Born rule for degenerate eigenvalue

dEdt
Messages
286
Reaction score
2
The probability of measuring a value a for an observable A if the system is in the normalized state |\psi\rangle is
|\langle a|\psi\rangle|^2
where \langle a| is the normalized eigenbra with eigenvalue a.

This is more-or-less the formulation of the Born rule as it appears in my text. But this seems to only make sense if \langle a| is non-degenerate. So, what's the rule if we have a degeneracy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the general case one should use the spectral decomposition of the self-adjoint operator which describes the observable A, thus one uses projectors. The projector for a subspace belonging to a degenerate eigenvalue (for simplicity, assume the spectrum to be purely a point spectrum) is the sum of each projector according to the rule

P_ n = \sum_{i=1}^{g_n} |ni\rangle \langle ni|

with g_n the dimension of the subspace which corresponds to the degenerate eigenvalue a_n in which |ni\rangle form an orthonormal subbasis. This P_n goes then in the general Born rule (again pure point spectrum):

p(a_n)_{|\psi\rangle} = \langle \psi |P_n|\psi\rangle
 
The general formulation of the Born rule uses projectors onto subspaces. The probability of finding a eigensubspace of the measurement operator is equal to the expectation of the projector in the state: p = <psi|P|psi> You can easily see that if you project onto a 1-dimensional subspace P can be written as P = |n><n| and the probability becomes p = <psi|n><n|psi> = |<psi|n>|^2
 
The simple version of the above replies is: if there are multiple eigenstates with eigenvalue a, add up the Born probabilities for all those states to get the probability to measure the value a.
 
dextercioby said:
In the general case one should use the spectral decomposition of the self-adjoint operator which describes the observable A, thus one uses projectors. The projector for a subspace belonging to a degenerate eigenvalue (for simplicity, assume the spectrum to be purely a point spectrum) is the sum of each projector according to the rule

I have a question Dexter,

If the projector of a subspace which belongs to a generate eigenvalue, can one say that the projector is a type of generator of those which belong in the subgroup?
 
I'd interpret Born's rule for a degenerate eigenvalue from the point of view of statistical mechanics. Given a system to be prepared in some state, represented by the statistical operator \hat{R}, we ask the question about the probability (density) to find a specific value a of an observable A, represented by a self-adjoint operator \hat{A}. If |a,\beta \rangle is a complete set of (generalized) eigenvectors of \hat{A} for the eigenvalue a normalized to unity (or to the \delta distribution), then the probability (density) that the system is found in a specific state given by one of these eigenvalues is
P(a,\beta)=\langle a,\beta|\hat{R}|a,\beta \rangle.
This probability can be found experimentally by measuring a complete set of compatible observables (including A).

If you know only measure A you have to sum (integrate) over all the non-measured observables since, because the basis vectors are orthonormalized, the outcomes are mutually exclusive, i.e., you have
P(a)=\sum_{\beta} P(a,\beta) \quad \text{or} \quad \int \mathrm{d} \beta \; P(a,\beta).
So the Born rule for an incomplete measurement in the case of degenerate eigenvalues follows directly from the Born rule for a complete measurement and basic rules of probability theory.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
922
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top