States and observables in quantum mechanics

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vyurok
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the distinction between classical and quantum mechanics regarding the specification of experimental conditions and the determination of observables. In classical mechanics, observables are uniquely defined as functions of coordinates and momenta, while in quantum mechanics, the measurement yields a probability distribution rather than a definitive value. The conversation references the textbook "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students" by Faddeev and Yakubovskii, and highlights the significance of the EPR (1935) and Bell (1964) papers in understanding the limitations of experimental conditions in predicting outcomes in quantum systems.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of classical mechanics and the concept of observables
  • Familiarity with quantum mechanics principles and measurement theory
  • Knowledge of probability distributions in the context of quantum measurements
  • Awareness of key historical papers in quantum mechanics, specifically EPR and Bell
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, focusing on observables and operators
  • Explore the implications of the EPR paradox and Bell's theorem on quantum entanglement
  • Investigate the differences between classical and quantum probability distributions
  • Read further sections of "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students" for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying quantum mechanics, researchers exploring the foundations of quantum theory, and educators seeking to clarify the differences between classical and quantum observables.

Vyurok
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Фадеев_Якубовский.webp

In the attached image, there is a passage from the textbook Faddeev, L.D., Yakubovskii, O.A. — Lectures on Quantum Mechanics for Mathematics Students, and I have the following two questions:

1)
It is clear what it means to specify the conditions of an experiment in classical mechanics so that the result of measuring any physical quantity (observable, which in classical mechanics is defined as a smooth function of ##n## coordinates and ##n## momenta) is well-defined at any moment in time. For example, one can fix ##n## values of coordinates and ##n## values of momenta at the initial moment; then the values of the coordinates and momenta at any subsequent time are uniquely determined, i.e., ##q(t) = q(t, \; q_{0}, \; p_{0})## and ##p(t) = p(t, \; q_{0}, \; p_{0})##. Therefore, the value of any observable at any subsequent time is uniquely determined, because any observable in classical mechanics is a function of coordinates and momenta, i.e., ##f(t) = f(q(t), \; p(t)) = f(q(t, \; q_{0}, \; p_{0}), p(t, \; q_{0}, \; p_{0}))##.

But what does it mean to specify the conditions of an experiment in quantum mechanics such that these conditions determine the state of the system? That is, so that when the experiment is repeated multiple times, the measurement of any physical quantity at any moment in time yields a probability distribution for the values of that physical quantity at that time? Incidentally, this raises another question: what if the specified experimental conditions are not sufficient to determine the state of the system? Then we begin measuring some physical quantity at a given moment and mark points on the real line – values that the measured quantity takes at that moment in each iteration of the experiment. That is, we run the experiment for the first time, wait for a time ##t_{0}##, measure the chosen physical quantity at that moment, and obtain some value ##A_{1}## – a point on the real line. Then we run the experiment a second time, wait the same amount of time ##t_{0}##, measure the same physical quantity again at that moment, and obtain some value ##A_{2}## – another point on the real line. And so on, until a picture of the distribution of these points on the real line begins to emerge. Looking at this picture, we see that some areas have a higher density of points than others - in other words, even in this case, we can obtain some probability distribution of the points on the real line, right? But then, how is this different from the first case?



2)
In classical mechanics, any measurable physical quantity is a function of coordinates and momenta, i.e., its value at a given time is uniquely determined by the values of the coordinates and momenta at that time. Therefore, observables in classical mechanics can be thought of as smooth functions on phase space, and we note that these can be treated as forming an algebra. But how should we think about observables in quantum mechanics? Nothing is written about this here. Yet somehow there is a claim that observables in quantum mechanics also form an algebra. How should this be understood?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Keep reading the book, it will be more clear when you read further sections.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba and DrChinese
Just a note: it is hard to imagine having this discussion without reference to two of the most critical papers on the subject. Those being EPR (1935) and Bell (1964). These papers together explore the possibilities of their being sufficient or insufficient experimental conditions to uniquely predict outcomes.

Of course, the general conclusion is that there are no theoretical experimental set ups that can provide predictions for all possible measurements. The insufficiency is inherent to nature.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
@Vyurok your question doesn't look like a question about QM interpretations, just about basic QM. Is that correct?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba
PeterDonis said:
@Vyurok your question doesn't look like a question about QM interpretations, just about basic QM. Is that correct?
Yes, that correct
 
Moderator's note: Thread moved to regular QM forum since the question is not about interpretations but about basic QM.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K