Density matrix. (3) where in the last relation I have used the fact that Ĥ is Hermitian. In matrix notation we have
|
|
- Shannon Warren
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Density matrix. It seems very strange and uncomfortable that our fundamental equation is a linear equation for the wavefunction while all observed quantities involve bi-linear combinations of the wavefunction. This disparity is also at the heart of the measurement paradox because when we measure our interpretation is based on bi-linear constructions, not to mention that people often talk of the wavefunction collapse. This is ust unscientific because wavefunctions are subect to the Schrödinger Equation which does not have a collapse term in it! In what follows I will discuss the density matrix approach to the same foundational problems/questions, so do not be surprised that the same issues will be discussed again but from a different angle. Let us introduce the notion of the density matrix, which offers an alternative and more powerful (for open systems when we need to deal with the rest of the world ) description of system states. For a system isolated from its environment we define it as (below x is a collection of coordinates, or basis state index, in whatever basis, in our system) or in any other basis, after substituting ψ = n ψ n n, ρ = ψ ψ ρ x x = ψ(x )ψ (x). (1) n ˆρ m = ρ nm = ψ n ψ m. (2) We immediately see that ˆρ is a Hermitian operator with non-negative diagonal elements, and for normalized states n ρ nn = Tr ˆρ = 1. This allows one to interpret ρ nn as the probability of finding a system in the state n. Of course, a matrix parameterized by a vector is a special case; we will refer to this situation as a pure state. We will see shortly that for open systems this will no longer be the case, in general, and then we are dealing with a mixed state of the density matrix (see below). Its time dependence immediately follows from the Schrödinger Equation : i t ρ(x, x; t) = Ĥψ(x, t) ψ(x, t) ψ(x, t) Ĥψ(x, t) = Ĥ ψ(x, t) ψ(x, t) ψ(x, t) ψ(x, t) Ĥ, (3) where in the last relation I have used the fact that Ĥ is Hermitian. In matrix notation we have i t ˆρ nm(t) = Ĥnk ˆρ km (t) ˆρ nk (t)ĥkm = [Ĥ, ˆρ] nm, (4) which can be formulated in the basis independent form i ˆρ(t) = [Ĥ, ˆρ]. (5) t For time-independent Hamiltonians with eigenstates/eigenenergies { n, E n }, we immediately get after trivial integration that in the n -basis ρ nm (t) = ρ nm (0)e it(em En)/. (6) This formula is especially important for discussion of the apparent de-phasing relaxation in a system isolated with extreme degree of accuracy. If, after a long enough time of system s evolution, we completely loose control 1 on the value of the phases t(e m E n )/ modulo 2π, then, FAPP we 1 Due to natural limitations on experimental resolution and degree of isolation. 1
2 should replace our actual density matrix with the one averaged over the values of the phases t(e m E n )/. This amounts to vanishing of the off-diagonal terms: ρ nm (t) δ nm ρ nn (0), (7) meaning that our state is indistinguishable from a statistical mixture of energy eigenstates, the state n entering the ensemble with the probability ρ nn (0). [In the degenerate subspaces of H, one can always make H and ρ diagonal at the same time by basis rotations]. Measurement results are also directly related to the density matrix because Λ = ψ ˆΛ ψ = ˆρ ˆΛ = Tr ˆρˆΛ. (8) Note that any basis can be used to do the calculation using last equality. Measurement We see that all the necessary ingredients for doing quantum mechanical calculations can be formulated at the level of density matrix. We still need the notion of the Hilbert space and the basis states of the Hermitian operators, but this is basically for mathematical convenience. Of course, dealing with vectors=wavefunctions is easier than with matrixes. But if we are after the physics principle, then density matrix should be our prime obect for philosophical discussions because only ˆρ can deal with open system. Why do we need open systems? Because truly isolated ones cannot be observed from outside (!) and thus are irrelevant for material world. Any event qualifying for system s observation necessarily involves system s interaction with the outside world, or environment, and has to deal with enlarged Hilbert space of the system and observer. However, in system s measurements we do not care what happens to the rest of the world (otherwise we are measuring more than the system in question), and thus probabilities for all possible outcomes for the world variables have to be summed up. This leads to the following definition of the density matrix for an open system: If ˆρ (F ) is a full density matrix for the system and its environment then the system s density matrix is defined as ˆρ (S) = Tr env ˆρ (F ), (9) where the trace is taken over the basis states of the environment, or, using a notation R env for the collection of all degrees of freedom in the environment ˆρ (S) (x, x) = dr env Ψ(x, R env )Ψ (x, R env ), env which is an overlap of environmental states for different system parameters. Indeed, the average of any system s operator Ψ ˆQ Ψ reduces to Tr S ˆρ (S) ˆQ because ˆQ is not acting on environmental coordinates. Now consider the measuring process of some system s quantity characterized by operator ˆΛ (with the set {} of possible measurement outcomes) as a physical process involving sufficiently strong coupling (interaction Hamiltonian) between the system and the environment=measuring machine, something similar to the SG-machine. The set of ˆΛ eigenvectors e is very convenient 2
3 because it is tuned to the properties of the measuring machine in such a way that when our system is in state e the machine is responding with its degrees of freedom strongly enough and goes into the state M such that an FAPP principle by Bell becomes applicable, namely the overlap M M is an FAPP zero for. This is because there are macroscopically many degrees of freedom which change their states strongly and differently enough for under the action of the interaction Hamiltonian H Λ,env = ĥenv(). In the simplest example it can be a steel arrow of the voltmeter moving to a particular position. If this is not enough, complement it with your ournal recording. Consider an arbitrary initial state expanded into the e -basis (for simplicity, we will assume that is non-degenerate; more general formalism will be introduced later) Ψ = ψ (R env ) e. To ensure that before the measurement the environment is indifferent to the state of the system, we write the expansion coefficients as a product ψ (R env ) = Φ(R env )ψ ; i.e. the initial state is a simple product of the system and environment wavefunctions, Ψ = Φ ψ e. It will evolve during the measurement process into (the process has to be fast with respect to the system s dynamics to qualify for the measurement of Λ in a given state of the system ) Ψ = e i[ĥenv+ĥenv()]t Φ(R env ) ψ e = M (R env ) ψ e. Correspondingly, ˆρ (S) = ψ ψ e e. will evolve into ˆρ (S) = M M ψ ψ e e = δ ψ ψ e e = ψ 2 e e, (10) with M M = δ. This density matrix is diagonal in the -representation and leads to Λ = ρ (S) = p. (11) The subsequent evolution of this density matrix is exactly the same as the evolution of an ensemble of independent system s copies each in one of the eigenstates e, as if each copy has collapsed into the state e because the observed value of ˆΛ happened to be. If values have degeneracy ν, then the result will be ˆρ (S) =,ν,ν ψ ν ψ ν e ν e ν, (12) or, identically, with ˆρ (S) = ψ νψ ν ν,ν p p = ν p e ν e ν, (13) ψ ν 2. (14) 3
4 This is essentially a multiple Universe or multiverse interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: measuring process splits the world into distinctive states with FAPP zero overlap; these states FAPP never interfere in the future and go their separate ways FAPP forever. Please, do not worry about those multiple splittings and where they are all stored - the Hilbert space of degrees of freedom is FAPP infinite! Mathematical formalism Since splitting things into the system and environment is rather arbitrary and mostly depends on the properties of the measured quantity Λ, let us summarize our discussion into the following formal rules/procedures. When quantity Λ is measured, the possible outcomes are given by probabilities p = Tr ˆρ ˆP, (15) where ˆP is a proector on the subspace spanned by eigenstates e,ν with the same eigenvector ˆP = ν e,ν e,ν. (16) Here index ν refers to all possible degeneracies for a given eigenstate of Λ or degrees of freedom decoupled from Λ (generalizing previous discussion). FAPP the new density matrix is given by ˆρ (new) = ˆP ˆρ ˆP Tr ˆP ˆρ ˆP = ˆP ˆρ ˆP p = νν e,ν ˆρ,ν;,ν p e,ν. (17) The denominator in (17) is a normalization constant necessary to obey Tr ˆρ (new) = 1. We did nothing new relative to Eq. (10) except for introducing an extremely convenient notion of proector ˆP, and used the fact that ˆP 2 = ˆP. The following three properties of proectors associated with certain Hermitian operator ˆΛ are especially important: ˆΛ = ˆP, (18) ˆP ˆP = δ, ˆP, (19) ˆP = ˆ1 (completeness relation), (20) where ˆ1 is the identity operator. As a Hermitian matrix, an arbitrary ˆρ can be written in the diagonal form in the basis of its own eigenvectors ˆρ ψ = w ψ, (21) as ˆρ = w ψ ψ, ψ 1 ψ 2 = δ 1 2. (22) along with w 0, w = 1, allowing to interpret w as probabilities of finding the system in the state. Correspondingly, ˆρ can be interpreted as a statistical mixture (with appropriate probabilities) and that is why the term mixed of a special set of pure states. Of course if 4
