I read that irreversibly going from a pure state to a mixed state requires a two step Von Neumann measurement process: 1) entanglement, via a unitary operator 2) wave function "collapse" (or "observation", or some other interpretation of what to call step 2 that makes the result irreversible). Also, generally, the range of states of the object being measured (the range with non-trivial probability) is reduced as a result of the measurement. For instance, a wave function that is a Gaussian might have a smaller standard deviation after step 2. However, below is an example where step 1 seems to be skipped. In this example, the quantum system undergoes an non-unitary transformation (non-quantum transformation), which is not a measurement as described above, but still moves the composite system, and its subsystems, into a mixed state. Also, the range of non-trivial states is not reduced. Therefore, it seems that going from a pure to a mixed state need not always be the result of a Von Neumann measurement process.

Consider the double slit experiment, where we shoot a single electron, from $x = 0$, toward a screen, that is in the $yz$ plane at $x_1 > 0$, and the screen contains two appropriately placed slits. The detector is at $x_2 > x_1$. At each slit, is a device that sets the spin of the electron along the $\epsilon$ axis. One device sets it to $|\uparrow\rangle$ and the other sets it to $|\downarrow\rangle$. So, this is a "which way" kind of set up.

Assume within $[0,x_1]$:

  • electron position $|\Psi\rangle = |\Psi_1\rangle$, a plane wave
  • electron spin $|\epsilon\rangle =(2^{-1/2}|\uparrow\rangle + 2^{-1/2}|\downarrow\rangle)$
  • product state $|\Psi\rangle \otimes |\epsilon\rangle = |\Psi_1\rangle \otimes (2^{-1/2}|\uparrow\rangle + 2^{-1/2}|\downarrow\rangle)$

Within $[x_1, x_2]$:

electron is irreversibly in the mixed state of

  • $\hat{\rho} = (2^{-1}(|\Psi_2\rangle \langle\Psi_2|)\otimes (|\uparrow\rangle\langle \uparrow|) + 2^{-1}(|\Psi_3\rangle \langle\Psi_3|)\otimes (|\downarrow\rangle\langle \downarrow|)$)

where $\langle x|\Psi_2\rangle$ is a radial wave function, for electron position, with origin at one slit, and $\langle x|\Psi_3\rangle$ is a radial wave function, for electron position, with origin at the other slit.

We also can trace out the spin to arrive at the reduced density matrix for electron position:

  • $\hat{\rho_{position}} = \langle\uparrow|\hat{\rho}|\uparrow\rangle +\langle\downarrow|\hat{\rho}|\downarrow\rangle = 2^{-1}|\Psi_2\rangle\langle\Psi_2| + 2^{-1}|\Psi_3\rangle\langle\Psi_3|$

where electron position wave functions $\langle x|\Psi_2\rangle$ and $\langle x|\Psi_3\rangle$ do not add, which would produce interference patterns at the detector, because the $2^{-1}$ factors are classical probabilities. That is, the two position state vectors are in an either/or situation, not a superposition of both existing at the same time.

Comparing the product state in the $[0,x_1]$ interval to $\hat{\rho}$ in the $[x_1,x_2]$ interval, it seems that the electron went from a pure state to a mixed state without the intermediate step of entanglement, via a unitary operator, of the states of $|\Psi\rangle$ (its position state vector) with the states of $|\epsilon\rangle$ (its spin state vector). (One cannot correlate the $|\Psi_2\rangle$ term of a state of $|\Psi\rangle$ with the $|\uparrow\rangle$ state of $|\epsilon\rangle$ and the $|\Psi_3\rangle$ term of the same state of $|\Psi\rangle$ with the $|\downarrow\rangle$ state of $|\epsilon\rangle$, via a unitary operator). That is, the interaction of the electron with the spin devices was not a quantum interaction via a unitary operator. It also wasn't a traditional measurement that would narrow the the ranges of states of $|\Psi_2\rangle$ and $|\Psi_3\rangle$, where their probabilities are non-trivial, compared to what they would be if we did not insert the spin setting devices. So, perhaps, any kind of action on a quantum system, that is not a unitary transformation of the system, forces the system out of being a quantum system, whether or not it is a traditional Von Neumann (two step) measurement?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.