B What Is the Role of Density Matrices in Describing Quantum Mixtures?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter jk22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mixed States
jk22
Messages
732
Reaction score
25
TL;DR Summary
Can mixed states be seen as many particles and formulas
Considering a mixture ##\sum p_i|\Psi_i\rangle\langle\Psi_i|##

This does not describe an ensemble of quantum systems since the particle number is defined by ##\Psi_i##.

The question is in the continuous wave-mechanical formalism where I don't understand what object the density matrix is : I know ##\langle\Psi_i|x\rangle=\Psi_i(x)=\int \Psi_i(x')\delta(x-x')dx'##. It seems that here I could exchange the order but what happen to the braces ? Is it ##|\Psi_i\rangle\langle\Psi_i|=\Psi_i(x)\int\Psi_i(x')\delta(x'-x'')[\circ]dx'## ?

Where ##\circ## means it's the place for a function in ##x''## ?

Why is then the sum different than a single term ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jk22 said:
This does not describe an ensemble of quantum systems

It can. Whether or not it does depends on who is using the mixed state and for what purpose.

jk22 said:
the particle number is defined by ##\Psi_i##.

This makes no sense. Particle number is an operator, not a state.
 
PeterDonis said:
This makes no sense. Particle number is an operator, not a state.

I think it's the eigenvalues of that operator, but is it in quantum field theory ?
What I meant is old wavemechanics where the structure of the wavefunction depends on this number : ##\Psi(\vec{x}_1,...\vec{x}_n)## with n the number of particlesBut basically I understood : it because the sum of ##\sum f_i(x)f_i(x')\neq g(x)g(x')##
 
Last edited:
I think you should read a good book about quantum mechanics first. I'd recommend Sakurai, Modern Quantum mechanics.

In the "first-quantization formalism" you deal by definition with situations where the particle number is fixed. That's by the way, why this formalism doesn't work well for interacting relativistic quantum systems, and that's why today we only use relativistic quantum field theory to deal with relativistic quantum systems.

So now let's quickly get the first-quantization formalism for ##N## spinless dinstinguishable particles right. Here the Hilbert space is a product space ##\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \mathcal{H}_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \mathcal{H}_N##, where ##N## is the number of particles, which is fixed by definition once and for all. No particle can be destroyed and no new particles can be created in any way (by definition, and thus dealing with non-relativistic particles only, i.e., particles where the interaction energies are way less than the rest energies ##m_i c^2## of all particles involved).

Now one particular basis of this ##N##-particle Hilbert space are the common (generalized) position eigenvectors of the positions of the particles,
$$|\vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N \rangle = |\vec{x}_1 \rangle \otimes |\vec{x}_2 \rangle \otimes \cdots \otimes |\vec{x}_N \rangle.$$
For a given normalized vector ##|\Psi \rangle## the wave function is defined as
$$\Psi(\vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N)=\langle \vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N|\Psi \rangle.$$
A statistical operator, as any operator is, as any operator, is described in the position representation by
$$\rho(\vec{x}_1,\ldots \vec{x}_N;\vec{x}_1',\ldots,\vec{x}_N')=\langle \vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N|\hat{\rho}|\vec{x}_1',\ldots,\vec{x}_N' \rangle.$$
If your state is given by
$$\hat{\rho}=\sum_i p_i |\Psi_i \rangle \langle \Psi_i |,$$
from the general formula and the above definition of the wave functions you get
$$\rho(\vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N;\vec{x}_1',\ldots,\vec{x}_N')=\sum_i p_i \Psi_i(\vec{x}_1,\ldots,\vec{x}_N) \Psi_i^*(\vec{x}_1',\ldots,\vec{x}_N').$$
 
  • Like
Likes Mentz114
jk22 said:
I think it's the eigenvalues of that operator

A state is not an eigenvalue of an operator. It could be an eigenvector of an operator.

jk22 said:
is it in quantum field theory ?

Do you mean, is particle number an operator in QFT? Yes.

jk22 said:
What I meant is old wavemechanics where the structure of the wavefunction depends on this number : ##\Psi(\vec{x}_1,...\vec{x}_n)## with n the number of particles

In ordinary (non-relativistic) QM, the number of particles is fixed, yes, and there is no such thing as a particle number operator. But the state ##\Psi(\vec{x}_1,...\vec{x}_n)## can still describe an ensemble of systems instead of a single system; each system in the ensemble is a system of ##n## particles.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top