5 all w are zero except one, we are back to the pure state situation. Indeed, the probability of measuring for quantity Λ is given by [see (15)] p = Tr ˆρ ˆP = w ˆP = w ψ 2. (23) As the system evolves according to (4), or (5), all the eigenvalues (but not the eigenvectors!) of ˆρ remain preserved because ˆρ(t) = w ψ (t) ψ (t), ψ 1 (t) ψ 2 (t) = δ 1 2, (24) where ψ (t) = e iĥt ψ (0) evolves in accordance with the Schrödingier equation for a pure state. The same result can be written as (using unitary evolution operator) ˆρ(t) = U(t)ˆρ(0)[U(t)]. (25) Problem 8. The Hilbert space of the system X is three-dimensional. The current state of the system is described by the density matrix ˆρ = 3 w ψ ψ, ψ 1 ψ 2 = δ 1 2. (26) =1 The matrix of the observable A in the ONB of eigenvectors of A has the form A = (27) In the same ONB (of eigenvectors of A), the vectors ψ have the following representation ψ 1 = 1/ 2 1/ 2 0, ψ 2 = 1/ 2 1/ 2 0, ψ 3 = (28) (a) What is the probability to find the eigenvalue 2015 when measuring A in the state ˆρ? (b) What will be the new ( collapsed ) density matrix after the eigenvalue 2015 is observed? The interplay between destructive and probabilistic aspects of measurements can be quite nontrivial. The following example shows how a sequence of measurements with an essentially deterministic outcome can be used to perform a dramatic, but absolutely predictable change of a pure state of a system. 5
6 Problem 9. Let spin-1/2 system be prepared in the spin-up state with respect to some axis z. Suppose one performs N successive measurements of the spin proection, with each new measurement being along the axis z n that is rotated with respect to the original axis by angle n(θ/n), where θ 1 is fixed and N is supposed to be very large compared to unity. You may find this useful ( S = (1/2) σ): [ ] [ ] nz n σ ˆn = x cos φ sin φ =. n x n z sin φ cos φ Prove that in each of the successive N measurements, the probability to find the spin-up state approaches unity as N. That is, given sequence of measurements rotates the spin-up state by the angle θ deterministically. Composition postulate The composition postulate deals with the structure of the Hilbert space of a composite system consisting of two or more subsystems. It is sufficient to formulate it for two subsystems since generalization (by induction) to the case of many subsystems is then trivial. The composition postulate states that the Hilbert space of a system consisting of two subsystems is a direct product of the corresponding two Hilbert spaces. This, in particular, means that, if { e (I) n } and { e (II) n } are ONBs in the Hilbert spaces of the systems I and II, respectively, then the set of vectors e nm = e (I) n e (II) m, e n1 m 1 e n2 m 2 = δ n1,n 2 δ m1,m 2 (29) forms ONB in the Hilbert space of the composite system. Any vector of the combined system can be then represented as a linear superposition ψ = nm c nm e nm nm c nm e (I) n e (II) m. (30) Depending on the structure of the Hamiltonian, the two subsystems may, or may not, interact with each other. The two subsystems do not interact with each other if and only if the Hamiltonian of the composed system reduces to a direct sum of two independent Hamiltonians, each dealing with the corresponding subsystem: H = H (I) + H (II) (noninteracting subsystems). (31) A distinctively different from the issue of interaction is the notion entanglement between the two subsystems. The two subsystems are called disentangled (with respect to each other) if the density matrix ˆρ of their composed state reduces to a direct product of individual density matrices 2 : ˆρ = ˆρ (I) ˆρ (II) (disentangled subsystems). (32) 2 Pure states (wavefunctions) correspond to a particular case of the density matrix, and need not to be considered separately. 6
7 If two subsystems are noninteracting and disentangled in the initial state, then the equation of motion readily implies that the two subsystems will remain disentangled, with individual density matrices evolving in accordance with individual Hamiltonians. Interaction leads to entanglement, by which, speaking formally, one means such a structure of ˆρ that cannot be reduced to (32). As opposed to interaction, which can be switched off at a certain moment of time, the entanglement, if created, will persist. Physically, the entanglement implies certain correlations between results of measurements dealing with the observables of both systems. If all measurements look at observables of only one of the subsystems (say, subsystem I), then from previous discussion it follows that the outcome of these measurements is exhaustively described by the reduced density matrix of subsystem I, obtained by tracing out variables of the other subsystem, see (9). Note that measuring an observable of system I often (but not necessarily always!) leads to disentanglement of the originally entangled systems. A simple and very important sufficient condition for disentanglement upon measurement is that the observed eigenvalue is not degenerate (in subsystem I). In this case, the state of the systems disentangles into a product of the corresponding pure state ψ (I) of the system I and a certain new state (not necessarily pure!) of the system II: ˆρ new = ψ (I) ψ(i) ˆρ(II) new. (33) Problem 10. Show the correctness of the above statement. Thermal equilibrium and Gibbs distribution In classical mechanics, the statistical description and the full dynamical description naturally deal with distinctively different (though related to each other) mathematical obects. The dynamical description the canonical formalism operates with canonical dynamical variables (generalized coordinates and momenta), while the statistical description is all about the distribution functions for these canonical variables. In quantum mechanics thanks to its probabilistic nature, on one hand, and linearity, on the other hand the statistical description operates with the very same obect as the dynamic theory, the density matrix 3. The only (minor) difference is that, in the dynamic theory, one would need to address the density matrix (or the wave function, in the case of a pure state) of the full system, while quantum statistics is constructed in terms of the reduced density matrix (9), describing either a smaller subsystem of a macroscopic body, or a system (no matter microscopic or macroscopic) weakly coupled to some heat bath. In the case of equilibrium statistics considered below, both cases are essentially equivalent. For example, in the case of ideal Bose or Fermi gases, these small subsystems are nothing but single-particle eigenmodes. 4 Our goal is to establish the form of the density matrix for a small part of a macroscopic body in the state of thermal equilibrium. By macroscopic body we understand a system with infinite (in the limit of infinite volume) number of subsystems of arbitrary nature that are weakly coupled to each other; our subsystem of interest being one of them. The condition of infinitesimal weakness of coupling is crucial for subsystems to preserve their individuality. In quantum-mechanical language, 3 Often referred to, in this context, as statistical operator. 4 Recall that, in the case of bosons, a single-particle eigenmode is equivalent to a quantum harmonic oscillator; and, in the case of fermions, a single-particle eigenmode is equivalent to a two-level system. 7
