Explicit demonstration of a measurement interaction

  • #1
EE18
112
13
Homework Statement
See below.
Relevant Equations
See below.
$$\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left \langle #1 \right \rvert}
\newcommand{\braxket}[3]{\left \langle #1 \middle \rvert #2 \middle \rvert #3 \right \rangle}
\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left \rvert #1 \right \rangle}
\newcommand{\expec}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}$$

Ballentine asks us the question at the end of this post. I am unclear on how to proceed because of the exponential of a tensor product operator.

My work:

We note from the outset that ##c## is unitless, as is obvious on dimensional grounds.

Suppose we have some initial, unentangled state (we assume pure states). The initial state of the object is some superposition of position states, of course.
$$\ket{\Psi_0} = \ket{\psi_0} \otimes \ket{\alpha},$$
where ##\ket{\alpha} = \int dx \, \alpha(x) \ket{x}## denotes a preparatory state of the apparatus and ##\ket{\psi_0} = \int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}## is the initial state of the object. We note that the time-development operator is given by
$$U(t) = e^{-i\int dt\, H(t)/\hbar} = e^{-icQ^{(1)}P^{(2)}\int dt\, \delta(t)/\hbar} = e^{-icQ^{(1)}P^{(2)}/\hbar}.$$
We now consider the measurement interaction:
$$\ket{\Psi_0} = \ket{\psi_0} \otimes \ket{\alpha} \to \ket{\Psi_f} = e^{-icQ^{(1)}P^{(2)}/\hbar}\ket{\psi_0} \otimes \ket{\alpha} = \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \left[ e^{-icQ^{(1)}P^{(2)}/\hbar} \ket{x} \otimes \ket{x'} \right]$$
$$ = \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \left[(-icQ^{(1)}P^{(2)}/\hbar)^n \ket{x} \otimes \ket{x'} \right]$$
$$= \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} \left(\frac{-ic}{\hbar} \right)^n \left((Q^{(1)})^n \ket{x}\right) \otimes \left((P^{(2)})^n \ket{x'}\right) $$
$$= \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{-icx}{\hbar} \right)^n \ket{x} \otimes \left((P^{(2)})^n \ket{x'}\right) $$
$$\stackrel{(1)}{=} \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \ket{x} \otimes \left(\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{-icx}{\hbar}P^{(2)} \right)^n \ket{x'}\right)$$
$$ = \int dx \int dx' \, \psi_0(x) \alpha(x') \ket{x} \otimes \left(e^{\frac{-icx}{\hbar}P^{(2)}} \ket{x'}\right)$$
$$ = \int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}\otimes \left(\int dx' \, e^{\frac{-icx}{\hbar}P^{(2)}} \ket{x'}\alpha(x')\right)$$
$$ = \int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}\otimes \left(\int dx' \, e^{\frac{-icx}{\hbar}P^{(2)}} \ket{x'}\bra{x'}\ket{\alpha}\right)$$
$$\int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}\otimes \left( e^{\frac{-icx}{\hbar}P^{(2)}}\ket{\alpha}\right)$$
$$ \equiv \int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}\otimes \left( T^{(2)}(cx)\ket{\alpha}\right),$$
where in (1) we use the linearity of the tensor product and where in the last equality we have identified the translation operator.

Now let's consider computing ##\expec{Q^{(1)}Q^{(2)}}## on the post-interaction state (this expectation value is related to the correlation coefficient and has been the proxy which Ballentine uses for correlation). We obtain
$$\expec{Q^{(1)}Q^{(2)}} = \left[ \int dx'\, \psi^*_0(x') \bra{x'}\otimes \left( \bra{\alpha}T^{(2)}(-cx')\right)\right]Q^{(1)}Q^{(2)} \left[ \int dx\, \psi_0(x) \ket{x}\otimes \left( T^{(2)}(cx)\ket{\alpha}\right)\right]$$
$$ \stackrel{(1)}{=} \int dx \, x|\psi^*_0(x)|^2 \bra{\alpha}T^{(2)}(-cx)Q^{(2)}T^{(2)}(cx)\ket{\alpha}$$
where in (1) we've used the inner product definition on a tensor product space and ##\braxket{x'}{Q^{(1)}}{x} = x\delta(x-x')##.

