Aethelwulf - please lose the superior attitude and keep it friendly.

Seriously dude, go learn some physics before you make statements you can't support. Time should not be physical. Just because it is part of an understanding Minkowski made years and years ago that by treating it as a dimension has left physics following a wrong path - a deluded idea that perhaps time is also physical, that it is part of the manifold we call space. Sure, calculationally-wise, time is very useful when thought of as a dimension. Other than that, it has no physical appearance. Time is not an observable. It is not tangible.

Is speed a tangible?

Observables, real tangible properties which can be measured are provided by Hermitian Matrices. I will leave it to you as a task to find out what uses Hermitian Matrices.

On your above comment properties are not "provided by Hermitian Matrices" - that is well and truly putting the quantum mechanical cart before the horse. Dynamic variables can be associated with a hermitian operator - which is not the same thing at all.

In quantum mechanics every variable (position, momentum, angular momentum, spin, energy, and many tothers) is able to be represented by a Hermitian **operator** that can be mathematically manipulated in a way to describe an action on the state of the system and the eigenvalues of which will correspond to the possible values that the dynamical variable can take. I would be interested on your take on momentum and energy which are well known and well used variables and associated hermitian operators - and how an absence of time would effect them.

This has

**nothing to do with being superior**. This has to do with

**being right**. Why spurt off something which makes no sense? I am shrugging my shoulders here.

Anyway, observables, things that we can measure are Hermitian Matrices. This is

**well-established** in quantum mechanics, that is, they are always real. Let's just cover what it implies.

You must first check to see if [tex]a[/tex] and [tex]b[/tex] are complex conjugates of each other, [tex]<a|b>[/tex]. A less obvious case might be [tex]<b|M|a>[/tex]. Take [tex]M[/tex] multiplying it with the ket vector gives a new row vector. Take the inner product with [tex]<b|[/tex] and it spits out a number. We might say then that [tex]|a>[/tex] is acting complex conjugate [tex]<a|M \dagger|b>[/tex] where all rows and columns have been interchanged. Properly conjugated one has the form

[tex]<b|M|a> = <a|M\dagger|b>[/tex]

However if it is Hermitian then

[tex]<b|M|a> = <a|M|b>^{*}[/tex]

where the dagger notation is removed. If we have our [tex]a=b[/tex] then a wee snippet to mention that it is simply the expectation [tex]<a|M|a>[/tex]. So I am unsure what it is really you have an objection about. My statement is very scientific.