A Reasonable measurement of both coordinate and momentum?

MichPod
Messages
231
Reaction score
46
Can a reasonable observable operator be defined which measures a two-component observable, first component for the approximate coordinate and the second for the approximate momentum (so that the precision of each measurement do not contradict Heisenberg inequality)?

I am actually thinking of how to define formally a problem of measuring of the particle speed inside a barrier (for quantum tunneling effect), i.e. can we reasonably ask what is the momentum of the particle inside the barrier? We, of course, can ask what is the average momentum or a momentum distribution, but what about asking what is the momentum IF the particle COULD BE found in some region? Can this sort of problems be reasonably interpreted in the terms of QM?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could make a Fourier transformation of "particle wavefunction in space but limited to the box" and consider this as momentum distribution for the particle in the box. I'm not sure how meaningful that would be, however.
 
There are POVMs for the simultaneous (and inaccurate) measurement of position and momentum.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and dextercioby
A. Neumaier said:
There are POVMs for the simultaneous (and inaccurate) measurement of position and momentum.

A POVM is a generalization of the normal measurements you learned about in your QM textbooks. Physically it comes about from using a probe to observe a system then observing the probe, but these days is often taken as the fundamental kind of observation in QM. The important Gleason's theorem, which has a reputation as hard to prove, is much easier using POVM's than the normal Von-Neumann measurements, for example.

See:
http://www.quantum.umb.edu/Jacobs/QMT/QMT_Chapter1.pdf

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes mfb
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Back
Top