (0) (t) (0) (0) | i!| i | i!| i Equivalent description iHtˆ iHtˆ Aˆ Aˆ Aˆ Aˆ(t)=e Aeˆ − ! ! of a quantum system i@ (t) = Hˆ (t) i@ Aˆ(t)=[Aˆ(t), Hˆ ] t| i | i t Time Evolution and Propagator iHtˆ (t) = e− (0) Time Evolution Operator | i | i (x, t)= x (t) = x Uˆ(t) (0) = dx0 x Uˆ(t) x0 x0 (0) h | i h | | i h | | ih | i Z Propagator: Example : Free Particle The propagator satisfies and hence is often called the Green’s function Retarded and Advanced Propagator The following propagators are useful in different contexts Retarded or Causal Propagator: This propagates states forward in time for t > t’ Advanced or Anti-Causal Propagator: This propagates states backward in time for t < t’ Both the retarded and the advanced propagator satisfies the same diff. eqn., but with different boundary conditions Propagators in Frequency Space Energy Eigenbasis |n> The integral is ill defined due to oscillatory nature
    [Show full text]
  • The Liouville Equation in Atmospheric Predictability
    The Liouville Equation in Atmospheric Predictability Martin Ehrendorfer Institut fur¨ Meteorologie und Geophysik, Universitat¨ Innsbruck Innrain 52, A–6020 Innsbruck, Austria [email protected] 1 Introduction and Motivation It is widely recognized that weather forecasts made with dynamical models of the atmosphere are in- herently uncertain. Such uncertainty of forecasts produced with numerical weather prediction (NWP) models arises primarily from two sources: namely, from imperfect knowledge of the initial model condi- tions and from imperfections in the model formulation itself. The recognition of the potential importance of accurate initial model conditions and an accurate model formulation dates back to times even prior to operational NWP (Bjerknes 1904; Thompson 1957). In the context of NWP, the importance of these error sources in degrading the quality of forecasts was demonstrated to arise because errors introduced in atmospheric models, are, in general, growing (Lorenz 1982; Lorenz 1963; Lorenz 1993), which at the same time implies that the predictability of the atmosphere is subject to limitations (see, Errico et al. 2002). An example of the amplification of small errors in the initial conditions, or, equivalently, the di- vergence of initially nearby trajectories is given in Fig. 1, for the system discussed by Lorenz (1984). The uncertainty introduced into forecasts through uncertain initial model conditions, and uncertainties in model formulations, has been the subject of numerous studies carried out in parallel to the continuous development of NWP models (e.g., Leith 1974; Epstein 1969; Palmer 2000). In addition to studying the intrinsic predictability of the atmosphere (e.g., Lorenz 1969a; Lorenz 1969b; Thompson 1985a; Thompson 1985b), efforts have been directed at the quantification or predic- tion of forecast uncertainty that arises due to the sources of uncertainty mentioned above (see the review papers by Ehrendorfer 1997 and Palmer 2000, and Ehrendorfer 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6. Time Evolution in Quantum Mechanics
    6. Time Evolution in Quantum Mechanics 6.1 Time-dependent Schrodinger¨ equation 6.1.1 Solutions to the Schr¨odinger equation 6.1.2 Unitary Evolution 6.2 Evolution of wave-packets 6.3 Evolution of operators and expectation values 6.3.1 Heisenberg Equation 6.3.2 Ehrenfest’s theorem 6.4 Fermi’s Golden Rule Until now we used quantum mechanics to predict properties of atoms and nuclei. Since we were interested mostly in the equilibrium states of nuclei and in their energies, we only needed to look at a time-independent description of quantum-mechanical systems. To describe dynamical processes, such as radiation decays, scattering and nuclear reactions, we need to study how quantum mechanical systems evolve in time. 6.1 Time-dependent Schro¨dinger equation When we first introduced quantum mechanics, we saw that the fourth postulate of QM states that: The evolution of a closed system is unitary (reversible). The evolution is given by the time-dependent Schrodinger¨ equation ∂ ψ iI | ) = ψ ∂t H| ) where is the Hamiltonian of the system (the energy operator) and I is the reduced Planck constant (I = h/H2π with h the Planck constant, allowing conversion from energy to frequency units). We will focus mainly on the Schr¨odinger equation to describe the evolution of a quantum-mechanical system. The statement that the evolution of a closed quantum system is unitary is however more general. It means that the state of a system at a later time t is given by ψ(t) = U(t) ψ(0) , where U(t) is a unitary operator.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.-Time-Evolution-Operator-11-28
