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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...

Similar threads

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