Non disturbing (?) measurement

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measurement
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of measurements in quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on the distinction between ideal and non-ideal measurements in the context of a spin 1/2 system. Participants explore the implications of different measurement operators and the physical interpretations of measurement outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that for the operator A=\mathbb{I}, the final state Y may equal the initial state X, while others argue that the eigenspace for the eigenvalue 1 encompasses the entire R^2, leading to a normalized eigenvector dependent on a polar angle φ.
  • One participant asserts that an ideal measurement is defined as one where the final state is exactly the same as the initial state, while a non-ideal measurement involves additional complexities due to degeneracy and the need for a unitary operator that varies with the experimental setup.
  • Another participant questions whether a measurement can be considered ideal if the outcome is not forced, suggesting that the nature of the measurement setup plays a crucial role in determining this.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of unitary operations on the measurement process, noting that different unitary evolutions can lead to different interpretations of whether a measurement is ideal or not.
  • There is a discussion about how the hermitean operator does not uniquely determine the unitary evolution of the measurement apparatus unless it is specified to be ideal, leading to different possible outcomes based on the measurement setup.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on what constitutes an ideal measurement, with no consensus reached on whether certain measurement outcomes can be classified as ideal or non-ideal. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of unitary operations and the definitions of ideal measurements.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of ideal and non-ideal measurements, as well as the unresolved nature of how different unitary operations affect the measurement outcomes.

A or B ?

  • A

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • B

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
kleinwolf
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
Let's take a spin 1/2 system, and the trivial operator : [tex]A=\mathbb{I}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\right)[/tex].
Suppose X=(1,0) is the initial state before the measurement. Question :
A) Is the final state Y=X, for obvious reasons.
B)The eigenspace for the eigenvalue 1 of A is the whole R^2. A particular normalized eigenvector is parametrized by a polar angle and given by : [tex]Y=(\cos(\phi),\sin(\phi))[/tex]. Y is the endstate of this particular measurement, and [tex]p(Endstate=Y)=|\langle X|Y\rangle|^2=\cos(\phi)^2[/tex].
Is A or B the correct answer ?
Remarks :
1) A is a particular case of B
2) How do you interprete [tex]\phi[/tex] physically in the context of quantum-mechanics ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An ideal measurement gives you BY DEFINITION, A. Otherwise, the measurement is called non-ideal. A non-ideal measurement is not entirely determined by its hermitean operator if there is degeneracy. A non-ideal measurement can be seen as an ideal measurement followed by a unitary operator ; it is necessary to specify the unitary operator (which depends on the precise experimental setup). In your case, it is determined by phi.



kleinwolf said:
Let's take a spin 1/2 system, and the trivial operator : [tex]A=\mathbb{I}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0\\0 & 1\end{array}\right)[/tex].
Suppose X=(1,0) is the initial state before the measurement. Question :
A) Is the final state Y=X, for obvious reasons.
B)The eigenspace for the eigenvalue 1 of A is the whole R^2. A particular normalized eigenvector is parametrized by a polar angle and given by : [tex]Y=(\cos(\phi),\sin(\phi))[/tex]. Y is the endstate of this particular measurement, and [tex]p(Endstate=Y)=|\langle X|Y\rangle|^2=\cos(\phi)^2[/tex].
Is A or B the correct answer ?
Remarks :
1) A is a particular case of B
2) How do you interprete [tex]\phi[/tex] physically in the context of quantum-mechanics ?
 
So if I have the operator A=diag(1,1,-1)...I measure x=1/sqrt(2)*(1,0,1)...so that if the result is -1 the measurement is forcedly ideal, where as for 1 not forcedly...so is generally speaking (with taking into account prob. of outcomes) the measurement ideal or not ?
 
kleinwolf said:
So if I have the operator A=diag(1,1,-1)...I measure x=1/sqrt(2)*(1,0,1)...so that if the result is -1 the measurement is forcedly ideal, where as for 1 not forcedly...so is generally speaking (with taking into account prob. of outcomes) the measurement ideal or not ?

