What To Project Upon When Doing QM Measurements?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the measurement of quantum states and the implications of measuring the Hamiltonian. When measuring the Hamiltonian and obtaining the eigenvalue h2, the quantum state can be represented as either |h2⟩ or the new state |ψ'⟩, derived from |ψ⟩ using the projection |h2⟩⟨h2|ψ⟩. Both methods yield identical probability calculations for measuring another operator A, despite differing representations. The participants emphasize the preference for normalized kets, noting that while both approaches are valid, they ultimately describe the same physical state, differing only by a complex scalar. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately solving quantum measurement problems.
flyusx
Messages
63
Reaction score
10
Homework Statement
Let's say we have a set of eigenvalues for a Hamiltonian of a system: h1, h2 and h3 where the eigenvectors are |h1>, |h2> and |h3>. Let's also say we have another operator of a system A (non-commuting with the Hamiltonian) where its eigenvalues are a1, a2 and a3 with eigenvectors |a1>, |a2> and |a3>.
Relevant Equations
$$P(a)=\langle frac{|\langle a|ψ\rangle|^{2}}{\langleψ|ψ\rangle}$$
I have read that if one measures the Hamiltonian and receives a value of h2, then the quantum state will be in ##|h2\rangle##. Finding the probability of a1 is done by projecting ##|a1\rangle## upon ##|h2\rangle## divided by ##\langle h2|h2\rangle##. In other words: $$\frac{|\langle a1|h2\rangle|^{2}}{\langle h2|h2\rangle}$$

I have also seen elsewhere that if we are given a state ##|ψ\rangle## with the Hamiltonian and operator A, then measuring h2 will change the quantum state into a new state ##|ψ'\rangle## given by ##|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle##. To find the probability of a1, the textbook explicitly projects ##|a1\rangle## upon ##|ψ'\rangle## and not ##|h2\rangle##. In other words: $$\frac{|\langle a1|ψ'\rangle|^{2}}{\langleψ'|ψ'\rangle}$$

When I expand both out, I get the same answer:
$$\frac{|\langle a1|ψ'\rangle|^{2}}{\langleψ'|ψ'\rangle}=\frac{\langleψ'|a1\rangle\langle a1|ψ'\rangle}{\langleψ'|ψ'\rangle}=\frac{\langleψ|h2\rangle\langle h2|a1\rangle\langle a1|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle}{\langleψ|h2\rangle\langle h2|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle}=\frac{|\langle a1|h2\rangle|^{2}}{\langle h2|h2\rangle}$$

I see that both methods work, but I'm confused as to whether the quantum state is left in ##|h2\rangle## or ##|ψ'\rangle## after measuring an energy (eigenvalue) of h2. When solving a measurement problem, is there a reason to calculate ##|ψ'\rangle## after measuring H, then using that for calculations with A? Or is it always reasonable to say that a state is in ##|h2\rangle## if h2 is measured, and then use ##|h2\rangle## for further calculations with A?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I much prefer to work with normalized kets only, so I don't like the ##\ket{\psi'} = \ket{h2}\braket{h2 | \psi}## approach, which results in an unnormalized ##\ket{\psi'}##.
 
I completely agree (especially since we don't need the <ψ|ψ> at the bottom). But both ways are valid, right? Some problems I work out use one method and other problems use the other, so I just want to make sure I'm not just assuming two methods are identical.
 
flyusx said:
I have also seen elsewhere that if we are given a state ##|ψ\rangle## with the Hamiltonian and operator A, then measuring h2 will change the quantum state into a new state ##|ψ'\rangle## given by ##|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle##.

'seen elsewhere' is vague. Where ?

'A new state ##|ψ'\rangle## given by ##|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle## ' would be unnormalized, right ?

##\ ##
 
From Zettili's QM textbook, I have seen the |ψ'> representation used to solve Problem 3.8 whereas Problem 3.7 doesn't use this method. I've attached a PDF file of those two problems.

In Problem 3.7(b), he projects each ##a## state onto ##\|φ_2\rangle## since that's the eigenvector associated with ##-\varepsilon_0##. In 3.8(b,c) he uses |ψ'> (though he names it |φ>,|χ>), perhaps since the original state was not normalised. But I do agree that normalised kets are always easier to work with.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
flyusx said:
I completely agree (especially since we don't need the <ψ|ψ> at the bottom). But both ways are valid, right? Some problems I work out use one method and other problems use the other, so I just want to make sure I'm not just assuming two methods are identical.
Yes.
 
So if a state ##|ψ\rangle## is measured and a value h2 is recorded, the state will be in ##|ψ'\rangle=|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle##? But the probability calculation is identical when calculating with ##|h2\rangle##?
 
flyusx said:
So if a state ##|ψ\rangle## is measured and a value h2 is recorded, the state will be in ##|ψ'\rangle=|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle##? But the probability calculation is identical when calculating with ##|h2\rangle##?
##|ψ'\rangle=|h2\rangle\langle h2|ψ\rangle## is nothing but ##|ψ'\rangle= c |h2\rangle## with ##c## some complex number. Physical states are defined up to an arbitrary complex scalar constant, so it is the same state.
 
Ah, so they're identical with the exception of a constant (the inner product of h2 and ψ).
 
  • #10
flyusx said:
Ah, so they're identical with the exception of a constant (the inner product of h2 and ψ).
Correct. It will be useful to remember that ##\braket{|}## correspond to complex numbers and can be moved around equations as needed.