How can I ignore information in my wave function?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of how to isolate the spatial part of a wavefunction that includes both spatial and spin components. Participants explore whether it is possible to derive a new wavefunction that retains the spatial information while discarding the spin information, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics and measurement theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about an operation that can be performed on a wavefunction to obtain a purely spatial wavefunction while maintaining the same predictions for spatial observables.
  • Another participant suggests that the approach may depend on whether one is using the Schrödinger picture or the Heisenberg picture, indicating a potential difference in how time dependence is treated.
  • A later reply proposes that dividing by the time part of the wavefunction might yield the desired result, although this is challenged by the original poster who clarifies that their question is not time-related.
  • One participant points out that the wavefunction contains two spatial parts corresponding to the spin states, suggesting that one cannot obtain a wavefunction without spin information, but rather a probability distribution.
  • Another participant proposes that a linear combination of the spatial parts, with constants to maintain normalization, could yield a wavefunction that predicts the same results as the original, provided no spin measurements are made.
  • One participant introduces the concept of using a reduced density matrix for the spatial part, explaining how to construct it from the full density matrix and trace over the spin degrees of freedom to obtain relevant quantities for spatial measurements.
  • There is a suggestion that for simple position measurements, probabilities should be added rather than probability amplitudes, indicating a distinction in how measurements are treated in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to approach the problem of isolating the spatial part of the wavefunction. There is no consensus on a definitive method, and multiple competing ideas are presented regarding the treatment of spin and spatial components.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of separating spin and spatial information in quantum mechanics, with various assumptions about the nature of measurements and the mathematical framework being employed. The implications of using different pictures (Schrödinger vs. Heisenberg) and the role of density matrices are noted but remain unresolved.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
Hello,

Say I have a system with a spatial part and a spin degree of freedom, hence the wavefunction generally looks like [itex]\psi_+(\textbf r) |+\rangle + \psi_-(\textbf r) |- \rangle[/itex] w.r.t. for example the z-axis.

Now what if I'm simply interested in the spatial part? Can I perform an operation on this wavefunction such that I get a new wavefunction that is only spatial, but gives the same predictions for any observable that only depends on space variables? (e.g. [itex]L_z[/itex])

I feel this must be possible, and that it shouldn't even be hard, but I can't seem to think of the appriopriate operation right away and I also can't google it because I don't know what such an operation would be called.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm probably way off here, but oh well...

Doesn't this depend on if you are considering the Schrödinger picture or the Heisenberg picture?

If it is the former then H is time-independent, in the latter it is time-dependent. The time- dependence or independence of H will transfer to the time- dependence or independence of the observables.

It sounds like you are talking about the Schrödinger picture.

Also, you might want to look up the "propagator" which is probably the operator you are after.
 
Last edited:
Hm, I'm indeed talking about the Schrödinger picture, although I'm not sure how it would change matters, but then again I'm not too familiar with the Heisenberg picture, so yes for my answer one can restrict himself to the Schrödinger picture.
 
Well those things aside, would just dividing by the time part of your wavefunction give your new desired wavefunction? Or do you want a single operator which does it for all wavefunctions?
 
The time part of my wavefunction? I'm afraid you have misunderstood my question.

I'm looking for a (mathematical) way to erase the spin information in [itex]\psi_+(\textbf r) |+\rangle + \psi_-(\textbf r) |- \rangle[/itex] to get a purely spatial wavefunction. This is not time-related. It would be the wave function I would see if I had never heard of spin.

More practical, it would be useful if I were asked the mean position of the particle, or if I were asked the possible outcomes of a L_z measurement, I would just have to decompose this new spatial wavefunction into eigenfunctions of L_z and etc via the usual method.
 
Ok I probably can't help you. I thought spin is basically the same as angular momentum but just the ones with l = half-integer values??
 
Your wavefunction has two "spatial parts": ψ+(r) if the spin is up and ψ-(r) if the spin is down. If you want to ignore the spin you can't get a wavefunction, the best you can do is a probability, |ψ|2 = |ψ+|2 + |ψ-|2.
 
I would think the answer would be Aψ+(r) +B ψ-(r) where A and B are constants which keep normalization. I think this wavefunction will predict the same results as the original wave function, as long as no spin-detecting measurements were made.
 
If you want to describe measurements which don't affect the spin, I think you can use a reduced density matrix for the spatial part.

In basis-independent form, your state is |ψ+>⊗|+> + |ψ->⊗|->. The general approach would be to construct the full density matrix from that and trace over the spin. Then you get the reduced density matrix for the spatial part ρspatial, which can be used to calculate every relevant quantity for measurements which affect only the spatial part. These are of the type A⊗1. Expectation values can then be calculated by <A>=tr{Aρspatial}.

In your initial post, your state is given in the position basis. It is not immediately clear to me, how all of this looks in this "half" basis-dependent form, but this is probably just a technical thing.

If you want to do a simple position measurement, I agree with Bill. I think you have to add probabilities here, not probability amplitudes.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K