8 this means that the entanglement between any two subsystems is negligibly small, so that the density matrix ˆρ AB of any two subsystems A and B (viewed as a untied system AB) splits into a direct product of individual density matrices [cf. (32)]: ˆρ AB = ˆρ A ˆρ B. (34) Apart from the rather simple requirement (34), the other circumstance one needs to take into account to establish the form of the equilibrium density matrix, say, ˆρ A, is that, by definition, the equilibrium matrix does not evolve in time. Since infinitesimally weak interaction with the rest of the system can be ignored, from the equation of motion we thus have [H A, ˆρ A ] = 0, (35) where H A is the Hamiltonian of the subsystem A. By introducing, for convenience, the logarithm of the density matrix, and rewriting (34) and (35) as ln ˆρ AB = ln ˆρ A + ln ˆρ B, [H A + H B, ln ˆρ AB ] = 0, (36) we conclude that the logarithm of the equilibrium density matrix is an additive conserved quantity. In the most general case, there is only one universal additive conserved quantity (up to a global scaling factor and a global constant): the energy, with the corresponding operator the system s Hamiltonian being the sum of individual Hamiltonians for all the subsystems. In this case, for any subsystem A of our weakly-coupled macroscopic system, we find ln ˆρ A = c 0 + c 1 H A e βh A Z A, Z A = Tr e βh A, (37) where the value of the parameter c 1 = β = 1/T is the same for each subsystem. Here we took into account the normalization condition Tr ˆρ A allowing us to fix one of the two constants, namely, the additive constant c 0. We see that, in the case when energy is the only additive constant, the equilibrium statistics is exhaustively characterized by the system s Hamiltonian and a global (for all the subsystems, or, equivalently, the heat bath) parameter T. Expression (37) is known as Gibbs distribution for a quantum system. Problem 11. A three-level system (in some ONB) is described by the Hamiltonian H = ε (38) The system is in equilibrium with a heat bath at temperature T = 0.5ε. (a) What is the expectation value of the system s energy? (b) What is the probability that a measurement of the system s energy will produce the result 3ε? (c) What is the probability to find the system in the state 1 ψ 1 = 0? (39) 0 8
9 Next in importance (and rather general in condensed matter) is the case when we are dealing with a system of N particles, the total number of which is a conserved quantity. 5 Since N is also an additive integral of motion, the logarithm of the density matrix should contain an extra term c 2 N A. The standard convention is to write c 2 = µc 1 = βµ in terms of yet another constant µ called the chemical potential. The final result is identical to the Gibbs distribution (37) with modified Hamiltonian, H A H A : H A = H A µn A, (40) The Gibbs distribution based on H A µn A is called the grand canonical distribution, while the Gibbs distribution (37) is called the canonical distribution. Likewise, H A is often referred to as grand canonical Hamiltonian. Statistical operator is diagonal in the eigenenergy representation [for clarity, below we omit the subscript A and do not distinguish between canonical and grand canonical cases]: ˆρ = n w n n n, w n = e βen /Z, Z = n e βen. (41) In accordance with the previously-discussed statistical interpretation of the density matrix, Eq. (41) allows one to interpret quantum equilibrium statistics as that of an ensemble of pure states { n }. Such an ensemble is called the (grand) canonical ensemble. The rest of thermodynamics follows directly from Eq. (41). The corresponding derivations belong to the statistical mechanics course, where it is shown that, starting from an expression for Z as a function of T, µ, and the systems s volume V, one can obtain all thermodynamic quantities by doing partial derivatives with respect to T, µ,and V. In particular, entropy is given by (do it in two lines): S = Tr ˆρ ln ˆρ = n w n ln w n. (42) Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, being unhappy with the status of quantum mechanics as a theory, made an example of a system which they believed was a clear cut contradiction between the quantum mechanical predictions and what a reasonable physical theory should be. Here is the setup. Consider two spins-1/2 prepared in the singlet state, which is a superposition state now known as the EPS (entangled pair state) state: EP S = 2. (43) Then, making sure that the spin variables are decoupled from the rest of the world and each other (i.e. keeping the EPS state undisturbed) take the first spin (and the lucky space explorer) to the 5 In this respect, very instructive is the difference between the quantum statistics of photons in a cavity (or phonons in a solid or liquid) and the statics of ideal gas of bosonic atoms. In the former case, the interaction with the other degrees of freedom of the system (or the heat bath) does not conserve the total number of photons (phonons), and, for each eigenmode, we should use Eq. (37), while in the latter case, the conservation of the total number of particles has a profound effect on statistics, leading, in particular, to the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation. 9
10 distant Galaxy while the second spin remains on Earth. Next, try to measure the z-components of the spins very fast so that even light can not be used to communicate the results of the Earth and Galaxy experiments while they are conducted. Problem 12. Show that EP S has the same form, Eq. (43), for any choice of the direction of the quantization axis. To this end, find the two eigenstates â ± of the operator σ â where â is the unit vector [the eigenvalues are ±1/2: ( σ â) â ± = ±(1/2) â ± ] and re-expand EP S in terms of them. Now, a reasonable physics theory should say that the result of the Galaxy measurement can not depend on what and how is measured on Earth because physically the two spins are completely decoupled. At this point EPR noted that if on Earth the spin was measured up with respect to any axis, then the result of the Galaxy measurement is predetermined! It has to be down along the same axis for sure. But if the measurement on Earth was not done, then the Galaxy result is completely random! EPR concluded that this spooky action at a distance implies that there are some hidden (not mentioned explicitly yet) labels or variables which are attached to the spins. For example, both spins may carry a variable representing a solid angle on the sphere Ω, which is set at random when the EPS pair is created. The two spins carry their variables Ω 1 = Ω and Ω 2 = Ω and in later experiments one always finds them pointing in the opposite directions. This type of reasoning is called the theory of hidden variables. The EPR conclusion was that this example proves that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory and it simply misses extra variables which make it deterministic. Einstein carried his God does not play dice all his life. Indeed, quantum mechanics predicts that if the Earth (E) and Galaxy (G) measurements for many EPS pairs are written in the lab ournal, and after a few light years they are compared to each other then one will find (u= up, d= down ) u d d u u d d u d u u d... (E) d u u d d u u d u d d u... (G) (44) i.e. perfect correlation. But so what? Can the lucky explorer ever tell whether experiments were conducted on Earth or not by looking at the G-ournal? The answer is (see Problem below) NO! Problem 13. Show that the reduced density matrix of each of the two spins obtained by tracing the full density matrix ˆρ = ψ 0 ψ 0 over the variables of the other spin is nothing but the unity operator. If E-measurements were not done then G-measurements would appear absolutely random, i.e. u and d would happen with probability 1/2. G-measurements are predetermined after E-measurements, but E-measurement (done before G-measurements) have random outcomes with probabilities 1/2 for u and d. It means that the sequence of u and d in the G-ournal is statistically exactly the same no matter what is happening on Earth! This is quantum mechanical version of no spooky action at a distance ; thus, formally, there is no good reason for pushing the paradox if you cannot tell the difference, never ever! Bell s inequality (theorem) 10
