2
$\begingroup$

I am trying to follow a discussion (distinguishing the two sorts of systems mentioned in the title of this question) in Schlossahuer's book, Decoherence: And the Quantum-To-Classical Transition. Schlosshauer mentions that it is important to distinguish between two sorts of systems which are often (erroneously) considered to be equivalent. First there is a single system where we have an ignorance-interpretable mixture of pure states (that is, we are ignorant about the true state of the system) and so we represent this with a standard (mixed state) density operator. On the other hand, there is a system made up of $N$ identical subsystems where there are some well-defined fraction of the $N$ (sub)systems, $p_iN$, in a given state $|\psi_i\rangle $ so that the overall system is in the state $|\psi\rangle = \Pi_{j=1}^{Np_1}|\psi_j\rangle \dots \Pi_{j=1}^{Np_M}|\psi_j\rangle$.

My question is: how do we compute the ensemble average of a given single-system observable in this latter case? Probably some of my confusion lies in my not understanding what it means to measure a single system observable. Does the operator representing the observable have the form $O \otimes O \otimes \dots \otimes O$? If so then, using the trace/Born rule and evaluating the trace in the product basis I would obtain:

$$\langle O \otimes O \otimes \dots \otimes O \rangle = Tr(|\psi\rangle \langle \psi |O \otimes O \otimes \dots \otimes O) = \sum_{j_1=1}^M \dots \sum_{j_N=1}^M (\langle \psi_{j_1}|\otimes\dots \otimes\langle \psi_{j_N}|)|\psi\rangle \langle \psi|(O |\psi_{j_1}\rangle \otimes \dots \otimes O |\psi_{j_N}\rangle)$$ $$ \stackrel{(1)}{=} (\Pi_{j=1}^{Np_1} \langle \psi_1|O |\psi_{1}\rangle)\dots \Pi_{j=1}^{Np_M} \langle \psi_M|O |\psi_{M}\rangle$$ where in (1) I've used that only one term of the nested sums (one permutation) leads to a nonzero inner product $\langle \psi_{j_1}|\otimes\dots \otimes\langle \psi_{j_N}|)|\psi\rangle$.

But this sort of calculation leads me nowhere near what Schlosshauer gets (below in equation 2.39, where Schlosshauer also divides by $N$ to additionally compute an average I think?). Does this mean I've used the wrong operator to represent the measurement? Should it be $O \otimes I \otimes \dots \otimes I + I \otimes O \otimes \dots \otimes I + \dots + I \otimes I \otimes \dots \otimes O$ instead?

I've attached a full picture of the section in case my description of the problem is not clear:

enter image description here enter image description here

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the ensemble viewpoint, single-system observables are observables of the form $\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\hat{O}\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}$. He explicitly says that you must limit yourself to single-system measurements, which outlaws operators of the form you wrote down in your second paragraph. Is this the crux of your question? $\endgroup$
    – march
    Mar 10, 2023 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ I think so @March. If possible, can you explain exactly how some sun of these single-system observables leads to an ensemble average as given in 2.39? $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Mar 10, 2023 at 21:08

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

The author explicitly says that we must limit yourselves to single-system measurements on the ensemble in order to draw an equivalence between the statistical mixture picture and the ensemble picture.

