How Does Phase Affect Quantum State Transformations and Interference Patterns?

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

This discussion focuses on the impact of phase on quantum state transformations and interference patterns, specifically in the context of quantum mechanics (QM). The participants analyze the spin state of an electron and its representation in different bases, highlighting that while the magnitude of states remains invariant under phase changes, the relative phases are crucial for observable interference effects. They emphasize that interference patterns depend on the setup of experiments, such as double-slit experiments, where the phase differences are determined by the distances involved. The conclusion is that while individual phases can be manipulated, the relative phases are fixed by experimental conditions and are essential for observable phenomena.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly state representation.
  • Familiarity with quantum state notation, such as |ψ>, |+>, and |->.
  • Knowledge of interference phenomena in quantum systems.
  • Basic grasp of experimental setups in quantum mechanics, such as double-slit experiments.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of phase in quantum mechanics through "Quantum Mechanics: Concepts and Applications" by Nouredine Zettili.
  • Research the mathematical framework of quantum state transformations, focusing on "Quantum State Tomography".
  • Investigate the role of relative phases in interference patterns using "Quantum Interference and Coherence" resources.
  • Examine experimental setups that demonstrate quantum interference, particularly "Double-Slit Experiment" methodologies.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, experimental physicists, and students of quantum mechanics seeking to deepen their understanding of phase effects in quantum state transformations and their implications for interference patterns.

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 |x\rangle is actually equal to e^{i\theta}|x\rangle, its just that their magnitudes are the same. That is, if |y\rangle = e^{i\theta}|x\rangle, then \langle x|x\rangle = \langle y|y\rangle, because \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. 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 |\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle \not= |\uparrow\rangle - |\downarrow\rangle, 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 e^{i\theta}(|\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle) = -(|\uparrow\rangle + |\downarrow\rangle).
 
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
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · 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