11 The other way to present the paradox is to say: When spin 1 is measured along z-axis and found to be z this instantaneously changes the state of spin 2 to be z. But outside of the light cone (so that any physical communication between the spins is impossible) the notion of past and future is relative, so in another reference frame spin 2 can be measured along x-axis and can be found, say, to be in the state x which means that the spin 1 state has to change to x. This is a contradiction. Well, the counter argument is OK, if after the measurement of spin 1 along z we decide that spin 2 has to be in the state z this still does not prevent one from finding spin 1 in the state x afterwards. What is your problem? If you want to check that spin 2 is now in the state x then you have to skip the first measurement of spin 1 along z because otherwise you are messing with the same spin twice and destroy the original state. Still, one may wonder, what if some kind of local hidden variables theory is indeed standing behind the quantum mechanics. By local we mean that measuring one of the spins we cannot change the state of its counterpart in any physical sense. The assumption of locality is most natural, given that the spatial distance between the two spins can be arbitrarily large. Furthermore, in the absence of locality, hidden variables can hardly be of any non-academic importance. Quantum mechanics is certainly non-local in this particular sense (this does not violate the principle of impossibility of communicating physical information at speeds exceeding c). After nearly 30 years of numerous attempts by many to construct a local hidden variables theory, John Bell has elegantly shown that such a theory is impossible in principle by formulating inequalities, which every hidden variables theory has to satisfy, and quantum mechanics violates. Next, his inequalities were checked to be violated experimentally. This was probably the most important development in QM after The idea is to measure correlations in measurements along non-commuting axis. For example, measure spin 1 along ẑ and spin 2 along ˆx, or spin 1 along ˆx and spin 2 along ŷ, etc. i.e. measure them along any two axis a and b with a b. If the two spins agreed ahead of time (using hidden variables) to be in the opposite direction to each other then there will be correlations between the results of two measurements. To study correlations statistically, perform many identical experiments and record the frequency of different outcomes for various setups of the two axis. Let C a,b (σ a σ b ) is the probability of the outcome σ a = ±1 for spin 1 when the subsequent measurement resulted in σ b for spin 2. Similarly for C a,b (σ b σ a ) but now spin 1 is measured after spin 2. These are probabilities filtered according to the second measurement outcomes. By C a,b (σ a, σ b ) we denote the oint probability of having outcomes σ a, σ b. Now, our spins are in different Galaxies, and any local classical theory has to state that the statistics of measurements on one of the spins may not depend on what we will do next to the other spin, so and C a,b (σ a σ b ) = C a (σ a ), C a,b (σ b σ a ) = C b (σ b ), C a,b (σ a, σ b ) = C a (σ a )C b (σ b ), no matter how the initial state is correlated through hidden variables. This equation is known as Bell s locality condition for any local hidden variables theory. Let us now prove a Lemma: Quantity S S = αβ + αβ + α β α β for α, α, β, β [ 1/2, 1/2] is such that S 1/2. Indeed, since S is linear in all variables it has to reach its maximum and minimum at the corners of the domain of definition, i.e. when all 11
12 variables are ±1/2. Now, writing it as S = (σ a + σ a)(σ b + σ b ) 2σ aσ b we see that at the corners the first term can be only ±1, 0 and the second only 1/2 with the opposite sign between the two. This proves that S 1/2. While doing measurements on spins one may calculate single spin averages α = σ σc a (σ), α = σ σc a (σ), β = σ σc b (σ), β = σ σc b (σ) and pair-wise averages P (a, b) = σ aσ b σ a σ b Cab (σ a, σ b ). According to the locality condition, oint probabilities factorize, and we have P (a, b) = αβ. Then the Lemma proved for S leads to the conclusion that 1/2 P (a, b) + P (a, b ) + P (a, b) P (a, b ) 1/2 (45) Again, all probabilities are written for a particular set of hidden variables ζ (not mentioned anywhere yet, but the same in all expressions). At the end of the day one will further average all expressions over some probability distribution f(ζ) to account for the possibility that when the initial state was prepared ζ was selected at random from the distribution f. The inequality (45) still holds. All of this is very appealing, but next comes the quantum mechanical calculation for a particular choice of axes that violates the Bell s inequality! Let the initial state be the EPS pair, which looks the same when spins are quantized along any axis. This simplifies the calculation, since we can always choose the axis of the magnet used to measure the first spin to be along ẑ, and the axis of the other magnet at angle θ to it. Quantum mechanically, the probability that we measure the first spin to be along axis a and the other along axis b is then C(+, +) = (sin 2 (θ/2))/2. Similarly, C(, ) = (sin 2 (θ/2))/2 and C(+, ) = C( +) = (cos 2 (θ/2))/2. Altogether, the quantum mechanical average of different outcomes for σ 1 σ 2 will be P (Q) a,b = 1 [ ] sin 2 ((θ a θ b )/2) cos 2 ((θ a θ b )/2) = cos(θ a θ b ). (46) Finally, choose the following axis set for our measurements (I mention angles to some predefined z-axis θ a = π/2, θ a = 0, θ b = 3π/4, θ b = π/4. and compute the corresponding correlations P a,b = 1 4 cos5π 4 = 1 4 2, P a,b = 1 4 cos(3π 4 ) = 1 4 2, P a,b = 1 4 cos(3π 4 ) = 1 4 2, P a,b = 1 4 cos(π 4 ) = This gives us S = 1/ 2 = in clear violation of the Bell s locality condition (45). One can further show that our choice of axes results in the maximum possible violation of (45) for the two spin-1/2 system. 12
13 The actual experiments were done with photon pairs using photon polarization states instead of spin proections and polarizers instead of magnets. The result was in agreement with quantum mechanics, not the hidden variables theory. Schrödinger cats Suppose the initial state of the system was prepared as the superposition of two eigenstates, let s denote them and ) of some quantity Λ: ψ = c 1 + c 2. (47) The system itself can be anything you like, say a cat, and the operator in question is determining whether it is dead or alive. Imagine now that Λ was measured, and assume that the outside world state was disentangled from the system before the measurement. As discussed previously, the state after measurement will become final = c 1 M (R env ) + c 2 M (R env ) +. (48) On one hand, this expression clearly states that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time and we know about that because we measured the system! This is the essence of the Schrödinger cat paradox. However, one should not forget that dead and alive states are now attached to M (R env ) and M (R env ) states of the world, and the overlap between the two states in the superposition is FAPP zero. This means that not only after the measurement, but also in all future experiments ever done on the system one would never be able to interfere measured states, and thus will not be able to establish that the cat was dead and alive at the same time in practice it will always appear either dead or alive. Why do people keep discussing Schrödinger cats? Because experimentally, the cat AND the world can be made so small that the overlap between two states in (48) is no longer zero, and detecting their interference (or converting one into another under evolution) becomes possible. However, the notion of observation or measurement does not apply to such systems because the observers did not make their mind yet! Effective dynamics under quantum measurement The requirement that the measurement of Λ leaves intact the eigenstates of the observable Λ implies a universal (for all possible measuring devices) form of the Hamiltonian describing the evolution of the system and device during the measurement process (we have used this form before): H mes = ˆP H (dev) (t) (device + system-device interaction). (49) Here H (dev) is a certain (rather general and time dependent the measurement has to be perform fast) Hermitian operator acting in the Hilbert space of the measuring device. This form implies equally simple and generic form of the corresponding evolution operator for the duration of the measurement: U mes = ˆP U (dev). (50) 13
14 Here U (dev) is the evolution operator (in the Hilbert space of the device) corresponding to the Hamiltonian H (dev) [to show that, use Eq.(19)]. In a standard measurement setup, the system and the devise are initially disentangled, so that initial total density matrix, ˆρ 0, is simply a direct product of two density matrices: ˆρ 0 = ˆρ (sys) 0 ˆρ (dev) 0 (before measurement). (51) After the measurement, the total density matrix becomes ˆρ = U mes ˆρ 0 U mes = ( ) ( ˆP ˆρ (sys) 0 ˆP U (dev) ˆρ (dev) 0 [U (dev) ] ). (52) For macroscopic devices, the requirement of macroscopic distinguishability of device s states corresponding to different s (by myself!) is equivalent to adding myself to the device variables and then tracing out my degrees of freedom. This immediately leads to the = condition, see (10): This leaves us with the effective density matrix after the measurement ˆρ = ( ˆP ˆρ (sys) 0 ˆP ) ˆρ (dev), ˆρ (dev) = U (dev) ˆρ (dev) 0 [U (dev) ]. (53) Note that ˆρ (dev) to the evolution operator U (dev). Finally, observe that has a very transparent meaning of the final state of measuring device corresponding ˆρ = p ˆρ (sys) ˆρ (dev). (54) That is, consistently with all aspects of the measuring axioms, ˆρ has the form of a statistical mixture (with the weights p ) of new states of the system and measuring device. Needless to say that the new states of the measuring device are distinctively different (orthogonal): ˆρ (dev) ˆρ (dev) = 0, if. (55) Schmidt decomposition Suppose we split a system into two subsystems, I and II. With a general choice of ONBs in the Hilbert spaces of the subsystems I and II, an expansion of any pure state ψ of the total system has the generic form (30). There exists, however, a special choice of the orthonormal set of vectors in two subsystems, { φ (I) n } and { φ (II) n } (same subscript is not a typo!) when ψ = n a n φ (I) n φ (II) n. (56) In principle, the coefficients a n can be rendered real and nonnegative, since the phase factor can be always absorbed into the basis vector. 14
