Can Spin State Recombination Restore the Original Quantum State?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of spin state recombination in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the behavior of silver atoms passing through Stern-Gerlach (SG) filters. Participants explore the implications of coherence and the mathematical representation of quantum states, including the use of the Bloch sphere and projectors. The scope includes theoretical considerations and mathematical reasoning related to quantum states and measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes an experimental setup with silver atoms and discusses the conditions under which the original quantum state can be restored through recombination of coherent states.
  • Another participant points out that the initial representation uses three parameters to describe a qubit state, while only two are necessary, suggesting a misunderstanding of the dimensionality of the Hilbert space.
  • A participant mentions attempting to relate their findings to SU(2) and SU(3) spin projectors, indicating ongoing exploration of the topic.
  • Discussion includes the role of constructive and destructive phase differences in the context of quantum measurements and superpositions.
  • Participants present mathematical expressions for the actions of projectors on quantum states, illustrating the interference effects and the conditions for restoring the original state.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of using the correct basis vectors and inner products to achieve accurate results in their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate representation of quantum states and the mathematical framework needed to describe spin state recombination. There is no consensus on the correctness of the initial geometrical representation or its relation to the Bloch sphere.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the algebra involved in state recombination and the need to distinguish between equivalent representations of angles on the Bloch sphere. Some mathematical steps remain unresolved, particularly regarding the implications of phase differences in quantum states.

Mentz114
Messages
5,429
Reaction score
292
SGInt1.png

The picture shows an experimental setup where one or more silver atoms are sent from an oven through 3 Stern-Gerlag (SG) filters with outputs from E and F going to detectors. If C and D remain coherent they can recombine to restore the original state and the particles all go through port E. If either C or D is blocked the detectors at E and F will show equal frequencies of Z_{+} and ##Z_{-}##. This is easy to show by calculating the appropriate amplitudes and so the probabilities of results but is somewhat long winded and I find it unsatisfactory from the point of view of recombination. After using a lot of pencil and paper I came up with this.

SGconfigs.png


These diagrams are interpreted by looking at the intersections of the axes with the circle. In A the vertical axis (z by convention) intersects at ##\theta = 0## which means that a z-basis measurement gives ##Z_+## but an x-basis measurement would give ##X_+## and ##X_-## with equal probabality. Realigning the apparatus to the x-direction is equivalent to rotating A by ##\pi/2## which gives C and a measurement in the -x-direction requires a rotation of ##-\pi/2## which gives D. Writing this algebraically we can represent A by the triplet ##(0, -\pi/2, \pi/2)##. So
\begin{align*}
A &= \left(0, -{\pi/2}, {\pi/2}\right)\\
C &= A + (\pi/2, \pi/2,\pi/2) = (\pi/2, 0, \pi)\\
D &= A - (\pi/2, \pi/2,\pi/2) = (-\pi/2, -\pi, 0)
\end{align*}
and obviously (adding components) ##\tfrac{1}{2}(C+D) = A##. In this representation the projection operator is a rotation and the relationship between the C and D is made somewhat clearer, perhaps. It certainly satisfies my aim of brevity and no 'interference'.

The problem is that it is not right. When adding components we have to distinguish beteen ##-\pi## and ##\pi## although they represent the same point on the circle. The algebra of recombination is therefore more than just arithmetic in the reals.

My question is - has this geometrical representation been worked out properly ? I tried relating it to the Bloch sphere but so far have failed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Douglas Sunday
Physics news on Phys.org
Mentz114 said:
I tried relating it to the Bloch sphere but so far have failed.

That would be expected, since your representation uses three numbers to specify a state, but only two are needed (because the Hilbert space of a qubit, which is what you are working with here, is two-dimensional).
 
PeterDonis said:
That would be expected, since your representation uses three numbers to specify a state, but only two are needed (because the Hilbert space of a qubit, which is what you are working with here, is two-dimensional).
This is true. I think my state is a bag of measurement results and latent results so I have been trying SU(2) and SU(3) spin projectors but so far no luck there.

It is a question of constructive and destructive phase differences so I'm going to tinker some more with projectors before I drop it.
 
