I Question for large quantum system

JasonWuzHear
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
I'm trying to understand the concept of uncertainty in relation to derivatives for a large quantum system, i.e. one with many degrees of freedom.

When is it true that σE/σt ~ dE/dt? ---- 'σ' is the uncertainty

First, I know there is no time operator in quantum mechanics. I'm not sure how to work around that, perhaps we could try the question with momentum and position. The point is, for a large quantum system, can I approximate the rate of change of energy with the uncertainty of energy divided by the uncertainty of its age?I've tried unconventional methods to answer the question. First using an assumption that:

i/ħ d2/dt2 ψ = dE/dt ψ

then trying to compare it to the uncertainty calculation assumed as follows:

(σE)2 = (∫ ψ*Eψ dt)2 - ∫ ψ* E2 ψ dt

Which gives equal results for a Gaussian wave function. But I'm not sure how to go about this question in a more conventional way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JasonWuzHear said:
When is it true that σE/σt ~ dE/dt? ---- 'σ' is the uncertainty

Why do you think this should be true at all?
 
PeterDonis said:
Why do you think this should be true at all?

I was thinking of a couple reasons why it might be true.

For one, there is the Griffith's proof that Exact decoherence implies conservation of quantities that commute with the Hamiltonian. Exact decoherence in energy states is not different than saying the quantum uncertainty in energy is zero (there can still be some classical probabilities). This leads to the idea that when

dE/dt = 0 ⇒ σE = 0

which means that

σE/σt = 0 for σt ≠ 0

Additionally, if we take the momentum operator, P

if σP = 0, then
(P) (P) Ψ Ψ = (PΨ)2
and
σP/σx = 0 for σx ≠ 0

the particle is not influenced by a potential in this scenario, and momentum is conserved through space translations

dP/dx = 0

So it at least seems true to me for when the system conserves energy.

You can define the uncertainty as the average deviation from the mean value when the system collapses in that basis. If you take a system, periodically measure its energy with a period, T, and allow it to grow in energy uncertainty, σE, in between measurements, then the change in energy over time on average will be:

<dE/dt> = σE/T

I feel like there ought to be some relationship between T and t relating to the success of the measurement. If σt is much larger than σT, then the measurement is less likely to succeed. The larger your T, the larger σE can grow. This makes me want to multiply the thing above by (T σT)/(σt) if the probability of measurement success, Ps, is proportional to σT/σt which gives

σE = ("σE")T the energy uncertainty in quotes is some value not dependent on T
Ps ∝ σT/σt
<dE/dt> ∝ "σE"σT/σtThat's all I've got so far
 
Last edited:
JasonWuzHear said:
Griffith's proof that Exact decoherence in energy states is not different than saying the quantum uncertainty in energy is zero

Are you referring to the proof discussed in section 2 of this paper?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9410006.pdf
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top