15 In mathematics, the representation (56) is known as Schmidt decomposition. It has quite important physical implications. Namely, for the two reduced density matrices it yields ˆρ (I) = n a n 2 φ (I) n φ (I) n, ˆρ (II) = n a n 2 φ (II) n φ (II) n, (57) revealing that, despite all possible qualitative and quantitative differences between the two subsystems (including vastly different dimensions of Hilbert spaces) the two reduced density matrices always feature a remarkable correspondence between their eigenvectors, with exactly the same eigenvalues given by a n 2. Now the proof. Let the dimension of Hilbert space for subsystem I be lower or equal to that of subsystem II. Given the pure state ψ, construct ˆρ (I) = Tr (II) ˆρ using ˆρ = ψ ψ, and find its eigenvalues, { a n 2 }, and eigenstates, { φ (I) n }. Then, ψ = n φ (I) n ϕ (II) n, (58) where { ϕ (II) n } are nothing but the coefficients of expansion of ψ(x I, X II ) over the basis { φ n (X I ) }, for each X II. They are certain states for the system II. Correspondingly, ˆρ = n 1 n 2 φ (I) n 1 ϕ (II) n 1 ϕ (II) n 2 φ (I) n 2, (59) ˆρ (I) = Tr (II) ˆρ = n 1 n 2 φ (I) n 1 ϕ (II) n 2 ϕ (II) n 1 φ (I) n 2. (60) So far, we have used only the fact that { φ (I) n } is a certain ONB in the Hilbert space of the subsystem I. Now, recall that { φ (I) n } is the ONB of ˆρ (I), meaning that all n 1 n 2 terms in (60) have to be identically equal to zero: After normalization, we arrive at (57) with ϕ (II) n 2 ϕ (II) n 1 = 0 if n 1 n 2. (61) φ (II) n = ϕ (II) n ϕ (II) n ϕ (II) n (62) For a density matrix ˆρ, the quantity Tr ˆρ ln ˆρ = w ln w is called entropy [recall (42)]. The entanglement between two subsystems in a pure global states is characterized by entanglement entropy S entang = Tr ˆρ (I) ln ˆρ (I) = Tr ˆρ (II) ln ˆρ (II) = a n 2 ln a n 2. (63) n Problem 14. Argue that the minimum possible value of S entang equals zero. What case does it correspond to? Show that the maximal possible value of S entang equals ln N, where N is the smallest dimension of the Hilbert space out of the two subsystems. 15
16 For a pure state of a macroscopic system and a macroscopically large interface between the two macroscopic subsystems, the entanglement entropy between the two subsystems is proportional to the size of the interface: the length of the interface in 2D and the surface of the interface in 3D. (The so-called area law.) One way to see that, is split the system into three macroscopic subsystems with the third subsystem being localized (within the appropriate correlation length) around the interface and containing entangled degrees of freedom with total Hilbert space N e #Area and maximum entanglement entropy S entang lnn Area. Permanent observation For a small enough time interval t, we have ( = 1) ˆρ(t + t) = ˆρ(t) i t[h, ˆρ(t)] + O [ ( t) 2]. (64) Now suppose that before the evolution (64) has started, we measured some quantity Λ and observed. After the evolution (64) we measure Λ again. What will be the probability p ( t) of observing the same eigenvalue? From (64) and the measuring axiom, one readily concludes that p ( t) = 1 O [ ( t) 2]. (65) Problem 15. Derive Eq. (65). Hint. An observation of at time t, implies ˆρ(t) ˆP ˆρ(t 0) ˆP. Now, fix some finite time interval τ and perform N 1 measurements of the same quantity Λ, with the same time interval τ = τ/n between successive measurements. From (65) we then see (observe close similarity with Problem 9 in terms of taking the limit of N ) that in the limit N, each successive measurement will deterministically yield one and the same eigenvalue found in the very first measurement. This fact is known as quantum Zeno effect, by analogy with the arrow paradox by Zeno of Elea (ca BC). The N limit corresponds to permanent observation. In the light of the Zeno effect, a question arises of whether constant observation implies complete suppression of system s evolution. If the eigenvalue (found in the first measurement) is nondegenerate, then the answer is YES. The system simply stays in the corresponding pure state ψ ψ. Note, however, that the phase of the state is fundamentally indefinite. If the eigenvalue is degenerate (degeneracy is unavoidable for composite systems when the observable Λ deals exclusively with the variables of a certain subsystem) the system keeps evolving. The law of this permanent-measurement evolution is very intuitive (we restore ): where i t ˆρ = [H(), ˆρ], (66) H () = ˆP H ˆP (67) is the proected onto the degenerate -subspace Hamiltonian. Equations (66) (67) apply to the case of nondegenerate as well, with H () being ust a number. In this case [H (), ˆρ] 0 and the evolution is suppressed. To derive (67), simply proect (64). 16
17 No matter how trivial this derivation is, it paves the way to engineering a novel Hamiltonian by permanent observation of a composite system. Let the observable Λ deals only with the variables of subsystem II, and is a non-degenerate eigenvalue within the Hilbert space of subsystem II. Let, the interaction Hamiltonian between subsystems I and II be of the form H int = H (I) H (II), (68) where H (I) and H (II) are some Hermitian operators acting in the Hilbert spaces I and II, respectively. Permanent observation of the above-mentioned eigenvalue results in the following proected interaction Hamiltonian H () int = h () H (I), h () = ψ (II) H(II) ψ (II). (69) The physical meaning of the interaction Hamiltonian (69) is as follows. The subsystem II gets frozen in the state ψ (II). The evolution of the system I is driven by the effective Hamiltonian equal to the sum of the systems own Hamiltonian in the presence of generalized external fields h () (resulting in H () int ). In the spirit of Problem 9, the fields h () in the effective interaction Hamiltonian (69) can be rendered time-dependent by appropriately changing the observable Λ in time. Problem 16. For two spins-1/2 interacting via the Hamiltonian σ 1 σ 2, show that permanently measuring the proection of the second spin onto the time-dependent axis ˆn(t) results in the effective time-dependent magnetic field acting on the first spin, provided the dependence of the unit vector ˆn on time is smooth. 17
Language of Quantum Mechanics
Language of Quantum Mechanics System s Hilbert space. Pure and mixed states A quantum-mechanical system 1 is characterized by a complete inner-product space that is, Hilbert space with either finite or
More informationSecond Quantization: Quantum Fields
Second Quantization: Quantum Fields Bosons and Fermions Let X j stand for the coordinate and spin subscript (if any) of the j-th particle, so that the vector of state Ψ of N particles has the form Ψ Ψ(X
More informationQuantum Measurements: some technical background
Quantum Measurements: some technical background [From the projection postulate to density matrices & (introduction to) von Neumann measurements] (AKA: the boring lecture) First: One more example I wanted
More informationIdentical Particles. Bosons and Fermions
Identical Particles Bosons and Fermions In Quantum Mechanics there is no difference between particles and fields. The objects which we refer to as fields in classical physics (electromagnetic field, field
More informationSinglet State Correlations
Chapter 23 Singlet State Correlations 23.1 Introduction This and the following chapter can be thought of as a single unit devoted to discussing various issues raised by a famous paper published by Einstein,
More informationBell s Theorem. Ben Dribus. June 8, Louisiana State University
Bell s Theorem Ben Dribus Louisiana State University June 8, 2012 Introduction. Quantum Theory makes predictions that challenge intuitive notions of physical reality. Einstein and others were sufficiently
More information1 Mathematical preliminaries
1 Mathematical preliminaries The mathematical language of quantum mechanics is that of vector spaces and linear algebra. In this preliminary section, we will collect the various definitions and mathematical
More informationIntroduction to Quantum Mechanics
Introduction to Quantum Mechanics R. J. Renka Department of Computer Science & Engineering University of North Texas 03/19/2018 Postulates of Quantum Mechanics The postulates (axioms) of quantum mechanics
