To the extent that the collapse postulate holds, textbooks will almost invariably restrict the discussion to contexts in which states are represented by normalized kets, so that the collapse postulate reads (if $M_\alpha$ represents the measuring operation in which it is found that the result has (eigen)value $\alpha$) $$|\psi\rangle \to M_\alpha(|\psi\rangle) = \frac{\Pi_\alpha|\psi\rangle}{\left |\left|\Pi_\alpha|\psi\rangle \right|\right|}$$ How does this postulate generalize to the context in which states (even pure states) are represented by density operators (which obey the requirements of being self-adjoint, nonegative, and unit trace)? Does one simply first diagonalize the density operator and then "collapse" each part of the outer product in each term as above. That is, would one proceed as, where the expansion of the density operator is in its eigenbasis (is this even a necessary step), $$\rho = \sum_n p_n |\psi_n\rangle \langle \psi_n | \to M_\alpha(\rho) \stackrel{?}{=} \sum_n p_n M_\alpha(|\psi_n\rangle) M_\alpha(\langle \psi_n|) \stackrel{(1)}{=} \sum_n p_n \frac{\Pi_\alpha|\psi_n\rangle}{\left |\left|\Pi_\alpha|\psi_n\rangle \right|\right|}\frac{\langle \psi_n |\Pi_\alpha}{\left |\left|\Pi_\alpha|\psi_n\rangle \right|\right|} $$ where in (1) I've (handwaved?) and used that the projection operator is self-adjoint so that the bra related to the ket $M_\alpha(|\psi\rangle)$ is as I've given above. I suppose this also assumes that all projection operators in quantum mechanics are self-adjoint which I think must be true since observables are as such.
Asked
Active
Viewed 46 times
0
-
4Does this answer your question? Measurement on mixed states – Tobias Fünke Jan 19 '23 at 22:54
-
1In your last equation you're missing some subscripts for the kets, no? In any case, your other posts are concerned with Ballentine's book, no? IIRC, he does discuss measurements etc. in terms of density operators, no? – Tobias Fünke Jan 19 '23 at 23:03
-
1Thank you, your answer re: the final state (though not the original question) does indeed answer my question. Does my justification above though represent the motivation for the collapse postulate you gave there? I just can't quite convince myself that my denominator on the RHS corresponds to the Tr$(\Pi \rho \Pi)$ you give there. Would you want me to ask a question to that effect or just comment on your answer there? @TobiasFünke – EE18 Jan 19 '23 at 23:39
-
1As for Ballentine, maybe he does later and, if so, my bad. I worried that he might not because he's increasingly restricting discussions to pure states which can, of course, be generalized, though it's not always clear to me how. – EE18 Jan 19 '23 at 23:40
-
Why don't you look in the table of contents if in doubt? – Tobias Fünke Jan 20 '23 at 12:30
-
1@TobiasFünke I did to be honest and didn't really see anything. The word "collapse" also doesn't appear (in that contest) in the book. – EE18 Jan 20 '23 at 15:42