Skip to main content
Library homepage
 

Text Color

Text Size

 

Margin Size

 

Font Type

Enable Dyslexic Font
Physics LibreTexts

8.3: The Measurement Process

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

Suppose I know my wave function at time t=0 is the sum of the two lowest-energy harmonic oscillator wave functions,

ψ(x,0)=12[ϕ0(x)+ϕ1(x)].

The introduction of the time independent wave function was through the separation ψn(x,t)=eiEn/tϕn(x). Together with the superposition for time-dependent wave functions, we find

ψ(x,t)=12[ϕ0(x)ei12ωt+ϕ1(x)ei32ωt].

The expectation value of ˆH, i.e., the expectation value of the energy is

ˆH=12(E0+E1)=ω.

The interpretation of probilities now gets more complicated. If we measure the energy, we don't expect an outcome E3, since there is no ϕ3 component in the wave functon. We do expect E0=12ω or E1=32ω with 50% propability, which leads to the right average. Actually simple mathematics shows that the result for the expectation value was just that, E=12E0+12E1.

We can generalise this result to stating that if

ψ(x,t)=n=0cn(t)ϕn(x),

where ϕn(x) are the eigenfunctions of an (Hermitean) operator ˆO,

ˆOϕn(x)=onϕn(x),

then

ˆO=n=0|cn(t)|2,

and the probability that the outcome of a measurement of ˆO at time t0 is on is |cn(t)|2. Here we use orthogonality and completeness of the eigenfunctions of Hermitean operators.

Repeated measurements

If we measure E once and we find Ei as outcome we know that the system is in the i th eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. That certainty means that if we measure the energy again we must find Ei again. This is called the "collapse of the wave function": before the first measurement we couldn't predict the outcome of the experiment, but the first measurements prepares the wave function of the system in one particuliar state, and there is only one component left!

Now what happens if we measure two different observables? Say, at 12 o'clock we measure the position of a particle, and a little later its momentum. How do these measurements relate? Measuring ˆx to be x0 makes the wavefunction collapse to δ(xx0), whatever it was before. Now mathematically it can be shown that

δ(xx0)=12πeik(xx0)dk

Incompatible operators

The reason is that ˆx and ˆp are so-called incompatible operators, where

ˆpˆxˆxˆp!

The way to show this is to calculate

(ˆpˆxˆxˆp)f(x)[ˆp,ˆx]f(x)

for arbitrary f(x). A little algebra shows that

[ˆp,ˆx]f(x)=i(ddxx)f(x)=if(x)

In operatorial notation,

[ˆp,ˆx]=iˆ1,

where the operator ˆ1, which multiplies by 1 , i.e., changes f(x) into itself, is usually not written.
The reason these are now called "incompatible operators" is that an eigenfunction of one operator is not one of the other: if ˆxϕ(x)=x0ϕ(x), then

ˆxˆpϕ(x)=x0ˆpϕ(x)iϕ(x)

If ϕ(x) was also an eigenstate of ˆp with eigenvalue p0 we find the contradiction x0p0=x0p0i.

Now what happens if we initially measure ˆx=x0 with finite acuracy Δx ? This means that the wave function collapses to a Gaussian form,

ϕ(x)exp((xx0)2/Δx2)

It can be shown that

exp((xx0)2/Δx2)=dkeikxeikx0exp(1/4k2Δx2)

from which we read off that Δp=/(2Δx), and thus we conclude that at best

ΔxΔp=/2

which is the celeberated Heisenberg uncertainty relation.


This page titled 8.3: The Measurement Process is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Niels Walet via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.

Support Center

How can we help?