1
$\begingroup$

Consider a QM system with an observable $A$ and orthonormal eigenbasis $\{|n\rangle,n=0,1,2,\ldots\}$. Then we know that if the system is in some state $|\psi\rangle$ and we measure $A$, the probability of finding an eigenstate $|n\rangle$ is $|\langle n|\psi\rangle|^2$ and that the probability of finding a non-eigenstate $|\phi\rangle$ is zero.

How does this translate to the time-dependent setting?

In particular, what is the probability of finding a state $|\phi,t\rangle$ at time $t$ if the system evolves according to some other state $|\psi,t\rangle$? Does $|\phi,0\rangle$ have to be an eigenstate of $A$ in order for this probability to be positive? Does the time evolution of $|\phi,t\rangle$ have to be given by the Schrödinger equation? I'm really confused by this and would very much appreciate help.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The probability of measuring a non-eigenstate $|\phi\rangle$ is $|\langle \phi|\psi\rangle|^2$, not zero. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 21, 2021 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Related. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 21, 2021 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Raskolnikov Thanks but I thought the system actually HAS to be in an eigenstate after measurement, or am I confusing things? $\endgroup$
    – test123
    Commented Jul 21, 2021 at 11:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @test123 Yes, the system has to be in an eigenstate after the wave function collapsed due to the measurement and yes, you are confusing things. If you have another experiment with which you can measure a non-eigenstate of the operator considered before, then the probability of that state will not be 0 unless the system is in a state orthogonal to the non-eigenstate. For example, a system can have non-zero probability for spin in x- and y-direction, but when measuring spin in x-direction, you can't get the result of spin in y-direction. $\endgroup$
    – sim0
    Commented Jul 21, 2021 at 12:07

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

In quantum mechanics, each state of a system is always represented as a vector (a ket) in the Hilbert space of all possible states. This space has, per definition, a scalar product and thus a geometry associated with it and consequentially there is the notion of orthogonality. This allows for the probability of measuring any state $|\phi\rangle$ when the system is in state $|\psi\rangle$ to be defined as the square of the orthogonal projection $|\langle \phi | \psi \rangle|^2$, which is the scalar product. This definition is universal and does always apply. In particular, none of the states has to be an eigenstate of any operator.

Now to answer your question explicitly, by what I just explained, the probability of finding a state $|\phi,t\rangle$ at time $t$ if the system is in the state $|\psi,t\rangle$ is $$ p = |\langle \phi,t | \psi,t \rangle |^2~, $$ and there are no special conditions which $|\phi,0\rangle$ must fulfill. Furthermore, it will be $p > 0$, if $|\psi,t\rangle$ and $|\phi,t\rangle$ are not orthogonal, by definition of orthogonality.

Remark: For the definition of the measurement probability, there are no eigenstates needed, as stated above. If one wants to conduct an actual physical measurement, though, some observable will be measured, which is represented by a self-adjoint operator, which has, of course, an eigenbasis and the only possible results of the measurement are the eigenvalues. If the system evolves over time, the eigenstates and eigenvalues as well as the operator may be constant or change themselves, depending on the system.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer but there is one thing I don't understand: If we measure an observable, the only possible states which the system can be in after measurement are the observable's eigenstates. Thus, how can we have nonzero probability of finding a non-eigenstate if this is physically not possible? $\endgroup$
    – test123
    Commented Jul 22, 2021 at 7:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @test123 I tried to explain this in my comment to your original question, but I'll try and rephrase it: The probability of some state has nothing to do with a measurement in the first place. It's just a statement about an amplitude in a superposition which describes the state of the particle. When measuring an observable A, though, one gains nothing by calculating the probabilities of non-eigenstates of A, because they won't be observed. This doesn't mean, that these probabilities are 0. Spins in different directions are a good example for this, please refer to my comment mentioned before. $\endgroup$
    – sim0
    Commented Jul 22, 2021 at 15:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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