1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An Expression for a Measurement Equation

  1. Jan 28, 2009 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Knowing the given equations, [tex]k[/tex] is equal to a measurement where [tex]J(t)[/tex] implies some local coupling between the observer and observed system. If a field is considered to collapse [tex]J(t)[/tex], how would the two manifest into a single expression.

    2. Relevant equations

    [tex]k=\frac{(t<t_0)-(t>t_1)}{\int_{t_0}^{t_1} dt J(t)}[/tex]

    [tex]J(t)=\int_{\Omega}\Pi |\psi|^2[/tex]

    3. The attempt at a solution

    [tex]\psi*(\Pi_{(k)}(\psi))[/tex]

    Do you think this expression helps imply the two fields [tex]\psi[/tex] with the given information?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 28, 2009 #2
    The first equation is meant to look like

    [tex]k=\frac{(t<t_0)-(t>t_1)}{\int_{t_0}^{t_1} dt J(t)}[/tex]
     
  4. Jan 29, 2009 #3
    Can no one answer my question? I'd be very grateful.
     
  5. Jan 30, 2009 #4
    Also, it seems that [tex]J(t)[/tex] should be treated as independant from the field describing the collapse in the expression. In the expression, there could be another two quantum wave fields;

    [tex]\psi* (\Pi_{(k)}(\psi))=|\psi|^2 (\Pi_{(k)})[/tex]

    Does this seem reasonable?
     
  6. Jan 31, 2009 #5
    Am i allowed to deduct the following?

    [tex]\frac{d\Lamba \psi \rightarrow d\Pi(|\psi|^2)}{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\Pi_{k}^n}=\sum^{\Pi}_{n} \xi^n(t) |\psi|^2[/tex]

    Where [tex]\xi^n(t)[/tex] is the probability of global changes, where it must vanish totally upon the square of the density. Then back to the original assumptions, we can treat [tex] J(t)[/tex] as it is and [tex]\psi*(\Pi_{k}(\psi))[/tex] as:

    [tex]\psi_i*(\Pi_{k}(\psi_i))[/tex]

    So thus implying a series with a linear function. It would be fair to analyse the convergent monotonic series idea with both fields in J(t) and contained in [tex]\psi_i*(\Pi_{k}(\psi_i))[/tex] as:

    [tex]J(t)_i=\begin{pmatrix} i=2k \\ i=2k+1 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

    [tex]\psi_i*=\begin{pmatrix} i*=2k \\ i*=2k+1 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

    If they converge synomynously, then it is fair to say they are asympototically-equivalant in respect to time:

    [tex]\sum^{\Pi}_{n} \xi^{n}(t) |\psi|^2 \approx J(t)[/tex]
     
  7. Jan 31, 2009 #6
    That was riddled with errors. Hopefully this is more clear

    Am i allowed to deduct the following?

    [tex]\frac{d\Lamba \psi \rightarrow d\Pi(|\psi|^2)}{\int_{t_0}^{t_1}\Pi_{k}^n}=\sum^{\Pi}_{n} \xi^n(t) |\psi|^2[/tex]

    Where [tex]\xi^n(t)[/tex] is the probability of global changes, where it must vanish totally upon the square of the density. Then back to the original assumptions, we can treat [tex] J(t)[/tex] as it is and [tex]\psi*(\Pi_{k}(\psi))[/tex] as:

    [tex]\psi_i*(\Pi_{k}(\psi_i))[/tex]

    So thus implying a series with a linear function. It would be fair to analyse the convergent monotonic series idea with both fields in J(t) and contained in [tex]\psi_i*(\Pi_{k}(\psi_i))[/tex] as:

    [tex]\Pi J(t)_i=\begin{pmatrix} i=2k \\ i=2k+1 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

    [tex]\Lambda \psi_i*=\begin{pmatrix} i*=2k \\ i*=2k+1 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

    If they converge synomynously, then it is fair to say they are asympototically-equivalant in respect to time:

    [tex]\sum^{\Pi}_{n} \xi^{n}(t) |\psi|^2 \sim J(t)[/tex]
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?