B Can the probabilities of state vectors |r⟩ and |i⟩ be determined from |ψ⟩?

hongseok
Messages
20
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
∣r⟩,∣l⟩,∣i⟩, and ∣o⟩ can all be expressed as expressions for ∣u⟩ and ∣d⟩. So, given the state vector ∣ψ⟩ = α∣u⟩ + β∣d⟩, is it possible to know not only the probability of ∣u⟩ but also the probability of ∣r⟩ and ∣i⟩? ∣ψ⟩ can be expressed as an expression for ∣r⟩, ∣l⟩ or ∣i⟩, ∣o⟩.
∣r⟩,∣l⟩,∣i⟩, and ∣o⟩ can all be expressed as expressions for ∣u⟩ and ∣d⟩. So, given the state vector ∣ψ⟩ = α∣u⟩ + β∣d⟩, is it possible to know not only the probability of ∣u⟩ but also the probability of ∣r⟩ and ∣i⟩? ∣ψ⟩ can be expressed as an expression for ∣r⟩, ∣l⟩ or ∣i⟩, ∣o⟩.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hongseok said:
So, given the state vector ∣ψ⟩ = α∣u⟩ + β∣d⟩, is it possible to know not only the probability of ∣u⟩ but also the probability of ∣r⟩ and ∣i⟩? ∣ψ⟩ can be expressed as an expression for ∣r⟩, ∣l⟩ or ∣i⟩, ∣o⟩.
You haven't said what any if any observable corresponds to any of these vectors, so all we can give you is the general answer:
If we can write $$|\psi\rangle=\alpha_1|A_1\rangle+\alpha_2|A_2\rangle=\beta_1|B_1\rangle+\beta_2|B_2\rangle$$ where ##|A_1\rangle## and ##|A_2\rangle## are orthogonal eigenvectors of the Hermitian operator ##\hat{A}## and likewise for ##|B_1\rangle## and ##|B_2\rangle## and the observable ##\hat{B}## then ...

Yes, we know the probability of getting any of these four possible results if we were to perform the measurement. The catch is that if ##\hat{A}## and ##\hat{B}## do not commute we only get to measure one of them.
 
hongseok said:
TL;DR Summary: ∣r⟩,∣l⟩,∣i⟩, and ∣o⟩ can all be expressed as expressions for ∣u⟩ and ∣d⟩. So, given the state vector ∣ψ⟩ = α∣u⟩ + β∣d⟩, is it possible to know not only the probability of ∣u⟩ but also the probability of ∣r⟩ and ∣i⟩? ∣ψ⟩ can be expressed as an expression for ∣r⟩, ∣l⟩ or ∣i⟩, ∣o⟩.

∣r⟩,∣l⟩,∣i⟩, and ∣o⟩ can all be expressed as expressions for ∣u⟩ and ∣d⟩. So, given the state vector ∣ψ⟩ = α∣u⟩ + β∣d⟩, is it possible to know not only the probability of ∣u⟩ but also the probability of ∣r⟩ and ∣i⟩? ∣ψ⟩ can be expressed as an expression for ∣r⟩, ∣l⟩ or ∣i⟩, ∣o⟩.
The probability that the state is |r> in observation is
|<r|\psi>|^2=|\alpha<r|u>+\beta<r|d>|^2
in condition that all these bras and kets are normalized.
 
Last edited:
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...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top