Elementary questions about inner product interpretation

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of collapse in quantum mechanics and whether it involves a measurement or is just part of the evolution of the wave function. It is mentioned that the probability for collapse is actually the probability amplitude, and there is a discussion about the role of the vacuum energy in the Schrödinger equation. The conversation also touches on the idea of an implicit operator or Hamiltonian involved in the collapse, which is not supported by the textbook description of measurements. Instead, there is a suggestion of decoherence and the emergence of a preferred basis in the measurement process. It is noted that the probability for collapse is actually the probability amplitude, not just the probability.
  • #1
nomadreid
Gold Member
1,729
229
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex], does this "collapse" necessarily involve a measurement (so that one would have to find the implicit Hamiltonian)? Or does this just exist as part of the evolution of the wave function, perhaps the vacuum energy playing a role in the Schrödinger equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
nomadreid said:
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex], does this "collapse" necessarily involve a measurement
Yes. (Also it's not the probability but the probability amplitude.)

nomadreid said:
(so that one would have to find the implicit Hamiltonian)?
In order to do what?

nomadreid said:
Or does this just exist as part of the evolution of the wave function, perhaps the vacuum energy playing a role in the Schrödinger equation?
The vacuum energy is a concept from quantum field theory. It doesn't play a role in ordinary QM. However, there are some speculative extensions to QM which use an explicit physical mechanism to achieve collapse. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Objective_collapse_theories.
 
  • #3
Thanks, kith.
Also it's not the probability but the probability amplitude.
Ah, oops, right. There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
to find the implicit Hamiltonian
In order to do what?
Sorry, I mean the implicit operator. I was considering that the collapse would be brought about by some operator in the measuring process, so that one would be looking at <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> = <M[itex]\psi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> for some operator M.

Thanks for the link.
 
  • #4
nomadreid said:
Sorry, I mean the implicit operator. I was considering that the collapse would be brought about by some operator in the measuring process, so that one would be looking at <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> = <M[itex]\psi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> for some operator M.
This is a good question. In the textbook description of measurements, there is no such operator M. We have an initial state |ψ> and an observable O and are able to calculate the probabilities for the occurances of the eigenstates of O as final states. The measurement itself has no representation in the mathematical framework.

Now we can try to describe the measurement dynamically. A measuring device and a system interact, so in principle, we should be able to write down an interaction Hamiltonian for them. If we look at the time evolution of the system only, this interaction leads to decoherence in one basis. From this basis, we can construct the observable O. The emergence of the preferred basis is called "environmentally induced superselection". Decoherence means that an initial superposition loses its ability to interfere. This leads to several possible interpretations which get rid of the collapse. But note that your operator M is not a possible description of what happens. The dynamical description doesn't yield a single outcome but contains a probabilistic element.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
nomadreid said:
When one says that <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]> is the probability that [itex]\psi[/itex] collapses to [itex]\varphi[/itex]

Just a clarification, the probability is [itex]|<\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi>|^2[/itex], not <[itex]\varphi[/itex]|[itex]\psi[/itex]>. The latter is the probability amplitude.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #6
Thanks, kith. Very interesting. Now I shall work on the gritty details ...

thanks for the clarification, LastOneStanding.
 

FAQ: Elementary questions about inner product interpretation

What is an inner product?

An inner product is a mathematical operation that takes two vectors as inputs and returns a scalar value. It is often denoted using the symbol ⟨ , ⟩ and is commonly used in linear algebra and functional analysis.

How is an inner product interpreted?

The interpretation of an inner product can vary depending on the context in which it is used. In general, it can be thought of as measuring the similarity or "closeness" between two vectors, or as a way to project one vector onto another.

What are some properties of inner products?

Some common properties of inner products include linearity in the first argument, symmetry, and positive definiteness. These properties make inner products useful in various mathematical and scientific applications.

How is an inner product different from a dot product?

An inner product is a more general concept than a dot product, as it can be defined for vector spaces other than just Euclidean space. A dot product is a specific type of inner product that is defined for two vectors in Euclidean space.

Can inner products be used in physics?

Yes, inner products are commonly used in physics and other sciences to describe physical quantities and relationships between them. In quantum mechanics, for example, inner products are used to calculate probabilities and to represent the state of a system.

Back
Top