Relation between a measurement and the operators

ouacc
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Now, here is the problem. (Capital letters indicate operators, lower letters are states, * indicates Hermitian conjugate)
Say we know that state | p > = cos(a) |0> + sin(a) |1> (0<a<PI, a is in R)
Two operators : M1= |0><0| , M2=|1><1|, apperatantly they satisfy the completeness equation. M1*M1+M2*M2 = I

According to some textbooks, if we perform ONE opeartor on |p>, we should have TWO outcomes |0> or |1>, with certain probabilities. Here is the details:

If I use one operator on the state, say M1,
then: the state AFTER the operation is: M1 |p> / sqrt(<p | M*M |>p) = cos(a) |0> / cos(a) = |0> ...(1)
the probability of this happening is PM1= <p | M*M |>p = cos(a)^2 ...(2)

NOW, according to (1), it is impossible to get state (outcome) |1> after the operation.
SO, where do the after-state (outcome) |1> go?
I can get the outcome of |1> only with the other operator M2.
M2 |p> / sqrt(<p | M*M |>p) = sin(a) |1> / sin(a) = |1> ...(3)
with the probability PM2=sin(a)^2.....(4)

To me, it seems that :
The language of "use operator on state |p>" is not correct.
A measurement can NOT contain ONLY a subset of the operators (in this case, contains only M1, not M2),
A measurement have to be composed of a SET of operators which satisfies completeness equation.


Is this the case in real-world experiments? We can not say "perform M1 on p", but have to say "perform the measurement which has M1 and M2 on p" or "measure the spin in the |0> to |1> axis"?

BTW, put it in another way. If we keep M1 unchanged, but change M2 to | 1/sqrt(2)( |0> - |1>) > < 1/sqrt(2)( <0| - <1|)|, (they do not satisfy the compleness equation). SO, a measurement containing ONLY M1 and M2 can not be made in real life. Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd say that if the operator representing the quantity that you are measuring is M, and it's eigenvectors are |0> (eigenvalue = M1) and |1> (eigenvalue = M2) (and that's the complete set of eigenvectors for that operator), then for any initial state | p > = cos(a) |0> + sin(a) |1>, the projection operators acting on that state can give you the probability amplitude of a measurement of M giving any particular value (M1 or M2).
 
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!
Back
Top