B How are outer products quantum states?

Rodia
Messages
1
Reaction score
3
In my textbook, quantum states are infinite dimensional vectors. But I was watching a lecture on QM and the professor referred to ##|v> <u|## as itself being a quantum state. Also I saw online people saying the same thing.

Are tensor products just things that tell you whether or not the two particles that created it are entangled? So ##<p|q>## is not technically a state, but rather it is just a matrix which tells you that particle 1 is in state p and particle 2 is in state q? But then, if you have a situation where the two particles are entangled, then how do you ever measure them?

By the way if this is the wrong forum to post in, sorry, it's hard to tell. 'Irreducible tensor products' don't appear in my text until a lot later and I don't know some of the notation. I noticed that ##|v><u| w> = |v>a## for a scalar ##'a'##. Whereas ##<w| v><u|= b<u|##. So that's how you can tell if there's entanglement, but then what?

If I just don't have enough knowledge for this question let me know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
An expression such as ##|u\rangle \langle v|## does not mean entanglement. It's an operator (or, you can think of it as an infinite square matrix).

There is a notion of "state" that uses such objects, and that is density matrices. A density matrix is an operator of the form: ##\sum_{\alpha \beta} \rho_{\alpha \beta} |\psi_\alpha\rangle \langle \psi_\beta|##, where ##|\psi_\alpha## is a complete set of orthonormal states. Sometimes people use "state" to mean the density matrix. You can think of it as a notion of "state" that incorporates both quantum mechanics and classical uncertainty.

But it doesn't have anything to do with entanglement. At least not directly.
 
  • Like
Likes aaroman, Rodia and bhobba
## \langle p|q \rangle ## is a number. Also ## |v\rangle \langle u| ## cannot be a state (density matrix) unless ##u = v##. (A density matrix must be positive and therefore Hermitian.)

So let's say that you have ## |u\rangle \langle u| ## where ##|u\rangle## is normalized. What's the point of using this description? One point is that a vector ##e^{i\varphi}|u\rangle## for an arbitrary phase ##\varphi## physically describes the same state; the overall phase cannot be observed. Writing the outer product eliminates this unphysical phase: ## e^{i\varphi}|u\rangle \langle u|e^{-i\varphi} = |u\rangle \langle u| ## while retaining all other information that ##|u\rangle## has.

The other point is what @stevendaryl brought up: now you can "mix" quantum states, adding them in a way that cannot be done in the vector representation. ## |u\rangle \langle u| + |v\rangle \langle v| ## is very different from ## |u+v \rangle \langle u+v| ##! This new way of adding states represent two phenomena which turns out to be intimately related: classical uncertainty and entanglement. (Note that the formula for a density matrix in @stevendaryl's comment has off-diagonal terms, but it can always be diagonalized in some basis by the spectral theorem.)
 
  • Like
Likes Rodia and DrClaude
Late correction: I meant to write ## (|u\rangle + |v\rangle) (\langle u| + \langle v|) ##, not ## |u+v\rangle \langle u+v| ## in the last reply.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
947
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Back
Top