Quantum states and representation freedom

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of quantum states, the nature of operators and their eigenstates, and the distinctions between pure and mixed states in quantum mechanics. Participants explore theoretical concepts, definitions, and interpretations related to quantum states, operators, and the implications of different quantization processes.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that a quantum state |A> can be represented using any basis of eigenvectors, while others clarify that this applies specifically to eigenvectors of self-adjoint operators.
  • There is a suggestion that some operators may have only one eigenstate or none, but this leads to a discussion on the implications for self-adjointness and observables.
  • Participants discuss the angular momentum operator, noting its countably infinite eigenvalues and eigenstates, and the differences in representation depending on the Hilbert space context.
  • The distinction between pure and mixed states is debated, with some participants emphasizing that pure states retain interference information while mixed states do not.
  • One participant argues against the notion that states are elements of a vector space, suggesting that this is a misunderstanding, while others challenge this view and discuss its implications for interpretations like Many-Worlds.
  • There is a discussion on the historical terminology of first and second quantization, with some participants noting that this language is less common in contemporary discussions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of quantum states, the interpretation of mixed versus pure states, and the implications of these interpretations for quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on whether states should be viewed as elements of a vector space or as positive operators, and the discussion remains unresolved on several key points.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of the Hilbert space context when discussing operators and their eigenstates. The discussion also touches on the implications of decoherence and the Many-Worlds interpretation, indicating that terminology and foundational assumptions may vary among participants.

  • #31
I think the following will help you:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-born-rule-in-many-worlds.763139/page-7

See post 137.

Basically the operators are the key thing - the implications for the underlying vector space and the Born Rule follows (basically - there are some subtleties) from that.

There is a strong link between those operators and symmetry that is explored in the following:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3319192000/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Let's go through step by step. The rough picture is correct, but there are important subtleties missing.

fog37 said:
Thanks dextercioby.

Let me summarize what I think I know so you don't have to repeat yourself:
  • Every observable (position, momentum, angular momentum, energy, spin, etc. did I forget any?) is represented by a Hermitian linear operator in quantum mechanics. The operator's spectrum can be continuous, discrete or hybrid depending on the type of spatial domain over which the system exists and the forces involved.
Hermitecity is not sufficient, it must be an essentially self-adjoint operator, i.e., the operator must be defined on a dense subspace of Hilbert space. In general this subspace is a proper subspace of the Hilbert space, and it's co-domain must be also in this subspace, i.e., if ##|\psi \rangle## is in the domain of the operator ##\hat{A}##, representing an observable, also ##\hat{A} |\psi \rangle## should be in this subspace.

A generic abstract state of a system is given by ##| \Psi>## is a state vector that can be expressed as a weighted superposition of eigenstates of a certain operator. That means that we can represent ##| \Psi>## in many different ways according to the operator and its associated basis. But the basis of eigenvectors of each different operator is associated to different linear vector spaces... So in which vector Hilbert space does ##| \Psi>## live in? Is there a different ##| \Psi>## for each different vector space associated to each different operator? For instance, the spin operator has a basis of only two eigenvectors (2-dimensional) while the energy basis generally contains an infinity (discrete or continuous) of eigenvectors. It does not seem possible to represent the same state ##| \Psi>## that is superposition of many energy eigenstates using only two spin eigenstates.
A pure state is not represented by ##|\Psi \rangle## itself but the entire ray defined by this Hilbert-space vector. That's important since it enables us to describe, e.g., particles with half-integer spin, and the surrounding matter around us is made up of such particles (quarks and leptons).

The most general description, valid for both pure and mixed states, is the statistical operator. A state is pure if and only if the representing statistical operator is a projection operator, ##\hat{\rho}=|\Psi \rangle \langle \Psi |## with a normalized Hilbert-space vector ##|\Psi \rangle##.

b) What about a "total" vector state ##| \Psi>## that contains information about all the observables?
Is don't know what you mean by that. The state vector contains of course probabilistic information about all possible observables through Born's rule, i.e., if ##\hat{A}## represents the observable ##A## and if ##|a,\beta \rangle## denotes all (generalized) eigenvectors of ##\hat{A}## with eigenvalue ##a## (which is a possible value when this observable is measured), then the probability (distribution) to measure this value ##a## if the system is prepared in a state represented by ##|\Psi \rangle##
$$P(a)=\sum_{\beta} |\langle a,\beta|\Psi \rangle|^2.$$
Of course ##\beta## can also be in a continuous set, and then the sum over ##\beta## becomes and integral (or you can have the case that ##\beta## takes both discrete and continuous values, in which case you have both a sum and an integral).

c) In the particle in the box example, spin is not considered. Only the energy and position observables are discussed. Why? The particle trapped in the box could be an electron which has a nonzero spin.
There's nothing that hinders you to consider also spin. In the non-relativistic case, it's just another label on the eigenstates, i.e., for an electron ##\sigma_z=\pm 1/2## in addition to energy (there's no momentum observable in this case, BTW!).

d) Based on what said above, how does the tensor product between two (or more?) linear vector spaces fit it? Is it used when the total wavefunction is expressed in terms of eigenvectors that include multiple observables? In this thread, it was said that spin is an additional degree of freedom. Aren't position, momentum, energy, etc. also degrees of freedom?

Let me stop here. Thank you for any help.
Yes, if you have a composite system the Hilbert space of this system is the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the composites. Formally, if you have a single particle with spin ##s##, a generalized basis is the momentum-spin basis, ##|\vec{p},\sigma_z \rangle##, where ##\vec{p} \in \mathbb{R}^3## and ##\sigma_z \in \{-s,-s+1,\ldots,s-1,s \}##. Formally you can build up this basis as a tensor product
$$|\vec{p},\sigma_z \rangle=|p_x \rangle \otimes |p_y \rangle \otimes |p_x \rangle \otimes \sigma_z \rangle.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K