A Question on Zeno time derivation

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mainframes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
Mainframes
Messages
17
Reaction score
3
Hi,

I'm trying to follow the derivation of the Zeno time from two sources and am struggling. I think I'm missing some sort of algebraic trick and any tips would be appreciated. A bit more detail below.

In the attached paper \citep{Facchi_2008}, the Zeno time (equation (6)) is derived from equation (4) and equation (5), but I don't see how.

1705786258003.png


In the second attached paper \citep{PhysRevA.89.042116}, the Zeno time is derived in equation (1.6) though I cannot even see how how equation (1.3) is derived (let alone the Zeno time).

1705786470408.png
REFERENCES

@article{Facchi_2008,
doi = {10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/493001},
url = {https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/41/49/493001},
year = {2008},
month = {oct},
publisher = {},
volume = {41},
number = {49},
pages = {493001},
author = {P Facchi and S Pascazio},
title = {Quantum Zeno dynamics: mathematical and physical aspects},
journal = {Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical},
}

@article{PhysRevA.89.042116,
title = {Classical limit of the quantum Zeno effect by environmental decoherence},
author = {Bedingham, D. and Halliwell, J. J.},
journal = {Phys. Rev. A},
volume = {89},
issue = {4},
pages = {042116},
numpages = {17},
year = {2014},
month = {Apr},
publisher = {American Physical Society},
doi = {10.1103/PhysRevA.89.042116},
url = {https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.89.042116}
}
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Hint: ##P## and ##Q## are projectors, i.e. ##P^2=P##, ##Q^2=Q##, ##PQ=QP=0##.
 
Demystifier said:
Hint: ##P## and ##Q## are projectors, i.e. ##P^2=P##, ##Q^2=Q##, ##PQ=QP=0##.

Thank you very much for your reply. I did try using those relationships (and I understand why they are true), however, I still could not get the algebra to work.

Furthermore, in equation (1.3) of the below extract frrom \citep{PhysRevA.89.042116}, I cannot even see how the ##\epsilon^2## term on the RHS of the equation (1.3) is possible. The reason for this is that I believe any ##\epsilon^2## term on the LHS would be of the form ##\frac{\epsilon^2}{\hbar^2}##.

This, together with my inability to get the algebra to match, led me to believe I am missing something else fundamental.
1705827783054.png
 
Mainframes said:
Thank you very much for your reply. I did try using those relationships (and I understand why they are true), however, I still could not get the algebra to work.
First observe that from ##P=|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0|## we have
$$P|\psi_0\rangle = |\psi_0\rangle , \;\;\; Q|\psi_0\rangle = 0.$$
The goal is to compute
$$\tau_Z^{-2} = \langle\psi_0|H^2| \psi_0\rangle - \langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle^2.$$
The second term is proportional to
$$\langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle^2=
\langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle \langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle
= \langle\psi_0|HPH| \psi_0\rangle ,$$
while the first term is
$$\langle\psi_0|H^2| \psi_0\rangle = \langle\psi_0| PH(Q+P)HP | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| PHQHP | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| PHPHP | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| PHQQHP | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| HPH | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| H_{int}^2 | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| H | \psi_0\rangle^2 .$$
Combining all this we get
$$\tau_Z^{-2} = \langle\psi_0| H_{int}^2 | \psi_0\rangle$$
which is Eq. (6).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost and Nugatory
Demystifier said:
First observe that from ##P=|\psi_0\rangle\langle\psi_0|## we have
$$P|\psi_0\rangle = |\psi_0\rangle , \;\;\; Q|\psi_0\rangle = 0.$$
The goal is to compute
$$\tau_Z^{-2} = \langle\psi_0|H^2| \psi_0\rangle - \langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle^2.$$
The second term is proportional to
$$\langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle^2=
\langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle \langle\psi_0|H| \psi_0\rangle
= \langle\psi_0|HPH| \psi_0\rangle ,$$
while the first terms is
$$\langle\psi_0|H^2| \psi_0\rangle = \langle\psi_0| PH(Q+P)HP | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| PHQHP | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| PHPHP | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| PHQQHP | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| HPH | \psi_0\rangle$$
$$=\langle\psi_0| H_{int}^2 | \psi_0\rangle + \langle\psi_0| H | \psi_0\rangle^2 .$$
Combining all this we get
$$\tau_Z^{-2} = \langle\psi_0| H_{int}^2 | \psi_0\rangle$$
which is Eq. (6).
This is brilliant. Thank you so much for this (it has certainly Demystified the result to me)
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I asked a question related to a table levitating but I am going to try to be specific about my question after one of the forum mentors stated I should make my question more specific (although I'm still not sure why one couldn't have asked if a table levitating is possible according to physics). Specifically, I am interested in knowing how much justification we have for an extreme low probability thermal fluctuation that results in a "miraculous" event compared to, say, a dice roll. Does a...
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

Similar threads

Back
Top