How Does Phase Affect Quantum State Transformations and Interference Patterns?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter deneve
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the impact of phase on quantum state transformations and interference patterns, exploring theoretical implications and experimental setups. Participants examine the role of phase in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to spin states, superposition, and interference effects in various experimental contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that any quantum state |ψ> can be represented as exp(iθ)|ψ>, leading to a discussion about the implications of this representation on spin states.
  • Another participant clarifies that while the magnitudes of states may be the same, the phases are not interchangeable, emphasizing that observable quantities derive from magnitudes rather than phases.
  • It is noted that interference effects are influenced by relative phases, which can be introduced in experimental setups, affecting the resulting density matrix and observable consequences.
  • A participant discusses how experimental setups, such as double-slit experiments, determine the phases of states, highlighting the relationship between distance and phase shifts.
  • Questions arise regarding how the experimental setup influences phase determination, prompting further inquiry into the specifics of phase relationships in quantum experiments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and treatment of phase in quantum states. While some acknowledge the importance of relative phases in interference effects, others debate the implications of phase adjustments on state equivalence. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which phases can be freely chosen versus being determined by experimental conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific experimental setups and theoretical frameworks, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities surrounding phase relationships and their implications for quantum mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum mechanics, particularly those exploring the nuances of phase in quantum state transformations and interference phenomena, may find this discussion relevant.

deneve
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
From the postulates of QM we know that any state |ψ> is the same as exp(iθ)|ψ>.

Ok so take the spin state of an electron in the x direction and expand in the z basis to get

|+x> = 1/sqrt2(|+> + |->)

= 1/sqrt2(|+> + exp(iθ) |->) using the above,

choosing theta =∏
|+x> =1/sqrt2(|+> +(-1)|->)
=1/sqrt2(|+> - |->)
=|-x>
which can't be right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not that [itex]|x\rangle[/itex] is actually equal to [itex]e^{i\theta}|x\rangle[/itex], its just that their magnitudes are the same. That is, if [itex]|y\rangle = e^{i\theta}|x\rangle[/itex], then [itex]\langle x|x\rangle = \langle y|y\rangle[/itex], because [itex]\langle y|y\rangle = \langle x e^{-i\theta}|e^{i\theta}x\rangle = \langle x| e^{i(\theta -\theta)}x\rangle = \langle x|x\rangle[/itex]. The reason people often say that the phase of a state doesn't matter is that all physically observable quantities are derived from the magnitude of the state only. So a complex rotation of a state does not have any physically observable consequences, but that doesn't mean that it's actually the same state.

So in your example, you are correct that [itex]|\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle \not= |\uparrow\rangle - |\downarrow\rangle[/itex], because you only rotated one of the component states. The magnitude will only be the same if you rotate all of the component states equally, that is [itex]e^{i\theta}(|\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle) = -(|\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle)[/itex].
 
But interference effects do depend on relative phases. These phases can be introduced in experiments like in the standard measurement ansatz below

Exp(iHt) |ψ_1>|a0> = exp(iθ_1)|ψ_1>|a_1>

Exp(iHt) |ψ_2>|a0> = exp(iθ_2)|ψ_2>|a_2>

Where the phases exp(iθ_i) are introduced (randomly?)by the experiment and the |a_i> are apparatus states that become correlated with the system states |ψ_i>. Thus for a superposition we would get:

Exp(iHt) |ψ_0>|a0> =Exp(iHt) [ |ψ_1>+|ψ_2>] |a0>
= exp(iθ_1)|ψ_1>|a_1> + exp(iθ_2)|ψ_2>|a_2>

This would have a density matrix with off diagonal terms which would indicate the ability of the state to show interference effects which do have measureable consequences. These interference effects show up when beams of electrons are combined in mach zender type experiments using Stern Gerlach devices. see attached doc on p2-18.
Sorry but I can't get the file to attach - keep getting upload errors. I have enclosed a word document with the argument though.

Many thanks to anyone who can answer this query.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
deneve said:
But interference effects do depend on relative phases.
And relative phases are physical, which means that you cannot choose them freely.
The only freedom you have is a rotation of your full state (QFT has some more freedom, but that is another story).

Where the phases exp(iθ_i) are introduced (randomly?)by the experiment
They are given by the setup of the experiment.
 
MFB,

Can you explain how the setup of the experiment determines the phases?
 
Well, for example look at a double-slit and a detector somewhere at a screen behind it.

You emit monochromatic photons from some source far away which can go through the double-slit. As the distances from the source to both slits are identical, the wave function arrives with the same phase at both. If a photon passes the slit, you can write it as superposition of two states, one for each slit. The initial phase for some t=0 is arbitrary, but you have to choose the same for both states. Now you can let these states evolve and look at the path to your detector: The phase there depends on the distance between detector and slit (it is the initial phase, shifted by -2pi*d/lambda with the distance d). The individual phases depend on your choice for the phase at the slits. The phase difference is fixed and given by the distance difference. Your amplitude just depends on this phase difference (and things like the slit width, which I ignored here).

That is not the usual way to look at double-slits, as just taking the length difference without fixing any light phases is much easier. But it is possible to do this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K