Undergrad Probability when measuring a local observable

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the probability of measuring a local observable using a density operator for pure states. The user presents an equation for the density operator and attempts to derive the probability expression but finds discrepancies in the results. They express uncertainty about their approach and seek guidance on aligning their findings with the original equation. A suggestion is made to start from the definition of the expectation value of an operator with respect to a density operator to clarify the calculations. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in quantum probability calculations.
Yan Campo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I need to show that the probability when measuring a local $$O^{a}$$ observable is $$Pr(o_{j}^{(a)})=Tr(\rho_{ab}(\ket{o_{j}^{(a)}}\bra{o_{j}^{(a)}}\otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}))$$
I have information that $$\rho_{ab}=\sum_{j}p_{j}\ket{\Psi_{j}^{ab}}\bra{\Psi_{j}^{ab}}$$ and $$Pr(o_{j}^{(a)}|\Psi_{ab})=Tr_{ab}(\ket{\Psi_{ab}}\bra{\Psi_{ab}}(\ket{o_{j}^{(a)}}\bra{o_{j}^{(a)}}\otimes \mathbb{I}_{2})) \text{.}$$
I started by representing the density operator for pure states, such that $$\rho = \ket{\Psi^{ab}}\bra{\Psi^{ab}}\text{.}$$
Substituting directly into the equation that was given for the probability I arrive at a result $$Pr(o_{j}^{(a)}|\Psi_{ab})=Tr_{ab}(\ket{\Psi_{j}^{ab}}\bra{\Psi_{j}^{ab}}(\ket{o_{j}^{(a)}}\bra{o_{j}^{(a)}}\otimes \mathbb{I}_{2}))\text{.}$$
I believe this is not right, as I have not found a way to make this equal to what was asked.
Any clue what should I do? Any help is welcome.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
How about starting from the definition of the expectation value of an operator given a density operator?
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K