0
$\begingroup$

Consider silver atoms coming from an S(X) apparatus, after S(X) apparatus we place an S(Z) apparatus

$$ |\mathrm{SX+}\rangle= \frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle + \frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle, $$

Action of $\hat{S}_z$ operator collapses the wave state to $|\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle$ or $|\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle$, but action of operator on $|\mathrm{SX+}\rangle$ can be mathematically represented as

\begin{align} \hat{S}_z|\mathrm{SX+}\rangle & = \hat{S}_z\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle +\hat{S}_z\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle, \\ \Rightarrow \qquad \hat{S}_z|\mathrm{SX+}\rangle & = \frac{h}{4\pi}\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle -\frac{h}{4\pi}\frac{1}{2}|\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle, \end{align} which can be normalised as $|\mathrm{SX-}\rangle$ state.

So my doubt is action of operator on a wave function collapses wave function to any of the eigen states or transforming the wavefunction to $|\mathrm{SX-}\rangle$ state?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ see here math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5020/… $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Apr 21 at 17:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ measurements are not unitary or deterministic operations, and hence they objectively make information about the previous quantum state irretrievable, even in principle $\endgroup$ – lurscher Apr 21 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ I've done a starting round of formatting edits to get your post marginally readable, as far as allowed by your initial notation. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Apr 21 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the help Emilo Pisanty $\endgroup$ – Robin Raj Apr 21 at 17:49
3
$\begingroup$

Your core misconception is here:

Action of $\hat{S}_z$ operator collapses the wave state to $|\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle$ or $|\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle$

This is incorrect. Measurement of the observable $S_z$ will collapse the wavefunction to one of its eigenstates, but that measurement is not modelled by acting with the operator $\hat{S}_z$ on the wavefunction. Instead, if you want to model the collapse, you use one of the two hermitian projection operators \begin{align} \hat{\Pi}_{z,+} & = |\mathrm{SZ+}\rangle \langle \mathrm{SZ+}|, \\ \hat{\Pi}_{z,-} & = |\mathrm{SZ-}\rangle \langle \mathrm{SZ-}| \end{align} (in the sub-optimal notation used in v2 of your answer as the cleanest rendition I could do of your initial text; for clarity, here $\hat{S}_z |\mathrm{SZ\pm}\rangle = \pm \frac12 \hbar |\mathrm{SZ\pm}\rangle$.) If the measurement outcome is $S_z = +\frac12\hbar$, the projective measurement is the replacement $|\psi \rangle \mapsto \hat{\Pi}_{z,+} |\psi⟩$ (with a suitable normalization constant), and similarly for $S_z = -\frac12\hbar$.

Your observation that $$ \hat{S}_z |\mathrm{SX+}\rangle = \frac12 \hbar |\mathrm{SX-}\rangle $$ is correct but it is in no way contradictory or in conflict with any other parts of the formalism.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

As indicated elsewhere, not all operators transform a state into a linear combinations of eigenstates. Instead of $\sigma_z$ consider the operator $\hat \Pi_{+,z}=\vert {+}\rangle_z {_z\langle} {+}\vert$. This will transform the $\vert {+}\rangle_x$ eigenstate to $$ \vert {+}\rangle_z {_z\langle} {+}\vert {+}\rangle_x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\vert {+}\rangle_z\, , \tag{1} $$ which is a single state and not a linear combinations of eigenstates of $\sigma_z$. Indeed $(1)$ shows how the state collapses to a particular eigenket.

Note that $$ \Pi_{+,z}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1&0\\ 0&0\end{array}\right) $$ is still a perfectly valid operator.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.