I States and observables in quantum mechanics

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Vyurok
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the differences between classical and quantum mechanics regarding the specification of experimental conditions and the determination of system states. In classical mechanics, measurable quantities are uniquely defined by coordinates and momenta, while in quantum mechanics, repeated measurements yield probability distributions rather than definitive values. The conversation raises questions about how to interpret observables in quantum mechanics, noting that they are claimed to form an algebra, similar to classical observables. References to the EPR and Bell papers highlight the inherent limitations in predicting outcomes based on experimental conditions. Ultimately, the consensus is that no experimental setup can predict all possible measurements due to the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics.
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 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.
 
@Vyurok your question doesn't look like a question about QM interpretations, just about basic QM. Is that correct?
 
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.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
888
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
124
Views
8K