On the interpretation of a correlator with different definite states

Israel.cma
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone, I was reading Ashos Das book on field theory, chapter 4.3, and I had this question.

This expression:

\begin{equation} \left< \psi_f | \psi_i \right> \end{equation}

is the transition amplitude of two states.

This expression:

\begin{equation} \frac{ \left< \psi|T(U_1...U_n)|\psi \right>}{\left< \psi | \psi \right>} =\left< T(U_1...U_n) \right> \end{equation}

is the expectation value of the operators U when used in that state (for example, the ground state).

But what does it would mean?

\begin{equation} \frac{ \left< \psi_f|T(U_1...U_n)|\psi_i \right>}{\left< \psi_f | \psi_i \right>} \end{equation}

I though that maybe is the expectation value of the operators U IF after the measure the state changes from the state 1 to the state 2.

Does anyone have seen that formula in another books or knows that does it means?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general,
$$\frac{ \left< \psi_f|A|\psi_i \right>}{\left< \psi_f | \psi_i \right>}$$
is a weak value of the operator ##A##. For more details see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_value

I answered this old question because it was suggested by PF as an unanswered thread and because I believe it may be interest to many readers here, even if the OP is not active any more.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top