Operators for measuring superposition component distinctnes?

Agrippa
Messages
77
Reaction score
10
Hello,

I'm wondering, is it possible to define an operator that gives information about the "distinctness" of superposition components?

As a simple example, imagine that we have two particles. Let |3> designate the state in which they are 3 meters apart, let |5> designate the state in which they are 5 meters apart, and |7> for seven metres apart. Now imagine the three possible states:

(s1) a|3> + b|3> = |3>
(s2) a|3> + b|5>
(s3) a|3> + b|7>

Where a and b are amplitudes such that |a|2+|b|2=1.
Is it possible to define an operator that gives a null result for s1 (no distinctness) while giving nonzero values for s2 and s3 and ranking them so that s3 gets a higher value (more distinct?)?

If there are real quantum mechanical applications for such operators I would be very interested to learn of them. If there are no known applications even though they are nonetheless in principle definable, then I would still be very interested.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's not an expression. It's a physical entity.

Superposition = information based on preparation.
Thus, you have presented us three different preparations, three different physical systems.
Surely there must be a way to tell them apart.

If those are systems where "internal space/distance" of meter scale plays a role, then they must have... charge? (Or mass). This, with distance, translates to some potential energy...
 
Last edited:
Agrippa said:
If there are real quantum mechanical applications for such operators I would be very interested to learn of them. If there are no known applications even though they are nonetheless in principle definable, then I would still be very interested.

The variance can be derived from any operator, although I don't think its an operator itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

If its zero then that state will always give that outcome if observed.

Its used in the general proof of the uncertainty principle.

Thanks
Bill
 
bhobba said:
The variance can be derived from any operator, although I don't think its an operator itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics
If its zero then that state will always give that outcome if observed.
QM variance refers to variation in possible measurement outcomes for specific observable given specific state.
So if state is |Ψ> and |Ψ> is an eigenstate of observable O then variance [<Ψ|O2|Ψ> - (<Ψ|O|Ψ>)2] = zero; meaning no variance.
If instead state is noneigenstate of O and O is two-valued (e.g. spin observable) then variance = one; meaning (I think) one variation i.e. two possible outcomes.

That's not quite what I'm after.
I'm not looking for a measure of the variation of possible measurement outcomes given state and observable.
I'm looking for a measure of the variation of superposition components given a state and a basis (which defines those components).

I think what will do the trick is a linear map in the Hilbert space that maps the vectors mentioned above (s1, s2, s3, etc.) to positive real-valued multiples of the basis vectors (of which |3>, |5>, |7> are examples). Those vectors are eigenvectors whose eigenvalues measure the relevant variance. For example, s1 will get mapped to a basis vector with eigenvalue 0, s2 will get mapped to a basis vector with eigenvalue 2 etc. (I think only one basis vector V need be used here, since the ray along which it lies (its 1D subspace) will contain all the desired values. )

This will be a non-hermitian operator: eigenvectors of a Hermitian operator (that don't share the same eigenvalue) are all mutually orthogonal. This does not hold for my operator. But such a non-Hermitian operator is still a well-defined operator (I think).

bhobba said:
Its used in the general proof of the uncertainty principle.
The link was helpful but I couldn't find discussion of use of variance to derive uncertainty principle.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top