States and observables in quantum mechanics

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the nature of states and observables in quantum mechanics, particularly in comparison to classical mechanics. Participants explore how experimental conditions can determine the state of a quantum system and the implications of this for measuring physical quantities. The conversation touches on foundational concepts in quantum mechanics and the differences in how observables are treated in classical versus quantum frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to specify experimental conditions in quantum mechanics to determine the state of a system, contrasting it with classical mechanics where observables are functions of coordinates and momenta.
  • The same participant raises a scenario where insufficient experimental conditions lead to a probability distribution of measurement outcomes, seeking clarification on how this differs from the case where conditions are sufficient.
  • Another participant suggests that further reading of the textbook may clarify these concepts.
  • A different participant references critical papers by EPR and Bell, discussing the inherent limitations in predicting outcomes based on experimental setups in quantum mechanics.
  • There is a clarification regarding the nature of the original question, indicating it pertains to basic quantum mechanics rather than interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the questions raised about the nature of observables and the implications of experimental conditions in quantum mechanics. Multiple views and interpretations are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of observables in quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to classical mechanics. There is also a mention of the limitations of theoretical experimental setups in providing predictions for all measurements.

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
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
5K