More informationGrand Canonical Formalism
Grand Canonical Formalism Grand Canonical Ensebmle For the gases of ideal Bosons and Fermions each single-particle mode behaves almost like an independent subsystem, with the only reservation that the
More informationEnsembles and incomplete information
p. 1/32 Ensembles and incomplete information So far in this course, we have described quantum systems by states that are normalized vectors in a complex Hilbert space. This works so long as (a) the system
More informationNANOSCALE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
. NANOSCALE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY V Two-Level Quantum Systems (Qubits) Lecture notes 5 5. Qubit description Quantum bit (qubit) is an elementary unit of a quantum computer. Similar to classical computers,
More informationStatistical Mechanics in a Nutshell
Chapter 2 Statistical Mechanics in a Nutshell Adapted from: Understanding Molecular Simulation Daan Frenkel and Berend Smit Academic Press (2001) pp. 9-22 11 2.1 Introduction In this course, we will treat
More informationDensity Matrices. Chapter Introduction
Chapter 15 Density Matrices 15.1 Introduction Density matrices are employed in quantum mechanics to give a partial description of a quantum system, one from which certain details have been omitted. For
More informationPhysics 581, Quantum Optics II Problem Set #4 Due: Tuesday November 1, 2016
Physics 581, Quantum Optics II Problem Set #4 Due: Tuesday November 1, 2016 Problem 3: The EPR state (30 points) The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox is based around a thought experiment of measurements
More informationQuantum Entanglement. Chapter Introduction. 8.2 Entangled Two-Particle States
Chapter 8 Quantum Entanglement 8.1 Introduction In our final chapter on quantum mechanics we introduce the concept of entanglement. This is a feature of two-particle states (or multi-particle states) in
More informationIncompatibility Paradoxes
Chapter 22 Incompatibility Paradoxes 22.1 Simultaneous Values There is never any difficulty in supposing that a classical mechanical system possesses, at a particular instant of time, precise values of
More informationThe Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem
PHYS419 Lecture 0 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem 1 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment and Bell s theorem As first shown by Bell (1964), the force of the arguments
More information1 Fundamental physical postulates. C/CS/Phys C191 Quantum Mechanics in a Nutshell I 10/04/07 Fall 2007 Lecture 12
C/CS/Phys C191 Quantum Mechanics in a Nutshell I 10/04/07 Fall 2007 Lecture 12 In this and the next lecture we summarize the essential physical and mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics relevant to
More informationPhysics 4022 Notes on Density Matrices
Physics 40 Notes on Density Matrices Definition: For a system in a definite normalized state ψ > the density matrix ρ is ρ = ψ >< ψ 1) From Eq 1 it is obvious that in the basis defined by ψ > and other
More information2 The Density Operator
In this chapter we introduce the density operator, which provides an alternative way to describe the state of a quantum mechanical system. So far we have only dealt with situations where the state of a
More informationin-medium pair wave functions the Cooper pair wave function the superconducting order parameter anomalous averages of the field operators
(by A. A. Shanenko) in-medium wave functions in-medium pair-wave functions and spatial pair particle correlations momentum condensation and ODLRO (off-diagonal long range order) U(1) symmetry breaking
More informationC/CS/Phys C191 Quantum Mechanics in a Nutshell 10/06/07 Fall 2009 Lecture 12
C/CS/Phys C191 Quantum Mechanics in a Nutshell 10/06/07 Fall 2009 Lecture 12 In this lecture we summarize the essential physical and mathematical aspects of quantum mechanics relevant to this course. Topics
More informationQuantum Information Types
qitd181 Quantum Information Types Robert B. Griffiths Version of 6 February 2012 References: R. B. Griffiths, Types of Quantum Information, Phys. Rev. A 76 (2007) 062320; arxiv:0707.3752 Contents 1 Introduction
More information1 Traces, Traces Everywhere (5 points)
Ph15c Spring 017 Prof. Sean Carroll seancarroll@gmail.com Homework - Solutions Assigned TA: Ashmeet Singh ashmeet@caltech.edu 1 Traces, Traces Everywhere (5 points) (a.) Okay, so the time evolved state
More informationThe Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem
PHYS419 Lecture 0 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem 1 The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought-experiment and Bell s theorem As first shown by Bell (1964), the force of the arguments
More informationLecture 13B: Supplementary Notes on Advanced Topics. 1 Inner Products and Outer Products for Single Particle States
Lecture 13B: Supplementary Notes on Advanced Topics Outer Products, Operators, Density Matrices In order to explore the complexity of many particle systems a different way to represent multiparticle states
More informationBrief review of Quantum Mechanics (QM)
Brief review of Quantum Mechanics (QM) Note: This is a collection of several formulae and facts that we will use throughout the course. It is by no means a complete discussion of QM, nor will I attempt
More informationThe Postulates of Quantum Mechanics
p. 1/23 The Postulates of Quantum Mechanics We have reviewed the mathematics (complex linear algebra) necessary to understand quantum mechanics. We will now see how the physics of quantum mechanics fits
More informationJ = L + S. to this ket and normalize it. In this way we get expressions for all the kets
Lecture 3 Relevant sections in text: 3.7, 3.9 Total Angular Momentum Eigenvectors How are the total angular momentum eigenvectors related to the original product eigenvectors (eigenvectors of L z and S
More informationTime-Independent Perturbation Theory
4 Phys46.nb Time-Independent Perturbation Theory.. Overview... General question Assuming that we have a Hamiltonian, H = H + λ H (.) where λ is a very small real number. The eigenstates of the Hamiltonian
More informationPLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU FIND TYPOS (send to
Teoretisk Fysik KTH Advanced QM (SI2380), Lecture 2 (Summary of concepts) 1 PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU FIND TYPOS (send email to langmann@kth.se) The laws of QM 1. I now discuss the laws of QM and their
More informationFirst Problem Set for Physics 847 (Statistical Physics II)
First Problem Set for Physics 847 (Statistical Physics II) Important dates: Feb 0 0:30am-:8pm midterm exam, Mar 6 9:30am-:8am final exam Due date: Tuesday, Jan 3. Review 0 points Let us start by reviewing
More informationLikewise, any operator, including the most generic Hamiltonian, can be written in this basis as H11 H
Finite Dimensional systems/ilbert space Finite dimensional systems form an important sub-class of degrees of freedom in the physical world To begin with, they describe angular momenta with fixed modulus
More informationCoherent states, beam splitters and photons
Coherent states, beam splitters and photons S.J. van Enk 1. Each mode of the electromagnetic (radiation) field with frequency ω is described mathematically by a 1D harmonic oscillator with frequency ω.
More informationChapter 5. Density matrix formalism
Chapter 5 Density matrix formalism In chap we formulated quantum mechanics for isolated systems. In practice systems interect with their environnement and we need a description that takes this feature
More informationChapter 2: Quantum Entanglement
Y. D. Chong (018 PH4401: Quantum Mechanics III Chapter : Quantum Entanglement I. QUANTUM MECHANICS OF MULTI-PARTICLE SYSTEMS So far, we have studied quantum mechanical systems consisting of single particles.
More informationINTRODUCTORY NOTES ON QUANTUM COMPUTATION
INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON QUANTUM COMPUTATION Keith Hannabuss Balliol College, Oxford Hilary Term 2009 Notation. In these notes we shall often use the physicists bra-ket notation, writing ψ for a vector ψ
More informationarxiv: v4 [quant-ph] 26 Oct 2017
Hidden Variable Theory of a Single World from Many-Worlds Quantum Mechanics Don Weingarten donweingarten@hotmail.com We propose a method for finding an initial state vector which by ordinary Hamiltonian
More informationQuantum ideal gases: bosons
Quantum ideal gases: bosons Any particle with integer spin is a boson. In this notes, we will discuss the main features of the statistics of N non-interacting bosons of spin S (S =,,...). We will only
More informationUnitary evolution: this axiom governs how the state of the quantum system evolves in time.
