The probability that spin will be in -x direction

czaroffishies
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A spin 1/2 particle is in the state \left| \Psi \right\rangle = \sqrt{2/3}\left|\uparrow\right\rangle + i\sqrt{1/3}\left|\downarrow\right\rangle

A measurement is made of the x-component of the spin. What is the probability that the spin will be in the -x direction?

Homework Equations



Spin states are represented as linear combinations of the spin in the +z direction and -z direction, since these spins form an orthonormal basis set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-½#Mathematical_description

In this case, spin in -x direction is represented by

\sqrt{1/2} \[<br /> \left( {\begin{array}{cc}<br /> 1 \\<br /> -1 \\<br /> \end{array} } \right)<br /> \]

The Attempt at a Solution



P = \left|\left\langle\leftarrow\left|\Psi\right\rangle\left|^{2}
= the transpose of the \leftarrow matrix, times the \Psi matrix, squared.

When calculating this straightforwardly, I will end up with a complex probability because of the i term in the \Psi matrix. That doesn't make sense!

So, do I just take this complex number and find its magnitude in the complex plane, and then square that?

Or something else?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
czaroffishies said:
P = \left|\left\langle\leftarrow\left|\Psi\right\rangle\left|^{2}
= the transpose of the \leftarrow matrix, times the \Psi matrix, squared.

When calculating this straightforwardly, I will end up with a complex probability because of the i term in the \Psi matrix. That doesn't make sense!
The method is correct.
So, do I just take this complex number and find its magnitude in the complex plane, and then square that?

Or something else?

Thanks!
To find the probability you multiply the projection by its complex conjugate. Did you do that or did you just square it?
 
That is a fantastic idea!

P = \left(\sqrt{1/2}*\sqrt{2/3}-i\sqrt{1/2}*\sqrt{1/3}\right)*\left(\sqrt{1/2}*\sqrt{2/3}+i\sqrt{1/2}*\sqrt{1/3}\right)

= 1/2

Is this correct?

Actually, this is the same answer I got when I used the magnitude-in-the-complex-plane method. Hrm. Coincidence, or no... I will look into it.
 
It is correct.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top