    2. TIME-EVOLUTION OPERATOR Dynamical processes in quantum mechanics are described by a Hamiltonian that depends on time. Naturally the question arises how do we deal with a time-dependent Hamiltonian? In principle, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation can be directly integrated choosing a basis set that spans the space of interest. Using a potential energy surface, one can propagate the system forward in small time-steps and follow the evolution of the complex amplitudes in the basis states. In practice even this is impossible for more than a handful of atoms, when you treat all degrees of freedom quantum mechanically. However, the mathematical complexity of solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for most molecular systems makes it impossible to obtain exact analytical solutions. We are thus forced to seek numerical solutions based on perturbation or approximation methods that will reduce the complexity. Among these methods, time-dependent perturbation theory is the most widely used approach for calculations in spectroscopy, relaxation, and other rate processes. In this section we will work on classifying approximation methods and work out the details of time-dependent perturbation theory. 2.1. Time-Evolution Operator Let’s start at the beginning by obtaining the equation of motion that describes the wavefunction and its time evolution through the time propagator. We are seeking equations of motion for quantum systems that are equivalent to Newton’s—or more accurately Hamilton’s—equations for classical systems. The question is, if we know the wavefunction at time t0 rt, 0 , how does it change with time? How do we determine rt, for some later time tt 0 ? We will use our intuition here, based largely on correspondence to classical mechanics).
    [Show full text]
  • Unitary Time Evolution
    Unitary time evolution Time evolution of quantum systems is always given by Unitary Transformations. If the state of a quantum system is ψ , then at a later time | i ψ Uˆ ψ . | i→ | i Exactly what this operator Uˆ is will depend on the particular system and the interactions that it undergoes. It does not, however, depend on the state ψ . This | i means that time evolution of quantum systems is linear. Because of this linearity, if a system is in state ψ or φ or any linear combination, the time evolution is| giveni | byi the same operator: (α ψ + β φ ) Uˆ(α ψ + β φ ) = αUˆ ψ + βUˆ φ . | i | i → | i | i | i | i – p. 1/25 The Schrödinger equation As we have seen, these unitary operators arise from the Schrodinger¨ equation d ψ /dt = iHˆ (t) ψ /~, | i − | i where Hˆ (t) = Hˆ †(t) is the Hamiltonian of the system. Because this is a linear equation, the time evolution must be a linear transformation. We can prove that this must be a unitary transformation very simply. – p. 2/25 Suppose ψ(t) = Uˆ(t) ψ(0) for some matrix Uˆ(t) (which we don’t yet assume| i to be| unitary).i Plugging this into the Schrödinger equation gives us: dUˆ(t) dUˆ †(t) = iHˆ (t)Uˆ(t)/~, = iUˆ †(t)Hˆ (t)/~. dt − dt At t = 0, Uˆ(0) = Iˆ, so Uˆ †(0)Uˆ(0) = Iˆ. We see that d 1 Uˆ †(t)Uˆ(t) = Uˆ †(t) iHˆ (t) iHˆ (t) Uˆ(t) = 0. dt ~ − So Uˆ †(t)Uˆ(t) = Iˆ at all times t, and Uˆ(t) must always be unitary.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Languages Shape Our Understanding of Time in Physics Physics Is Formulated in Terms of Timeless, Axiomatic Mathematics
    comment Corrected: Publisher Correction Mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics Physics is formulated in terms of timeless, axiomatic mathematics. A formulation on the basis of intuitionist mathematics, built on time-evolving processes, would ofer a perspective that is closer to our experience of physical reality. Nicolas Gisin n 1922 Albert Einstein, the physicist, met in Paris Henri Bergson, the philosopher. IThe two giants debated publicly about time and Einstein concluded with his famous statement: “There is no such thing as the time of the philosopher”. Around the same time, and equally dramatically, mathematicians were debating how to describe the continuum (Fig. 1). The famous German mathematician David Hilbert was promoting formalized mathematics, in which every real number with its infinite series of digits is a completed individual object. On the other side the Dutch mathematician, Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer, was defending the view that each point on the line should be represented as a never-ending process that develops in time, a view known as intuitionistic mathematics (Box 1). Although Brouwer was backed-up by a few well-known figures, like Hermann Weyl 1 and Kurt Gödel2, Hilbert and his supporters clearly won that second debate. Hence, time was expulsed from mathematics and mathematical objects Fig. 1 | Debating mathematicians. David Hilbert (left), supporter of axiomatic mathematics. L. E. J. came to be seen as existing in some Brouwer (right), proposer of intuitionist mathematics. Credit: Left: INTERFOTO / Alamy Stock Photo; idealized Platonistic world. right: reprinted with permission from ref. 18, Springer These two debates had a huge impact on physics.
