Non disturbing (?) measurement

  • Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Measurement
In summary: If my measurement apparatus corresponds to U2, with U2:|psi0> |1> ==> |psi1> |-1>|psi0> |2> ==> |psi1> |0>|psi0> |3> ==> |psi2>...

A or B ?

  • A

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • B

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
  • #1
kleinwolf
295
0
Let's take a spin 1/2 system, and the trivial operator : [tex]A=\mathbb{I}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\right)[/tex].
Suppose X=(1,0) is the initial state before the measurement. Question :
A) Is the final state Y=X, for obvious reasons.
B)The eigenspace for the eigenvalue 1 of A is the whole R^2. A particular normalized eigenvector is parametrized by a polar angle and given by : [tex] Y=(\cos(\phi),\sin(\phi)) [/tex]. Y is the endstate of this particular measurement, and [tex] p(Endstate=Y)=|\langle X|Y\rangle|^2=\cos(\phi)^2[/tex].
Is A or B the correct answer ?
Remarks :
1) A is a particular case of B
2) How do you interprete [tex]\phi [/tex] physically in the context of quantum-mechanics ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
An ideal measurement gives you BY DEFINITION, A. Otherwise, the measurement is called non-ideal. A non-ideal measurement is not entirely determined by its hermitean operator if there is degeneracy. A non-ideal measurement can be seen as an ideal measurement followed by a unitary operator ; it is necessary to specify the unitary operator (which depends on the precise experimental setup). In your case, it is determined by phi.



kleinwolf said:
Let's take a spin 1/2 system, and the trivial operator : [tex]A=\mathbb{I}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\right)[/tex].
Suppose X=(1,0) is the initial state before the measurement. Question :
A) Is the final state Y=X, for obvious reasons.
B)The eigenspace for the eigenvalue 1 of A is the whole R^2. A particular normalized eigenvector is parametrized by a polar angle and given by : [tex] Y=(\cos(\phi),\sin(\phi)) [/tex]. Y is the endstate of this particular measurement, and [tex] p(Endstate=Y)=|\langle X|Y\rangle|^2=\cos(\phi)^2[/tex].
Is A or B the correct answer ?
Remarks :
1) A is a particular case of B
2) How do you interprete [tex]\phi [/tex] physically in the context of quantum-mechanics ?
 
  • #3
So if I have the operator A=diag(1,1,-1)...I measure x=1/sqrt(2)*(1,0,1)...so that if the result is -1 the measurement is forcedly ideal, where as for 1 not forcedly...so is generally speaking (with taking into account prob. of outcomes) the measurement ideal or not ?
 
  • #4
kleinwolf said:
So if I have the operator A=diag(1,1,-1)...I measure x=1/sqrt(2)*(1,0,1)...so that if the result is -1 the measurement is forcedly ideal, where as for 1 not forcedly...so is generally speaking (with taking into account prob. of outcomes) the measurement ideal or not ?

It really depends upon the measurement setup. For instance, as I'm an MWI-er, I don't believe that there is such a thing as collapse, and that the entire unitary evolution corresponding to the physical interactions in the measurement apparatus will determine "pointer states" that correspond to the eigenvectors of the hermitean operator that we associate with a measurement apparatus. As such, it is then rather clear, from that unitary evolution (which is determined by the physics of the measurement apparatus) whether the initial system states get through "unharmed" or whether they get some unitary rotation - in other words, whether my apparatus corresponds to an ideal measurement or not.
But of course in the case that there is only ONE initial state corresponding to a pointer state (non-degenerate case) there's not much choice for a unitary evolution, so in that case the apparatus will be ideal in all cases.
 
  • #5
whether the initial system states get through "unharmed" or whether they get some unitary rotation - in other words, whether my apparatus corresponds to an ideal measurement or not.

the problem with this, is that with the operator A=diag(1,1,-1) and x=1/sqrt(2)(1,0,1) is that there are two kind of unitary operations :

-1) it "collapses" (I know you don't like that word) to the eigenvector corresp. to -1, but the measurement still is ideal

+1)

a) it collapses to y=(1,0,0) and is ideal (at least I suppose from your previous messages)

b) it collapses to y=(cos(phi),sin(phi),0) and there exists phi for which it is not ideal...

