Qualitative Explanation of Density Operator

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the qualitative explanation of the density operator in quantum mechanics, specifically in the context of mixed states versus pure states. The density operator is essential for describing systems where classical probabilities do not apply, as seen in the transition from state vectors to operators. The key distinction lies in the representation of mixed states as positive operators of unit trace, which allows for the application of the Born Rule, E(O) = trace(OU). This approach clarifies the limitations of state vectors when dealing with mixed states.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles, particularly state vectors and operators.
  • Familiarity with the Born Rule and its application in quantum mechanics.
  • Knowledge of the differences between pure and mixed quantum states.
  • Basic grasp of linear algebra concepts as they apply to quantum states.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical formulation of the density operator in quantum mechanics.
  • Learn about the implications of mixed states on quantum measurements.
  • Explore advanced quantum mechanics textbooks that cover density operators in detail.
  • Investigate the role of positive operators and unit trace in quantum state representation.
USEFUL FOR

Graduate students in quantum mechanics, physicists exploring quantum state representations, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of density operators and their applications in quantum theory.

astrofunk21
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hey all!

I am prepping myself for a quantum course next semester at the graduate level. I am currently reading through the Cohen-Tannoudji Quantum Mechanics textbook. I have reached a section on the density operator and am confused about the general concept of the operator.

My confusion stems from the question, why can't we continue to state vectors to describe a system all the time. The textbook says that it leads to clumsy calculations if we apply weighting (pk) to a certain state (|ψk>) and sum over k.

In the pure case we can use both the density operator or state vector to describe the system. Yet with a mixed state we cannot. Where do these two methods diverge and the state vector method fails?

Maybe I am being blind, but this concept has seemed to stump me so far. Would appreciate a qualitative explanation to maybe sort this out.

I appreciate any help you guys give!

Textbook image: https://ibb.co/di6MO6
di6MO6
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because when we project a state vector in terms of its (observable) eigenstates: ##|\Psi\rangle = \sum_i a_i |\psi_i\rangle## the ##a_i##, as "components" in a vector space, do not necessarily have the properties required of classical probabilities (non-negative because they are relative frequencies).
 
Vector pure states, which is what you have been exposed to so far, do not depend on phase ie e^ix |u> is the same state. That means to uniquely define the state you need notation that removes the phase. This is done by switching to the operator |u><u| - change the phase and it doesn't change. Now let's suppose you have a set of states that could be any of |ui> with probability pi then you can represent this in the following way U = ∑pi |ui><ui|. This is called a mixed state and states have now changed to operators rather than vectors. They are positive operators of unit trace. The Born Rule then becomes the average of an observable O, E(O) = trace(OU).

Best IMHO, but beginner and some intermediate books, don't do this, but advanced book do, is to start from the definition of states as positive operators of unit trace - but for reasons best known to them they don't do that.

Thanks
Bill
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K