    [Show full text]
  • HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P Letizia
    HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P Letizia To cite this version: P Letizia. HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas: A possible explanation of Dark Energy. 2017. hal-01424099 HAL Id: hal-01424099 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01424099 Preprint submitted on 3 Jan 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - ShareAlike| 4.0 International License SUBMITTED FOR STUDY January 1st, 2017 HYPOTHESIS: How Defining Nature of Time Might Explain Some of Actual Physics Enigmas P. Letizia Abstract Nowadays it seems that understanding the Nature of Time is not more a priority. It seems commonly admitted that Time can not be clearly nor objectively defined. I do not agree with this vision. I am among those who think that Time has an objective reality in Physics. If it has a reality, then it must be understood. My first ambition with this paper was to submit for study a proposition concerning the Nature of Time. However, once defined I understood that this proposition embeds an underlying logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Terminology of Geological Time: Establishment of a Community Standard
    Terminology of geological time: Establishment of a community standard Marie-Pierre Aubry1, John A. Van Couvering2, Nicholas Christie-Blick3, Ed Landing4, Brian R. Pratt5, Donald E. Owen6 and Ismael Ferrusquía-Villafranca7 1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway NJ 08854, USA; email: [email protected] 2Micropaleontology Press, New York, NY 10001, USA email: [email protected] 3Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades NY 10964, USA email: [email protected] 4New York State Museum, Madison Avenue, Albany NY 12230, USA email: [email protected] 5Department of Geological Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK7N 5E2, Canada; email: [email protected] 6Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont TX 77710 USA email: [email protected] 7Universidad Nacional Autónomo de México, Instituto de Geologia, México DF email: [email protected] ABSTRACT: It has been recommended that geological time be described in a single set of terms and according to metric or SI (“Système International d’Unités”) standards, to ensure “worldwide unification of measurement”. While any effort to improve communication in sci- entific research and writing is to be encouraged, we are also concerned that fundamental differences between date and duration, in the way that our profession expresses geological time, would be lost in such an oversimplified terminology. In addition, no precise value for ‘year’ in the SI base unit of second has been accepted by the international bodies. Under any circumstances, however, it remains the fact that geologi- cal dates – as points in time – are not relevant to the SI.
    [Show full text]
  • A Measure of Change Brittany A
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations Spring 2019 Time: A Measure of Change Brittany A. Gentry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gentry, B. A.(2019). Time: A Measure of Change. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/5247 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Time: A Measure of Change By Brittany A. Gentry Bachelor of Arts Houghton College, 2009 ________________________________________________ Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2019 Accepted by Michael Dickson, Major Professor Leah McClimans, Committee Member Thomas Burke, Committee Member Alexander Pruss, Committee Member Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School ©Copyright by Brittany A. Gentry, 2019 All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Michael Dickson, my dissertation advisor, for extensive comments on numerous drafts over the last several years and for his patience and encouragement throughout this process. I would also like to thank my other committee members, Leah McClimans, Thomas Burke, and Alexander Pruss, for their comments and recommendations along the way. Finally, I am grateful to fellow students and professors at the University of South Carolina, the audience at the International Society for the Philosophy of Time conference at Wake Forest University, NC, and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on various drafts of portions of this dissertation.
    [Show full text]