Quantum Mechanics pure/unpure states

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the decomposition of nonpure state operators in quantum mechanics, specifically how they can be expressed as mixtures of pure states in infinitely many ways. The original poster seeks to construct an example involving a continuous parameter to illustrate this concept.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the idea of defining state operators that depend on continuous parameters, with some suggesting specific forms of operators and others questioning the implications of phase manipulation on the states.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of how to construct examples that meet the problem's requirements. Some participants provide insights into the nature of eigenvectors and their dependence on parameters, while others reflect on the relevance of their previous comments and the implications of phase factors on state representation.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of quantum state representations and the nuances of phase factors, with some uncertainty about the specific requirements of the problem and the nature of the examples needed.

kreil
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
665
Reaction score
68

Homework Statement


It is shown in the following two equations that any nonpure state operator can be decomposed into a mixture of pure states in at least two ways. Show, by constructing an example depending on a continuous parameter, that this can be done in infinitely many ways.

Homework Equations


[tex]\rho_a = a |u><u| + (1-a)|v><v|[/tex]..(1)

If we now define the two vectors,
[tex]|x> = \sqrt{a} |u> + \sqrt{1-a}|v>[/tex]
[tex]|y> = \sqrt{a} |u> - \sqrt{1-a}|v>[/tex]

Then rho can also be written

[tex]\rho_a = \frac{1}{2} |x><x| + \frac{1}{2} |y><y|[/tex]..(2)

The Attempt at a Solution



Can someone give me an example of a state operator that depends on a continuous parameter? Is it as simple as [itex]\hat w |w> = w |w>[/itex], or are they looking for something like [itex]\hat w |w> = e^{i \theta} |w>[/itex]? Also any hints would be appreciated. I'm sure the problem is simple I'm just having a hard time getting started.

Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let [tex]\bf{n}[/tex] be a unit vector in 3d. In 2-dimensional space let [tex]|\bf{n}>[/tex] be the eigenvector of [tex]\sigma ({\bf n})=n_x\sigma_x+n_y\sigma_y+n_z\sigma_z[/tex] to the eigenvalue +1. Now [tex]|{\bf n}>[/tex] depends on two continuous parameters defining a direction in [tex]{\bf R}^3[/tex].
That is more than you need. But, in fact, once you master this fact, you will be able to use it for solving your problem.
 
arkajad said:
Let [tex]\bf{n}[/tex] be a unit vector in 3d. In 2-dimensional space let [tex]|\bf{n}>[/tex] be the eigenvector of [tex]\sigma ({\bf n})=n_x\sigma_x+n_y\sigma_y+n_z\sigma_z[/tex] to the eigenvalue +1. Now [tex]|{\bf n}>[/tex] depends on two continuous parameters defining a direction in [tex]{\bf R}^3[/tex].

This makes sense to me; I'm just not sure how to implement it in relation to the problem. Am I looking to define an infinitely large set of vectors?
 
After reading again the formulation of your problem, I think I misunderstood it. Perhaps the point is to construct not any example but to construct an example using the original density matrix of the problem. Then my previous comment was irrelevant.

What will be the result if you manipulate the phase of one of the terms:

[tex]|x>_\theta = \sqrt{a}|u>+e^{i\theta}\sqrt{1-a}|v>[/tex]

[tex]|y>_\theta = ...[/tex]
 
Clearly that leaves the outer product unchanged..do you think it is sufficient to say that since theta can vary that constitutes an infinite set of pure states?
 
It should be sufficient provided you understand clearly why

[tex]|x>_\theta = e^{i\theta}\sqrt{a}|u>+e^{i\theta}\sqrt{1-a}|v>[/tex]
...

though also good, would not be a solution of your problem.
[tex][/tex]
 
I believe it is because "global" phase factors represent the same state (i.e. Multiplying a state by a constant doesn't change the state, but only doing so to one term does)
 
Indeed, and that was the point.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K