Cohen-Tannoudji on mutually exclusive (?) events

terra
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
I was looking at what Cohen-Tannudji has to say on compatibility of observables.
Assumptions: ## A,B## are operators such that ##[A,B]=0 ## and we denote ## |a_i \,b_j\rangle## to be states for which ##A | a_i \, b_j \rangle= a_i | a_i \, b_j \rangle##, ##B | a_i \, b_j \rangle= b_j | a_i \, b_j \rangle##.
We start with the state ##|\psi \rangle= \sum_{i,j} c_{i,j} | a_i \, b_j \rangle ##.
The whole discussion starts with the following:
"The probability for finding ## a_1 ## is ## P(a_1)= \sum_{j} |c_{1,j}|^2 ##." (Page 232 in a 1977 edition.)
Have I forgotten something fundamental? I thought that the amplitudes ## \langle a_1 \, b_{j'} | \psi \rangle ## and ## \langle a_1 \, b_j | \psi \rangle ## are mutually exclusive for ##j' \neq j ##, so that according to quantum rules for probability
$$P(a_1)= \big| \sum_j \langle a_1 \, b_{j} | \psi \rangle \big|^2= \sum_j \sum_{j'} \langle a_1 \, b_j | \psi \rangle \langle \psi | a_1 \, b_{j'} \rangle. $$
I see no reason as to why ##j'= j ## should hold.
My apologies for the slightly dull question, but I'm a bit lost.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm completely ignorant of the physics here. However when dealing with probabilities, mutually exclusive means the probability of both happening is 0.
 
mathman said:
I'm completely ignorant of the physics here. However when dealing with probabilities, mutually exclusive means the probability of both happening is 0.
Thanks for the reply, yeah.
Let ## a,b## be exclusive events. For classical physical things ## P(a\mathrm{ \, or \, }b)= P(a) + P(b)##. In quantum physics, however, we have ## A(a\mathrm{ \, or \, }b)= A(a) + A(b)## where ##A \in \mathbb{C}## is a 'probability amplitude' so that ## P(x)= A(X) A^*(X)##, star denoting a complex conjugate, for some event ## X##. This definition will bring so called interference terms when compared with the classical case (they disappear in the classical limit).
In my case, ## | a_i \, b_j \rangle ## are vectors.. some physical states, in fact, that have well-defined (=certain) values for some observables ##A,B## (so, a physical state always has some value or a distribution of values for both). We have different states for different ## i## and ## j##. A term ##\langle a_1 \, b_j | \psi \rangle## is actually just such an amplitude for the state ## | \psi \rangle## having the value ## a_1 ## for ## A## and the value ## b_j## for ## B##. I'm trying to determine the total probability to find that the value of ## A## for ## |\psi \rangle## is ## a_1##. As I see it, ##|\psi \rangle## can have that value while having ##b_1,b_2,b_3,... ## for ## B##.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top