But this doesn't seem to be what Ballentine wants in the end. What does he mean by the "value of ##Q^{(2)}##? I also can't see where to go past where I've gotten to. If anyone can help out I'd greatly appreciate it.

Screen Shot 2023-08-11 at 2.47.23 PM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think, it's easier to keep the time finite. The interaction operator is simple since the operator at different times commute. Thus the time-evolution operator of states in the interaction picture simply is (with ##t_0<0## to avoid trouble with the ##\delta## distribution)
$$\hat{C}(t,t_0)=exp \left (-\mathrm{i} \int_{0}^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}_I(t')/\hbar \right ) = \exp[-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar \Theta(t)].$$
Low you can set ##t>0## and just evaluate
$$|q^{(1)},q^{(2)},t \rangle=\exp(-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar) |q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0 \rangle,$$
and then use the result to calculate the "asymptotic free state"
$$|\Psi' \rangle =\int_{q^{(1)},q^{(2)}} \mathrm{d} q^{(1)} \mathrm{d} q^{(2)} \exp(-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar) |q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0 \rangle \langle q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0|\Psi_0 \rangle.$$
 
  • #3
vanhees71 said:
I think, it's easier to keep the time finite. The interaction operator is simple since the operator at different times commute. Thus the time-evolution operator of states in the interaction picture simply is (with ##t_0<0## to avoid trouble with the ##\delta## distribution)
$$\hat{C}(t,t_0)=exp \left (-\mathrm{i} \int_{0}^t \mathrm{d} t' \hat{H}_I(t')/\hbar \right ) = \exp[-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar \Theta(t)].$$
Low you can set ##t>0## and just evaluate
$$|q^{(1)},q^{(2)},t \rangle=\exp(-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar) |q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0 \rangle,$$
and then use the result to calculate the "asymptotic free state"
$$|\Psi' \rangle =\int_{q^{(1)},q^{(2)}} \mathrm{d} q^{(1)} \mathrm{d} q^{(2)} \exp(-\mathrm{i} c \hat{Q}^{(1)} \hat{P}^{(2)}/\hbar) |q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0 \rangle \langle q^{(1)},q^{(2)},0|\Psi_0 \rangle.$$
Perhaps I don't follow, but isn't your last line more or less what I've given in my last line? Would you be able to comment on how ##Q^2## now provides a measurement of the initial state of the object's position ##Q^2## beforehand?
 
  • #4
May be, I'm not sure. What should come out is an entangled state between the particle and the detector such that a measurement of ##Q^{(2)}## (reading of the pointer position) leads to a measurement of ##Q^{(1)}## (position of the particle). So you should calculate the state after the interaction and discuss.
 

FAQ: Explicit demonstration of a measurement interaction

What is an explicit demonstration of a measurement interaction?

An explicit demonstration of a measurement interaction refers to a detailed and clear presentation of how a measurement process affects the system being measured. This involves showing the physical or mathematical mechanisms by which the act of measurement influences the state or properties of the system.

Why is it important to demonstrate measurement interactions explicitly?

Demonstrating measurement interactions explicitly is crucial for understanding the accuracy, reliability, and potential biases in the measurement process. It helps in identifying how the measurement itself might alter the system and ensures that the results obtained are correctly interpreted.

What are some common methods used for explicit demonstration of measurement interactions?

Common methods include theoretical modeling, where mathematical equations describe the interaction; experimental setups that isolate and observe the effects of measurement; and simulations that replicate the measurement process and its impact on the system. Each method aims to provide a clear and detailed understanding of the interaction.

Can you provide an example of an explicit demonstration of a measurement interaction?

An example would be the quantum measurement problem, where measuring a quantum system can collapse its wave function. An explicit demonstration might involve setting up a double-slit experiment and showing how the act of measuring which slit a particle passes through changes the interference pattern observed on the screen.

What challenges are associated with explicitly demonstrating measurement interactions?

Challenges include the complexity of accurately modeling the interaction, the potential for measurement tools to introduce additional variables, and the difficulty in isolating the measurement process from other influencing factors. Additionally, in some systems, the interaction may be too subtle or rapid to observe directly, requiring advanced techniques and technologies.

Similar threads

Back
Top