It really depends upon the measurement setup. For instance, as I'm an MWI-er, I don't believe that there is such a thing as collapse, and that the entire unitary evolution corresponding to the physical interactions in the measurement apparatus will determine "pointer states" that correspond to the eigenvectors of the hermitean operator that we associate with a measurement apparatus. As such, it is then rather clear, from that unitary evolution (which is determined by the physics of the measurement apparatus) whether the initial system states get through "unharmed" or whether they get some unitary rotation - in other words, whether my apparatus corresponds to an ideal measurement or not.
But of course in the case that there is only ONE initial state corresponding to a pointer state (non-degenerate case) there's not much choice for a unitary evolution, so in that case the apparatus will be ideal in all cases.
 
whether the initial system states get through "unharmed" or whether they get some unitary rotation - in other words, whether my apparatus corresponds to an ideal measurement or not.

the problem with this, is that with the operator A=diag(1,1,-1) and x=1/sqrt(2)(1,0,1) is that there are two kind of unitary operations :

-1) it "collapses" (I know you don't like that word) to the eigenvector corresp. to -1, but the measurement still is ideal

+1)

a) it collapses to y=(1,0,0) and is ideal (at least I suppose from your previous messages)

b) it collapses to y=(cos(phi),sin(phi),0) and there exists phi for which it is not ideal...

How do you make the difference between the two unitary operations that determine if the measurement is ideal or not ?
 
kleinwolf said:
the problem with this, is that with the operator A=diag(1,1,-1) and x=1/sqrt(2)(1,0,1) is that there are two kind of unitary operations :

-1) it "collapses" (I know you don't like that word) to the eigenvector corresp. to -1, but the measurement still is ideal

+1)

a) it collapses to y=(1,0,0) and is ideal (at least I suppose from your previous messages)

b) it collapses to y=(cos(phi),sin(phi),0) and there exists phi for which it is not ideal...

How do you make the difference between the two unitary operations that determine if the measurement is ideal or not ?


Well, consider the three state system of your example, with states |1>,
|2> and |3> (so (1,0,0) ; (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) in the basis you use).

Let us consider the two pointer states |psi1> and |psi2> corresponding to the two outcomes of the measurement. Let us call |psi0> the state of the measurement apparatus before the measurement.

If my measurement apparatus corresponds to U1, with U1:

|psi0> |1> ==> |psi1> |1>
|psi0> |2> ==> |psi1> |2>
|psi0> |3> ==> |psi2> |3>

then the measurement apparatus will give you an ideal measurement.

However, the physics of my measurement apparatus could be different, and it could correspond to an operator U2:

|psi0> |1> ==> |psi1> (cos th |1> + sin th |2>)
|psi0> |2> ==> |psi1> (-sin th |1> + cos th |2>)
|psi0> |3> ==> |psi2> |3>

That would be your other case. In both cases, the measurement apparatus corresponds to the hermitean operator you cited, but the second kind of apparatus is not an "ideal measurement" apparatus.

The reason is that the hermitean operator determines not uniquely the unitary evolution of the measurement apparatus, unless you ALSO specify that it is "ideal". The reason is that the hermitean operator is made up of 2 things:
A) The projection operators on the eigenspaces that correspond to the POINTER states ; in this case:
space 1 corresponds to the pointer state |psi1> which is reached from states |1> and |2>, so the projector projects upon the space spanned by |1> and |2> ==> P1

space 2 corresponds to the pointer state |psi2> which is reached from state |3>, so the projector P2 projects onto the space generated by P2.

B) the "measurement values" we assign to these pointer states (the values on the display), say m1 and m2.

The hermitean operator of the measurement is then simply:

m1 P1 + m2 P2

Clearly, what happens to the state of the system is not included in that description, and both U1 and U2 give rise to the same hermitean operator.
But if on top of that you require a measurement to be *ideal* so that the corresponding state that goes with the pointer state |psi1> is the projector P1 applied to the state of the system, THEN the unitary operator that goes with it IS uniquely determined from the Hermitean operator.

cheers,
Patrick.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K