Firstly hello, this is the first time I have posted here (although I have used the site to find info in the past). My query is best illustrated, I think, with an example. Suppose we have some physical system with corresponding state vector(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

[tex]

\left| \psi \right> = a \left| 0 \right> + b \left| 1 \right> + c \left| 2 \right> + d \left| 3 \right> \in \mathbb C^4

[/tex]

and some physical quantity represented by the operator

[tex]

\hat E = E_0 \left| 0 \right> \! \left< 0 \right| + E_1 \left| 1 \right> \! \left< 1 \right|

+ E_2 \left| 2 \right> \! \left< 2 \right| + E_3 \left| 3 \right> \! \left< 3 \right|.

[/tex]

First suppose that we have that [itex] E_0 = E_1 = E [/itex]. Then the 2-dimensional subspace spanned by [itex] \left| 0 \right>[/itex] and [itex] \left| 1 \right> [/itex] is an eigenspace of [itex]\hat E [/itex] and any measurement with outcome [itex] E [/itex] will leave us with the projection (up to normalization) of [itex] \left| \psi \right> [/itex] onto this subspace. Expressed as a density matrix, the final state is

[tex]

\rho = \mathcal N \; \big(

\left | a \right|^2 \left| 0 \right> \! \left< 0 \right| +

\left | b \right|^2 \left| 1 \right> \! \left< 1 \right| +

ab^* \left| 0 \right> \! \left< 1 \right| +

a^*b \left| 1 \right> \! \left< 0 \right|.

\big)

[/tex]

Now consider the following: we have some experiment that is not accurate enough to distinguish [itex] E_0 [/itex] and [itex] E_1 = E_0 + \epsilon[/itex] but that can distinguish all others (for instance [itex] E_0 [/itex] and [itex] E_1 [/itex] may correspond to very close spectral lines compared to [itex] E_3 [/itex] and [itex] E_4 [/itex]). We perform a measurement, the outcome of which is [itex] E_0 \pm 10\epsilon[/itex]. Then we could argue that the state must have collapsed to either [itex] \left| 0 \right> [/itex] or [itex] \left| 1 \right> [/itex] with probabilities [itex] \left| a \right|^2 [/itex] and [itex] \left| b \right|^2 [/itex]respectively. According to the lack-of-knowledge interpretation of density matrices, the corresponding state (as a density matrix) after measurement is

[tex]

\rho' = \mathcal N '\; \big(

\left | a \right|^2 \left| 0 \right> \! \left< 0 \right| +

\left | b \right|^2 \left| 1 \right> \! \left< 1 \right|

\big)

[/tex]

where [itex] \mathcal N [/itex] is a normalizing factor.

The point of this is that (provided my reasoning holds) [itex] \rho [/itex] and [itex] \rho' [/itex] are physically distinct states. But when do we distinguish between the two scenarios? For instance if we have 2 degenerate levels that we know can be split with a magnetic field, do we always have to assume the presence of a magnetic field too weak to measure, or do we assume there is no magnetic field at all? Do we have to distinguish between `true' degeneracy and degeneracy relating to experimental inaccuracy?

I had a look in various literature and over previous posts in this forum and haven't been able to find an answer to this; I apologize if my search was not sufficiently thorough or if I am missing something obvious.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Degenerate spectra, measurement and lack-of-knowledge density matrix interpretation

Loading...

Similar Threads - Degenerate spectra measurement | Date |
---|---|

I Probabilities for degenerate eigenvalues? | Jan 29, 2018 |

I Wavefunctions in first order degenerate pertubation theory | Jan 6, 2018 |

I Laser vs photodiodes and spectra | May 11, 2017 |

I Boltzmann with degenerate levels | Feb 1, 2017 |

I Determining if an operator is degenerate | Nov 24, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**