Switching observers in a quantum measurement

Keru
Messages
20
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement

observables.png

(c is a constant)

The attempt at a solution

-In the first measure we got a1, so the state of the system would be psi1.
-In the second measure, there's no information about what eigenvalue we got. Would the state of the system still be psi1? Psi1 is written in terms of B eigenvectors, and as we don't know which one we measured, the state should be described as a superposition of both vectors, which is precisely psi1. Is that correct?
-In the third measure, i wrote the "betas" in terms of the "psis", so i have something like:
(A and B being constants, not the observables)
psi1 = A beta1 + B beta2 = C psi1 + D psi2 + E psi 1 + F psi2 = G psi1 + H psi 2

Is it H the coefficient that tells me the probabilities of getting the a2 eigenvalue, or did I do something wrong?
 

Attachments

  • observables.png
    observables.png
    17.3 KB · Views: 820
Physics news on Phys.org
Keru said:
-In the first measure we got a1, so the state of the system would be psi1.
Correct.
Keru said:
-In the second measure, there's no information about what eigenvalue we got. Would the state of the system still be psi1? Psi1 is written in terms of B eigenvectors, and as we don't know which one we measured, the state should be described as a superposition of both vectors, which is precisely psi1. Is that correct?
No. I bolded the part which is wrong. It contradicts the postulate that after a measurement, the system is in an eigenstate of the corresponding observable.

If you perform a measurement and don't have information about the outcome, you can't use a single state vector to describe the situation after the measurement. You need to do a case-by-case analysis in order to calculate the probabilities.
 
Ok I think i got it. So, for one of the two possible cases it would continue like this?

medidaas.png
 

Attachments

  • medidaas.png
    medidaas.png
    8.3 KB · Views: 373
Yes. I haven't checked the calculations but conceptually, it is correct now.
 
  • Like
Likes Keru
##|\Psi|^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi b^2}}\exp(\frac{-(x-x_0)^2}{b^2}).## ##\braket{x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi b^2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx\,x\exp(-\frac{(x-x_0)^2}{b^2}).## ##y=x-x_0 \quad x=y+x_0 \quad dy=dx.## The boundaries remain infinite, I believe. ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi b^2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy(y+x_0)\exp(\frac{-y^2}{b^2}).## ##\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi b^2}}\int_0^{\infty}dy\,y\exp(\frac{-y^2}{b^2})+\frac{2x_0}{\sqrt{\pi b^2}}\int_0^{\infty}dy\,\exp(-\frac{y^2}{b^2}).## I then resolved the two...
Hello everyone, I’m considering a point charge q that oscillates harmonically about the origin along the z-axis, e.g. $$z_{q}(t)= A\sin(wt)$$ In a strongly simplified / quasi-instantaneous approximation I ignore retardation and take the electric field at the position ##r=(x,y,z)## simply to be the “Coulomb field at the charge’s instantaneous position”: $$E(r,t)=\frac{q}{4\pi\varepsilon_{0}}\frac{r-r_{q}(t)}{||r-r_{q}(t)||^{3}}$$ with $$r_{q}(t)=(0,0,z_{q}(t))$$ (I’m aware this isn’t...
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
Back
Top