A quantum system under constant observation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of constant observation on a quantum system, specifically in the context of a quantum harmonic oscillator. Participants explore the relationship between measurement, state collapse, and the quantum Zeno effect, examining how these concepts interact within quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the implications of constant observation on a quantum harmonic oscillator, questioning how measurement affects the system's evolution according to Schrödinger's equation.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of the quantum Zeno effect, suggesting that constant observation can prevent a system from evolving.
  • A different viewpoint discusses the trade-off between the accuracy of position measurements and the uncertainty in momentum, indicating that real-time knowledge of a quantum system's position is fundamentally limited.
  • One participant clarifies that the lay meaning of "observe" differs from its technical meaning in quantum mechanics, emphasizing the importance of interactions with the environment rather than mere observation.
  • Another participant reiterates the quantum Zeno effect, noting that repeated measurements can keep a system in an unstable state longer than expected, linking this to the nature of the measurement device's coupling with the system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple competing views on the effects of constant observation and measurement in quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on how these concepts should be understood or applied in the context of the harmonic oscillator.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for mathematical analysis to understand the interaction strength and the Hamiltonian involved, indicating that assumptions about the system's environment and measurement conditions are critical to the discussion.

nashed
Messages
56
Reaction score
5
To start off I'd like to apologize ahead of time for the grammatical errors and lack of eloquence that are sure to follow, it's the middle of the night and my mind is wandering but my cognitive capacity to express my self is pretty low at this time.

With that out of the way, I'd like to ask about something which has been bothering me for quite a time now, I finished my introductory QM course about a month ago and one of the postulates that was mentioned was that upon measurement the state of the system will change/collapse/whatever you'd like to call it to the state corresponding to the measurement, now let's look for example at a harmonic oscillator which is something I've observed in labs ( the classical experiment any how), the thing is that for the whole length of the experiment I had my eyes on the oscillator and classically that's fine, but with QM it seems like it should be collapsing all the time while trying to evolve in time in accordance with the solution for Schrödinger's equation, so can anyone shed light on how am I supposed to understand this situation?

To add to the above, I'm aware of the correspondence principle and have seen that for large energies the probability distribution starts to look like the classical distribution, but again this solution fails to take into consideration that the system is under constant observation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's say you have a quantum harmonic oscillator with one degree of freedom called ##x##. Then you measure ##x## at some high accuracy (with maximum error some small quantity ##\Delta x##) and do that repeatedly with a very short time interval ##\Delta t## between the measurements. What happens when you decrease both ##\Delta x## and ##\Delta t## such that they approach zero? The more accurate the measurement of ##x## becomes the less accurate your knowledge of the momentum ##p_x## becomes, and the longer distance the particle can move in the time interval ##\Delta t##. Therefore you can't get a situation where you have real time knowledge of the value of ##x##. This is how I understand it, anyway.
 
nashed said:
for the whole length of the experiment I had my eyes on the oscillator and classically that's fine, but with QM it seems like it should be collapsing all the time while trying to evolve in time in accordance with the solution for Schrödinger's equation, so can anyone shed light on how am I supposed to understand this situation?

You've confused the lay meaning of "observe" with the technical meaning in quantum mechanics. Pointing your face towards a quantum system doesn't affect whether or not it's being measured. What matters is if the system interacted with the surrounding environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way or not.

To understand the situation you just do the math. How strong is the interaction with the outside? How long until we stop protecting the system? What's the Hamiltonian?

Keeping all of that in mind... if you do set up a situation where a quantum system is being measured again and again at a high rate, you'll find that it tends to stay in the same state. Even against forces that would normally cause it to evolve. See: Quantum Zeno Effect. It's basically the same thing as putting a diagonal polarizer between two orthogonal polarizers to allow some of the light through, but taken to the limit.
 
I'd say it's simply the coupling of the system with the measurement device. There's nothing myterious about it, although with fascinating "very quantum" properties, like keeping a system in an unstable state for very long (i.e., much longer than the lifetime of the state) by "observing" it. As mentioned in previous postings, this is then known the "quantum Zeno effect" to make it even more exciting :-).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K