How do you make the difference between the two unitary operations that determine if the measurement is ideal or not ?
 
  • #6
kleinwolf said:
the problem with this, is that with the operator A=diag(1,1,-1) and x=1/sqrt(2)(1,0,1) is that there are two kind of unitary operations :

-1) it "collapses" (I know you don't like that word) to the eigenvector corresp. to -1, but the measurement still is ideal

+1)

a) it collapses to y=(1,0,0) and is ideal (at least I suppose from your previous messages)

b) it collapses to y=(cos(phi),sin(phi),0) and there exists phi for which it is not ideal...

How do you make the difference between the two unitary operations that determine if the measurement is ideal or not ?


Well, consider the three state system of your example, with states |1>,
|2> and |3> (so (1,0,0) ; (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) in the basis you use).

Let us consider the two pointer states |psi1> and |psi2> corresponding to the two outcomes of the measurement. Let us call |psi0> the state of the measurement apparatus before the measurement.

If my measurement apparatus corresponds to U1, with U1:

|psi0> |1> ==> |psi1> |1>
|psi0> |2> ==> |psi1> |2>
|psi0> |3> ==> |psi2> |3>

then the measurement apparatus will give you an ideal measurement.

However, the physics of my measurement apparatus could be different, and it could correspond to an operator U2:

|psi0> |1> ==> |psi1> (cos th |1> + sin th |2>)
|psi0> |2> ==> |psi1> (-sin th |1> + cos th |2>)
|psi0> |3> ==> |psi2> |3>

That would be your other case. In both cases, the measurement apparatus corresponds to the hermitean operator you cited, but the second kind of apparatus is not an "ideal measurement" apparatus.

The reason is that the hermitean operator determines not uniquely the unitary evolution of the measurement apparatus, unless you ALSO specify that it is "ideal". The reason is that the hermitean operator is made up of 2 things:
A) The projection operators on the eigenspaces that correspond to the POINTER states ; in this case:
space 1 corresponds to the pointer state |psi1> which is reached from states |1> and |2>, so the projector projects upon the space spanned by |1> and |2> ==> P1

space 2 corresponds to the pointer state |psi2> which is reached from state |3>, so the projector P2 projects onto the space generated by P2.

B) the "measurement values" we assign to these pointer states (the values on the display), say m1 and m2.

The hermitean operator of the measurement is then simply:

m1 P1 + m2 P2

Clearly, what happens to the state of the system is not included in that description, and both U1 and U2 give rise to the same hermitean operator.
But if on top of that you require a measurement to be *ideal* so that the corresponding state that goes with the pointer state |psi1> is the projector P1 applied to the state of the system, THEN the unitary operator that goes with it IS uniquely determined from the Hermitean operator.

cheers,
Patrick.
 

1. What is non-disturbing measurement?

Non-disturbing measurement is a type of scientific measurement that aims to minimize the impact of the measurement process on the object being measured. This means that the measurement should not alter or interfere with the properties or behavior of the object being measured.

2. Why is non-disturbing measurement important?

Non-disturbing measurement is important because it allows scientists to accurately and objectively measure the properties of an object without altering its natural state. This is crucial for obtaining reliable and valid data in scientific research.

3. How is non-disturbing measurement achieved?

Non-disturbing measurement can be achieved through various methods, such as using non-invasive measurement techniques, minimizing the duration and intensity of the measurement process, and ensuring that the measurement equipment does not introduce any unwanted changes to the object being measured.

4. What are some examples of non-disturbing measurement techniques?

Examples of non-disturbing measurement techniques include non-invasive imaging methods like MRI and ultrasound, as well as non-contact measurement methods such as laser interferometry and remote sensing. Other techniques may involve using specialized equipment or protocols designed specifically for non-disturbing measurements.

5. Are there any limitations to non-disturbing measurement?

Yes, there are some limitations to non-disturbing measurement. Some properties of an object may be difficult to measure without altering its natural state, and in some cases, non-disturbing measurement may not be possible at all. Additionally, non-disturbing measurement techniques may be more time-consuming or require more advanced equipment, which can be a limitation in certain research contexts.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
737
Replies
1
Views
530
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
544
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
226
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
797
Back
Top