Find the probability of energy value after a given measurment

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the probability of measuring a specific energy value after a previous measurement. The original poster believes the probability is zero because the wave function collapses into a state that is orthogonal to another energy state. The reasoning is that once the system is measured and collapses into a particular state, the probability of finding it in an orthogonal state during a subsequent measurement is indeed zero. Responses confirm this understanding, validating the original conclusion. The concept of wave function collapse and orthogonality in quantum mechanics is crucial to this problem.
Taylor_1989
Messages
400
Reaction score
14

Homework Statement


I am having a issue conceptualising the problem as I believe the answer is 0.

imageedit_6_7749133169.png

Part c)

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


My answer is 0 and it for the following reason. A the being say time t=0 the system is in some arbitary state, then when I got to measure the particle at t=t1 the wave function collapse into the ##e^{\frac{-iE_at_1}{\hbar}}|a \rangle## so then as it in this state when I go to measure the particle again the probability of it being ##E_b## is will be 0 as the two states are orthogonal to each other, have I assume the correctly?
 

Attachments

  • imageedit_6_7749133169.png
    imageedit_6_7749133169.png
    34.8 KB · Views: 957
Physics news on Phys.org
Taylor_1989 said:

My answer is 0 and it for the following reason. A the being say time t=0 the system is in some arbitary state, then when I got to measure the particle at t=t1 the wave function collapse into the ##e^{\frac{-iE_at_1}{\hbar}}|a \rangle## so then as it in this state when I go to measure the particle again the probability of it being ##E_b## is will be 0 as the two states are orthogonal to each other, have I assume the correctly?
Yes, that's right.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top