How Does Measurement Affect a Two-State Quantum System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter projektMayhem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State System
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a two-state quantum system characterized by linear superpositions of stationary states and the implications of measurement on these states. Participants explore the relationships between eigenstates and probabilities associated with measurements performed by different observers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the expression of eigenstates in terms of stationary states and the calculation of probabilities for measurement outcomes. Questions arise about the initial state in different measurement scenarios and the implications of measurement on the system's evolution.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the initial conditions for different cases of measurement, while others express uncertainty about specific probabilities and the correctness of their reasoning. The conversation reflects a mix of agreement and exploration of different interpretations.

Contextual Notes

There is an acknowledgment of the complexities involved in measuring non-stationary states and the need to consider the evolution of the system over time. Participants are navigating the nuances of quantum mechanics without reaching a definitive conclusion.

projektMayhem
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
A two state system is described by linear superpositions of two stationary states: |E1> and |E2>, with corresponding energies E1 and E2. An observable Q has the eigenstates |Q1> and |Q2>, corresponding to eigenvalues Q1 and Q2 (both real). All states are normalized.

Given: |Q1> = (cos x)|E1> + (sin x)|E2>

1) Express |Q2> as a superposition of |E1> and |E2> and determine the coefficients:

|Q2> = a|E1> + b|E2>

solution: Since Q is hermitian, the eigenstates are orthogonal ->
<Q1|Q2> = a (cos x) + b (sin x) = 0

=> a = -sin x; b = cos x (up to an overall phase factor - the minus sign could be switched)

2) The system is prepared at t = 0 to be in the state |E1>. It is then measured, first by Alice and then by Bob.

At t = t1, Alice measures Q. What is the probability that the measurement will yield Q1?
Here I will denote the state of the system as |X>

solution: |X(t)> = |E1> exp(-iE1 t / h)
P(Q1) = <Q1|X(t1)><X(t1)|Q1> = (cos x) exp (iE1 t1 /h) <E1|E1> cos (x) exp(-iE1 t1 / h) = (cos x) ^2

3) At t2 > t1 Bob measures Q. Again, determine the probability a measurement will yield Q1 - but consider the following two cases:

case 1) Alice reported that her result was Q1
case 2) Alice did not report the result of her measurement

Here is where I am confused... any help would be greatly appreciated :)

If my post has not met the guidelines, please notify me and i will modify where appropriate.
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I smell a cat! Someone call Mr. Schrödinger and ask him to pick it up.

Seriously, though - I think you need to consider what your initial state should be in each case, 3.1) and 3.2). You clearly have it for case 3.1), but you don't for 3.2), or rather, you don't know the outcome of Alice's observation, so you can't say which eigenstate it was left in; you only know probabilities for each possibility.
 
belliot, thanks for the response.

for case 1, is the probability unity?
 
i think the answer to my last question was no.
 
Keep in mind that the Q states are not the stationary states, so they evolve with time.
 
so, tell me if this is absurd:
for t1 < t < t2:

|X(t)> = (cos x)|E1>exp(-i E1 (t1 - t) / h) + (sin x)|E2>exp(-i E2 (t1 - t) / h)

then:

<Q1|X(t2)> = exp(-iE1 (t2 - t1)/h) [ (cos x)^2 + (sin x)^2 exp(-i(E2 - E1)(t2 - t1)/h)

so, P(Q1) = (cos x)^4 + (sin x)^4 + 2(cos x)^2 (sin x)^2 cos[(E2 - E1)(t2-t1)/h]

This is strictly positive, and is <= 1 - but I'm not sure it's correct.
 
Looks good to me ...

I have to admit that I'm pretty rusty at good ol' QM, but FWIW, I don't see any mistakes. I'm sure someone else will point them out if there are any, however.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K