Phase factors with eigenstates

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between phase factors and eigenstates in quantum mechanics, particularly in the context of decoherence. The original poster seeks to clarify how the complex coefficients of eigenstates in a superposition contribute to relative phase differences that lead to observable interference patterns. Participants emphasize that the relative phase is derived from the coefficients, and they suggest using mathematical definitions and examples to illustrate this concept. The conversation also touches on the importance of coherent phase relationships among component eigenstates for achieving superposition. Overall, the thread highlights the need for a clearer understanding of how phase factors influence quantum behavior.
Hazzattack
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, I'm currently writing a document about decoherence and I'm trying to make a point about phase factors and how they are altered by an interaction with a surrounding environment. However, i don't want to only state this, i want to show it through basic QM. Is it possible to say the following;

If we represent a superposition state the following way;

\varphi_{s} = \Sigma_{n}\alpha_{n}^{*}\varphi_{n}

and since each component basis eigenstate has an associated complex coefficient, this can be written;

\alpha^{*} = x+ iy = re^iphi

I'm basically trying to show how each component eigenstate (that makes up the superposition state) have a relative phase and when this is coherent we observe interference patterns etc.

If anyone could help with any pointers to make this more clear it would be very much appreciated.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I thought people usually demonstrated interference when they calculated the probability density and noted the cross term which comes out.
 
Yep, that's true. I'm probably not making myself clear. In order to obtain a superposition all the component eigenstates (that make up that superposition state) but have a coherent phase relationship. I just want to show where that phase comes from (i.e the coefficient).
 
I always thought it was is the component eigenstates not in the coefficients.
 
This is what is confusing me. So if we were to assume that this particular superposition was made of three component basis eigenstates such that;

\varphi_{s} = \alpha_{1}\varphi_{1} + \alpha_{2}\varphi_{2} + \alpha_{3}\varphi_{3}

is the relative phase factor (between each of the components) in the \varphi_{3} part (for example)?

I would have thought that it was in the complex coefficient and since this can be re-written in terms of euler's identity you impose a relative phase factor where phi would be the same for each component (when its coherent). However, this principle kind of works for what you are saying also i guess.

If anyone could give me a mathematical definition (by example) that would be very useful.
 
If A and B are the components, would the relative phase not just be just be log (A/B)/i. ?
 
Hazzattack said:
I'm basically trying to show how each component eigenstate (that makes up the superposition state) have a relative phase and when this is coherent we observe interference patterns etc.

How is trivial - its because pure states form a complex vector space.

Hazzattack said:
I just want to show where that phase comes from (i.e the coefficient).

Why is another matter - but still answerable - check out:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

I suspect what you are really after is a simple way to look at decoherencre. The following may help:
http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_decoherence.asp

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a lot for the response. I believe this is what i was trying to say;

'In other words, if the amplitude for some measurement outcome is α = β + γi, where β and γ are real, then the probability of seeing the outcome is |α|2 = β2 + γ2.'

α being the co-efficient corresponding to a component eigenstate. Thus, it makes sense that this has a relative phase as it can be represented using eulers.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
874
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K