Mentz114 said:
It is a question of constructive and destructive phase differences so I'm going to tinker some more with projectors before I drop it.

The action of the second SG apparatus on ##|Z_+\rangle## is to project into the ##|X_+\rangle## and ##|X_-\rangle## states which gives
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> C + D &amp;= (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle = |X_+\rangle\langle X_+|Z_+\rangle + |X_-\rangle\langle X_-|Z_+\rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \alpha e^{-i\pi/4} |X_+\rangle + \alpha e^{i\pi/4} |X_-\rangle<br /> \end{align*}<br />
where I have adopted the convention that the scalar bracket ##\langle S_1| S_2\rangle## introduces a phase change of half the signed angle between the states note A. The normalization constant ##|\alpha|^2=1/4## follows from ##| (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle|^2=1##.

If this superposition is acted on by the projectors ##\hat{Z}_+=|Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+|## and ##\hat{Z}_-=|Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-|## the result is
\begin{align*}
\hat{Z}_+ (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle &= \alpha e^{-i\pi/4}|Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+| X_+\rangle + \alpha e^{i\pi/4} |Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+| X_-\rangle\\
&=|Z_+\rangle\\
\hat{Z}_- (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle & = \alpha e^{-i\pi/4}|Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-| X_+\rangle + \alpha e^{i\pi/4} |Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-| X_-\rangle\\
&= \alpha e^{-i\pi/2}|Z_-\rangle + \alpha e^{i\pi/2} |Z_-\rangle = \alpha (i + 1/i)|Z_-\rangle = 0
\end{align*}
Thus ##|\langle Z_+ | (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle|^2=1## and ##|\langle Z_- | (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_-\rangle|^2=0##

The interference terms are clear now and the phase difference can be seen to cancel all the ##|Z_-\rangle## probability.

note A : I cannot justify this except as a kind of hidden variable that applies to super-posed states.
 
The action of the second SG apparatus on ##|Z_+\rangle## is to project into the ##|X_+\rangle## and ##|X_-\rangle## states which gives
<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> \psi_{C + D} &amp;= (\hat{X}_+ + \hat{X}_-)|Z_+\rangle = |X_+\rangle\langle X_+|Z_+\rangle + |X_-\rangle\langle X_-|Z_+\rangle \\<br /> &amp;= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |X_+\rangle + \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |X_-\rangle<br /> \end{align*}<br />
This result depends on the inner products of the basis vectors ##\langle X_{\pm}|Z_{\pm}\rangle##. These are all ##1/\sqrt{2}## except ##\langle X_{-}|Z_{-}\rangle = -1/\sqrt{2}## which provides the negative amplitude required to create interference.

If this superposition is acted on by the projectors ##\hat{Z}_+=|Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+|## and ##\hat{Z}_-=|Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-|## the result is
\begin{align*}<br /> \hat{Z}_+ |\psi_{C + D}\rangle &amp;= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+| X_+\rangle + \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |Z_+\rangle\langle Z_+| X_-\rangle\\<br /> &amp;=(\tfrac{1}{ {2}} +\tfrac{1}{ {2}} )|Z_+\rangle\\<br /> \hat{Z}_- |\psi_{C + D}\rangle &amp; = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}|Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-| X_+\rangle + \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |Z_-\rangle\langle Z_-| X_-\rangle\\<br /> &amp;= (\tfrac{1}{ {2}} - \tfrac{1}{ {2}} ) |Z_-\rangle = 0<br /> \end{align*}

Also ##\langle X_{\pm}| X_{\mp}\rangle = \langle Z_{\pm}| Z_{\mp}\rangle = 0## ensures that ##\hat{X}_+|\psi_1\rangle =\hat{X}_-|\psi_1\rangle = 1/2##

Finally, mission accomplished in a few lines. The trick was to use the correct basis vectors and pay attention to the inner products.

[The basis vectors are ##|X_+\rangle = (1/\sqrt{2}, 1/\sqrt{2}),\ \ |X_-\rangle = (1/\sqrt{2}, -1/\sqrt{2})## and ##|Z_+\rangle = (1, 0),\ \ |Z_-\rangle = (0, 1)##]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K