CS 94- Introduction Axioms Bell Inequalities /7/7 Spring 7 Lecture Why Quantum Computation? Quantum computers are the only model of computation that escape the limitations on computation imposed by the
More informationProblems with/failures of QM
CM fails to describe macroscopic quantum phenomena. Phenomena where microscopic properties carry over into macroscopic world: superfluidity Helium flows without friction at sufficiently low temperature.
More informationHilbert Spaces. Hilbert space is a vector space with some extra structure. We start with formal (axiomatic) definition of a vector space.
Hilbert Spaces Hilbert space is a vector space with some extra structure. We start with formal (axiomatic) definition of a vector space. Vector Space. Vector space, ν, over the field of complex numbers,
More informationPh 219/CS 219. Exercises Due: Friday 3 November 2006
Ph 9/CS 9 Exercises Due: Friday 3 November 006. Fidelity We saw in Exercise. that the trace norm ρ ρ tr provides a useful measure of the distinguishability of the states ρ and ρ. Another useful measure
More informationDecoherence and the Classical Limit
Chapter 26 Decoherence and the Classical Limit 26.1 Introduction Classical mechanics deals with objects which have a precise location and move in a deterministic way as a function of time. By contrast,
More informationClosing the Debates on Quantum Locality and Reality: EPR Theorem, Bell's Theorem, and Quantum Information from the Brown-Twiss Vantage
Closing the Debates on Quantum Locality and Reality: EPR Theorem, Bell's Theorem, and Quantum Information from the Brown-Twiss Vantage C. S. Unnikrishnan Fundamental Interactions Laboratory Tata Institute
More informationCould a Classical Probability Theory Describe Quantum Systems?
Could a Classical Probability Theory Describe Quantum Systems? Jinshan Wu 1, Shouyong Pei 1. Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Canada, V6T 1Z1. Department
More informationGeneral Physical Chemistry II
General Physical Chemistry II Lecture 3 Aleksey Kocherzhenko September 2, 2014" Last time " The time-independent Schrödinger equation" Erwin Schrödinger " ~ 2 2m d 2 (x) dx 2 The wavefunction:" (x) The
More informationTopic 2: The mathematical formalism and the standard way of thin
The mathematical formalism and the standard way of thinking about it http://www.wuthrich.net/ MA Seminar: Philosophy of Physics Vectors and vector spaces Vectors and vector spaces Operators Albert, Quantum
More informationQuantum decoherence. Éric Oliver Paquette (U. Montréal) -Traces Worshop [Ottawa]- April 29 th, Quantum decoherence p. 1/2
Quantum decoherence p. 1/2 Quantum decoherence Éric Oliver Paquette (U. Montréal) -Traces Worshop [Ottawa]- April 29 th, 2007 Quantum decoherence p. 2/2 Outline Quantum decoherence: 1. Basics of quantum
More informationThe Convex Hull of Spin Coherent States
The Convex Hull of Spin Coherent States Author: Muhammad Sadiq Supervisor: Prof. Ingemar Bengtsson Stockholm University Fysikum, May 28, 2009. Abstract Pure coherent states are known as the most classical
More informationHardy s Paradox. Chapter Introduction
Chapter 25 Hardy s Paradox 25.1 Introduction Hardy s paradox resembles the Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, discussed in Chs. 23 and 24, in that it involves two correlated particles,
More informationEinstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell s inequalities Jan Schütz November 27, 2005 Abstract Considering the Gedankenexperiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as example the nonlocal character of quantum
More informationPure Quantum States Are Fundamental, Mixtures (Composite States) Are Mathematical Constructions: An Argument Using Algorithmic Information Theory
Pure Quantum States Are Fundamental, Mixtures (Composite States) Are Mathematical Constructions: An Argument Using Algorithmic Information Theory Vladik Kreinovich and Luc Longpré Department of Computer
More informationLecture 2: Open quantum systems
Phys 769 Selected Topics in Condensed Matter Physics Summer 21 Lecture 2: Open quantum systems Lecturer: Anthony J. Leggett TA: Bill Coish 1. No (micro- or macro-) system is ever truly isolated U = S +
More information1.1 Quantum mechanics of one particle
1 Second quantization 1.1 Quantum mechanics of one particle In quantum mechanics the physical state of a particle is described in terms of a ket Ψ. This ket belongs to a Hilbert space which is nothing
More information3. Quantum Mechanics in 3D
3. Quantum Mechanics in 3D 3.1 Introduction Last time, we derived the time dependent Schrödinger equation, starting from three basic postulates: 1) The time evolution of a state can be expressed as a unitary
More informationDelayed Choice Paradox
Chapter 20 Delayed Choice Paradox 20.1 Statement of the Paradox Consider the Mach-Zehnder interferometer shown in Fig. 20.1. The second beam splitter can either be at its regular position B in where the
More informationP3317 HW from Lecture and Recitation 10
P3317 HW from Lecture 18+19 and Recitation 10 Due Nov 6, 2018 Problem 1. Equipartition Note: This is a problem from classical statistical mechanics. We will need the answer for the next few problems, and
More informationQuantum statistics: properties of the Fermi-Dirac distribution.
Statistical Mechanics Phys54 Fall 26 Lecture #11 Anthony J. Leggett Department of Physics, UIUC Quantum statistics: properties of the Fermi-Dirac distribution. In the last lecture we discussed the properties
More informationCompression and entanglement, entanglement transformations
PHYSICS 491: Symmetry and Quantum Information April 27, 2017 Compression and entanglement, entanglement transformations Lecture 8 Michael Walter, Stanford University These lecture notes are not proof-read
More informationQuantum Mechanics Solutions. λ i λ j v j v j v i v i.
Quantum Mechanics Solutions 1. (a) If H has an orthonormal basis consisting of the eigenvectors { v i } of A with eigenvalues λ i C, then A can be written in terms of its spectral decomposition as A =
More informationPhase Transitions. µ a (P c (T ), T ) µ b (P c (T ), T ), (3) µ a (P, T c (P )) µ b (P, T c (P )). (4)
Phase Transitions A homogeneous equilibrium state of matter is the most natural one, given the fact that the interparticle interactions are translationally invariant. Nevertheless there is no contradiction
More informationconventions and notation
Ph95a lecture notes, //0 The Bloch Equations A quick review of spin- conventions and notation The quantum state of a spin- particle is represented by a vector in a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space
More information1 Quantum field theory and Green s function
1 Quantum field theory and Green s function Condensed matter physics studies systems with large numbers of identical particles (e.g. electrons, phonons, photons) at finite temperature. Quantum field theory
More informationQuantum mechanics in one hour
Chapter 2 Quantum mechanics in one hour 2.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to refresh your knowledge of quantum mechanics and to establish notation. Depending on your background you might
More informationThe nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in QM
The nature of Reality: Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in QM Michele Caponigro ISHTAR, Bergamo University Abstract From conceptual point of view, we argue about the nature of reality inferred from EPR
More informationSolutions Final exam 633
Solutions Final exam 633 S.J. van Enk (Dated: June 9, 2008) (1) [25 points] You have a source that produces pairs of spin-1/2 particles. With probability p they are in the singlet state, ( )/ 2, and with
More informationQubits vs. bits: a naive account A bit: admits two values 0 and 1, admits arbitrary transformations. is freely readable,
Qubits vs. bits: a naive account A bit: admits two values 0 and 1, admits arbitrary transformations. is freely readable, A qubit: a sphere of values, which is spanned in projective sense by two quantum
More information1.1.1 Bell Inequality - Spin correlation
January 8, 015 Lecture IV 1.1.1 Bell Inequality - Spin correlation Consider the final spin singlet state of the decay η 0 µ + µ We suppose that the η 0 decays and the muon and µ + travel in opposite directions,
More informationReview of the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics
Review of the Formalism of Quantum Mechanics The postulates of quantum mechanics are often stated in textbooks. There are two main properties of physics upon which these postulates are based: 1)the probability
More informationConsistent Histories. Chapter Chain Operators and Weights
Chapter 10 Consistent Histories 10.1 Chain Operators and Weights The previous chapter showed how the Born rule can be used to assign probabilities to a sample space of histories based upon an initial state
More informationDoes Quantum Measurement Violate the Conservation of Angular Momentum? A Paradox Resolved Rick Bradford, 6/12/16
Does Quantum Measurement Violate the Conservation of Angular Momentum? A Parado Resolved Rick Bradford, 6//6 Presented here is a parado which took some considerable effort to resolve - and I don't think
More informationPhysics 127a: Class Notes
Physics 127a: Class Notes Lecture 15: Statistical Mechanics of Superfluidity Elementary excitations/quasiparticles In general, it is hard to list the energy eigenstates, needed to calculate the statistical
More informationd 3 r d 3 vf( r, v) = N (2) = CV C = n where n N/V is the total number of molecules per unit volume. Hence e βmv2 /2 d 3 rd 3 v (5)
LECTURE 12 Maxwell Velocity Distribution Suppose we have a dilute gas of molecules, each with mass m. If the gas is dilute enough, we can ignore the interactions between the molecules and the energy will
More informationTopological insulator with time-reversal symmetry
Phys620.nb 101 7 Topological insulator with time-reversal symmetry Q: Can we get a topological insulator that preserves the time-reversal symmetry? A: Yes, with the help of the spin degree of freedom.
