Operators for measuring superposition component distinctnes?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of defining an operator that quantifies the "distinctness" of superposition components in quantum mechanics. Participants explore theoretical frameworks and implications, considering both the mathematical formulation and potential physical applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether an operator can be defined to yield a null result for identical superposition states while providing nonzero values for distinct states, suggesting a ranking based on distinctness.
  • Another participant emphasizes that superposition is tied to the preparation of physical systems and suggests that distinguishing between states may involve properties like charge or mass, which relate to potential energy.
  • A different participant discusses the concept of variance in quantum mechanics, noting that while variance can be derived from any operator, it may not serve as the operator in question. They clarify that variance pertains to measurement outcomes rather than superposition components.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the nature of eigenstates and observables, with a focus on the need for a measure of variation of superposition components rather than measurement outcomes.
  • One participant proposes a linear map in Hilbert space that could map superposition states to positive real-valued multiples of basis vectors, suggesting that this could serve as a measure of distinctness, despite being a non-Hermitian operator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature and definition of the operator in question, with no consensus reached on its existence or form. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the applicability and formulation of such an operator.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of distinctness and superposition, as well as the unresolved nature of the proposed operator's characteristics and its relationship to existing quantum mechanical principles.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K