Understand Operator Dispersion in Sakurai's "Modern Quantum Physics

HubertP
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to get my head around quantum mechanics with the help of Sakurai "Modern Quantum Physics". It's been good so far, but I came across a formula I don't really understand. When discussing uncertainty relation (in 1.4) the author begins with defining an "operator":

\Delta A \equiv A - \left\langle A \right\rangle

Where A is an observable. He then defines the dispersion of A to be the expectation value of the of the square of this operator: \left\langle \Delta A \right\rangle ^ 2.

I'm pretty sure I understand the concept of observable dispersion correctly, but correct me if I'm wrong: it's the average squared deviation of the measurements from mean (variation). Of course this is all computed for given state (ket). The results of the same measurement (with the same properly prepared state) performed multiple times will have certain variation, which is the same as dispersion we're talking about. Is this ok? I think it is, because I was even able to arrive at proper formula (which agrees with author's result) by summing the squared deviations from 'mean' (operator A expectation value) over all eigenkets of this operator, weighted with probabilities of each outcome.

However, what I don't understand is the author's derivation, in particular the definition of this new 'delta operator' - let me write it again:

\Delta A \equiv A - \left\langle A \right\rangle

How can one subtract the expected value which is a number (scalar) from an operator, which is represented by some matrix? This doesn't seem kosher. Is this a common practice? Will I see more examples of such 'flawed' notation? This seems really confusing...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's just short for ##A-\left\langle A \right\rangle\cdot\rm{id}##.

HubertP said:
He then defines the dispersion of A to be the expectation value of the of the square of this operator: \left\langle \Delta A \right\rangle ^ 2.

I think you made a mistake there, since ##\left\langle \Delta A \right\rangle=0##. I guess it's more like ##\sigma^2_A=\left\langle\left( \Delta A\right)^2 \right\rangle##.
 
This makes sense now!

To make sure it's consistent I tried expanding this \Delta A in eigenbasis of A, using A = \sum\limits_n a_n \left|a_n\right\rangle \left\langle a_n\right|, and applying it to a ket vector - I got correct result (sum of squared deviations of eigenvalues from mean weighted by probabilities)!. This is exciting. Thanks!

Of course I made a typo writing \left\langle \Delta A \right\rangle ^2 instead of \left\langle \left( \Delta A \right)^2 \right\rangle. Thanks for pointing this out.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top