More informationMP463 QUANTUM MECHANICS
MP463 QUANTUM MECHANICS Introduction Quantum theory of angular momentum Quantum theory of a particle in a central potential - Hydrogen atom - Three-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillator (a model of
More informationQuantum Mechanics C (130C) Winter 2014 Final exam
University of California at San Diego Department of Physics Prof. John McGreevy Quantum Mechanics C (130C Winter 014 Final exam Please remember to put your name on your exam booklet. This is a closed-book
More informationElectrons in a periodic potential
Chapter 3 Electrons in a periodic potential 3.1 Bloch s theorem. We consider in this chapter electrons under the influence of a static, periodic potential V (x), i.e. such that it fulfills V (x) = V (x
More informationQuantum measurement theory
1 Quantum measurement theory 1.1 Classical measurement theory 1.1.1 Basic concepts Although this chapter, and indeed this book, is concerned with quantum measurements, we begin with a discussion of some
More informationStochastic Processes
qmc082.tex. Version of 30 September 2010. Lecture Notes on Quantum Mechanics No. 8 R. B. Griffiths References: Stochastic Processes CQT = R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Quantum Theory (Cambridge, 2002) DeGroot
More informationQuantum Mechanics- I Prof. Dr. S. Lakshmi Bala Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Quantum Mechanics- I Prof. Dr. S. Lakshmi Bala Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture - 6 Postulates of Quantum Mechanics II (Refer Slide Time: 00:07) In my last lecture,
More informationDensity Operators and Ensembles
qitd422 Density Operators and Ensembles Robert B. Griffiths Version of 30 January 2014 Contents 1 Density Operators 1 1.1 Introduction.............................................. 1 1.2 Partial trace..............................................
More informationA review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels
JOURNAL OF CHEMISTRY 57 VOLUME NUMBER DECEMBER 8 005 A review on quantum teleportation based on: Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen channels Miri Shlomi
More informationElements of Statistical Mechanics
Elements of Statistical Mechanics Thermodynamics describes the properties of macroscopic bodies. Statistical mechanics allows us to obtain the laws of thermodynamics from the laws of mechanics, classical
More informationPHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix
PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix Here follows a short summary of the definitions of qubits, EPR states, entanglement, the density matrix, pure states, mixed states, measurement, and
More informationC/CS/Phys C191 Particle-in-a-box, Spin 10/02/08 Fall 2008 Lecture 11
C/CS/Phys C191 Particle-in-a-box, Spin 10/0/08 Fall 008 Lecture 11 Last time we saw that the time dependent Schr. eqn. can be decomposed into two equations, one in time (t) and one in space (x): space
More informationQuantum Mechanics- I Prof. Dr. S. Lakshmi Bala Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Quantum Mechanics- I Prof. Dr. S. Lakshmi Bala Department of Physics Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Lecture - 4 Postulates of Quantum Mechanics I In today s lecture I will essentially be talking
More informationPhysics 221A Fall 1996 Notes 14 Coupling of Angular Momenta
Physics 1A Fall 1996 Notes 14 Coupling of Angular Momenta In these notes we will discuss the problem of the coupling or addition of angular momenta. It is assumed that you have all had experience with
More informationRotations in Quantum Mechanics
Rotations in Quantum Mechanics We have seen that physical transformations are represented in quantum mechanics by unitary operators acting on the Hilbert space. In this section, we ll think about the specific
More informationIntroduction. Chapter The Purpose of Statistical Mechanics
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The Purpose of Statistical Mechanics Statistical Mechanics is the mechanics developed to treat a collection of a large number of atoms or particles. Such a collection is, for
More informationEPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities
Chapter 24 EPR Paradox and Bell Inequalities 24.1 Bohm Version of the EPR Paradox Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) were concerned with the following issue. Given two spatially separated quantum systems
More informationAttempts at relativistic QM
Attempts at relativistic QM based on S-1 A proper description of particle physics should incorporate both quantum mechanics and special relativity. However historically combining quantum mechanics and
More informationPage 404. Lecture 22: Simple Harmonic Oscillator: Energy Basis Date Given: 2008/11/19 Date Revised: 2008/11/19
Page 404 Lecture : Simple Harmonic Oscillator: Energy Basis Date Given: 008/11/19 Date Revised: 008/11/19 Coordinate Basis Section 6. The One-Dimensional Simple Harmonic Oscillator: Coordinate Basis Page
More informationQuantum mechanics (QM) deals with systems on atomic scale level, whose behaviours cannot be described by classical mechanics.
A 10-MINUTE RATHER QUICK INTRODUCTION TO QUANTUM MECHANICS 1. What is quantum mechanics (as opposed to classical mechanics)? Quantum mechanics (QM) deals with systems on atomic scale level, whose behaviours
More informationThe Framework of Quantum Mechanics
The Framework of Quantum Mechanics We now use the mathematical formalism covered in the last lecture to describe the theory of quantum mechanics. In the first section we outline four axioms that lie at
More informationQuantum field theory and Green s function
1 Quantum field theory and Green s function Condensed matter physics studies systems with large numbers of identical particles (e.g. electrons, phonons, photons) at finite temperature. Quantum field theory
More informationP3317 HW from Lecture 15 and Recitation 8
P3317 HW from Lecture 15 and Recitation 8 Due Oct 23, 218 Problem 1. Variational Energy of Helium Here we will estimate the ground state energy of Helium. Helium has two electrons circling around a nucleus
More informationLecture 11 Spin, orbital, and total angular momentum Mechanics. 1 Very brief background. 2 General properties of angular momentum operators
Lecture Spin, orbital, and total angular momentum 70.00 Mechanics Very brief background MATH-GA In 9, a famous experiment conducted by Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach, involving particles subject to a nonuniform
More information1 Recall what is Spin
C/CS/Phys C191 Spin measurement, initialization, manipulation by precession10/07/08 Fall 2008 Lecture 10 1 Recall what is Spin Elementary particles and composite particles carry an intrinsic angular momentum
More informationQuantum Optics and Quantum Informatics FKA173
Quantum Optics and Quantum Informatics FKA173 Date and time: Tuesday, 7 October 015, 08:30-1:30. Examiners: Jonas Bylander (070-53 44 39) and Thilo Bauch (0733-66 13 79). Visits around 09:30 and 11:30.
More information