Single-system observables are observables of the form $\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\hat{O}\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}$, where $\hat{I}$'s are all identity operators on the individual systems. We want to measure the physical variable corresponding to the operator $\hat{O}$ on each subsystem and average the results. The corresponding operator for this measurement is $$ \hat{M} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\underbrace{\hat{O}}_{j\textrm{'th spot}}\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\,. $$ Then, consider the state $$ \lvert \Psi \rangle = \prod_{j=1}^N\lvert j:\psi_{n_j} \rangle\,, $$ where $\lvert j:\psi_{n_j} \rangle$ means that subsystem $j$ is in state $\psi_{n_j}$. The expectation value of the operator $\hat{M}$ in the state is \begin{align} \langle\hat{M}\rangle &= \langle\Psi\rvert\hat{M}\lvert \Psi\rangle \\&= \left(\prod_{l=1}^N\langle l:\psi_{n_l} \lvert\right) \left( \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\underbrace{\hat{O}}_{j\textrm{'th spot}}\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I} \right) \left(\prod_{k=1}^N\lvert k:\psi_{n_k} \rangle\right) \\&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(\prod_{l=1}^N\langle l:\psi_{n_l} \lvert\right) \left( \hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\underbrace{\hat{O}}_{j\textrm{'th spot}}\otimes\hat{I}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{I} \right) \left(\prod_{k=1}^N\lvert k:\psi_{n_k} \rangle\right) \\&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(\langle j:\psi_{n_j} \lvert\prod_{l\neq j}\langle l:\psi_{n_l} \lvert\right) \left(\hat{O}\lvert j:\psi_{n_j} \rangle\prod_{k\neq j}\lvert k:\psi_{n_k} \rangle\right) \\&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \left(\prod_{l\neq j}\langle l:\psi_{n_l} \lvert\right) \left(\prod_{k\neq j}\lvert k:\psi_{n_k} \rangle\right) \langle j:\psi_{n_j} \lvert\hat{O}\lvert j:\psi_{n_j} \rangle \\&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N \langle j:\psi_{n_j} \lvert\hat{O}\lvert j:\psi_{n_j} \rangle\,. \end{align} This expression is equal to the author's if you rearrange the sum to be over repeated single-particle states.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ @EE18 I can add more detail and explanation later if you request it. $\endgroup$
    – march
    Mar 10, 2023 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ It's perfect, thank you. $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Mar 10, 2023 at 23:14
1
$\begingroup$

If you write out the state in question explicitly, it would look like a direct product of N states as follows: $$ |\Psi\rangle = \underbrace{|\psi_1\rangle|\psi_1\rangle\ldots|\psi_1\rangle}_{Np_1} \underbrace{|\psi_2\rangle|\psi_2\rangle\ldots|\psi_2\rangle\ldots}_{Np_2} \ldots \underbrace{|\psi_m\rangle|\psi_m\rangle\ldots|\psi_m\rangle}_{Np_m} $$

If you evaluate the operator $\hat O$ on the very first direct product state you get: $$ \langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle\;. $$ Note that this operator, as it acts on the entire space, looks like: $\hat O\otimes \underbrace{1\otimes 1 \ldots \otimes 1}_{N-1}$.

If you evaluate the operator $\hat O$ on the second direct product state you get: $$ \langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle\;, $$ where there is not a typo above, the index is still "1". Note that this operator, as it acts on the entire space, looks like: $\hat 1\otimes \hat O \otimes \underbrace{1\otimes 1 \ldots \otimes 1}_{N-2}$.

If you evaluate the operator $\hat O$ on the $Np_1$-th direct product state you get: $$ \langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle\;. $$ I.e., you get a total of $Np_1$ contributions of the form $\langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle$ from the first $Np_1$ direct product states.

If you evaluate the operator $\hat O$ on the $(Np_1+1)$-th direct product state you get: $$ \langle\psi_2|\hat O|\psi_2\rangle\;, $$ and you get a total $Np_2$ contributions of this form.

And so on.

Therefore when you do a standard average over all $N$ contributions, you find: $$ \frac{1}{N}\left( \underbrace{\langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle+\ldots+\langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle}_{Np_1} + \underbrace{\langle\psi_2|\hat O|\psi_2\rangle+\ldots+\langle\psi_2|\hat O|\psi_2\rangle}_{Np_2} +\ldots + \underbrace{\langle\psi_m|\hat O|\psi_m\rangle+\ldots+\langle\psi_m|\hat O|\psi_m\rangle}_{Np_m} \right) $$ $$ =\frac{1}{N}\left(Np_1\langle\psi_1|\hat O|\psi_1\rangle +Np_2\langle\psi_2|\hat O|\psi_2\rangle +\ldots +Np_m\langle\psi_m|\hat O|\psi_m\rangle \right) $$ $$ =\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^m Np_i\langle\psi_i|\hat O|\psi_i\rangle $$ $$ =\sum_{i=1}^m p_i\langle\psi_i|\hat O|\psi_i\rangle $$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I've accepted the other answer but want to thank you as well for your answer. It helped me greatly. $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Mar 10, 2023 at 23:14
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome. $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Mar 10, 2023 at 23:18

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.