Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

CRC Press eBooks

Eigenstates and the Third Postulate

M.S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Published Nov 5, 2020• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The representation of physical observables by Hermitian linear operators was postulated assuming that an expectation value, defined by Eqs.(2.11) and (2.12) , is associated with any observable A measured in a quantum state Ψ of a dynamical system. In view of measurement uncertainties, defined by the dispersion: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈 A 2 〉 − 〈 A 〉 2 = 〈 ( A − 〈 A 〉 ) 2 〉 = 〈 ( δ A ) 2 〉 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_1_B.tif"/> the expectation value 〈 A 〉 is taken in a state Ψ if and only if (Δ Α ) 2 vanishes. It is convenient to introduce the deviation operator: 3.1 δ  =  − 〈 A 〉 Î https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_2_B.tif"/> such that the condition of a vanishing dispersion for the observable A in a given state Ψ reads: 〈 Ψ |( δ  ) 2 Ψ 〉 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_3_B.tif"/> Because δ is a Hermitian operator, we can also write: 〈 δ Â Ψ | δ Â Ψ 〉 = | δ Â Ψ | 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_4_B.tif"/> which means that the norm of δ Â Ψ is zero and this implies that we have a null function δ Â Ψ = 0. In other words: 3.2 Â Ψ = 〈 A 〉 Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_5_B.tif"/> It follows that the state function Ψ where a definite expectation value 〈 A 〉 of the observable A is observed, should be a solution of Eq.(3.2) rather than an arbitrary 112 function. The action of the operator  on Ψ has to be simply that of rescaling. All the state functions which are solutions of Eq.(3.2) are called eigenfunctions of  , and the constant factor 〈 A 〉 is said to be the corresponding eigenvalue. Hence we have shown that if ((δ  ) 2 ) = 0, the state function should be an eigenfunction of  , which means that a physical observable only takes definite values in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated quantum operator. Conversely, given a quantum operator  one can systematically determine all its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, which are solutions of the so-called eigenvalue equation: 3.3 Â Ψ = λ Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_6_B.tif"/> It is visible that the eigenvalue equation fixes the eigenfunctions only up to an overall scale factor, which may always be chosen such that the eigenfunctions be considered normalized. Then, in view of Eq.(2.11) , Eq.(3.3) gives: 〈  〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Â Ψ d x = λ ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_7_B.tif"/> If we further apply the operator  to Eq.(3.3) , we obtain  2 Ψ = λ 2 Ψ and this leads to: 〈  2 〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ *  2 Ψ d x = λ 2 ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_8_B.tif"/> It follows that: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈  2 〉 − 〈  〉 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_9_B.tif"/> and this shows that the dispersion vanishes if a physical observable is measured in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated operator.

DOI
10.1201/9781003078265-4

Related papers

Commutation Relations and the Fourth Postulate

M.S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

In view of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, introduced in Chapter 1 , the application of Postulate 3 to a dynamical system faces one problem never encountered in classical mechanics, namely to define the conditions which make possible the simultaneous measurement of different observables. Because each physical observable takes definite values in the eigenstates of its associated operator, the simultaneous measurements of different observable will only be possible if their associated operators have a common eigenbasis. If such a complete orthonormal set of vectors ψ i are simultaneous eigenfunctions of two operators  and B̂: 4.1  ψ i = λ i ψ i , B ^ ψ i = µ i ψ i https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_1_B.tif"/> we have for each basis vector:  B ^ ψ i =  µ i ψ i = λ i µ i ψ i = µ i λ i ψ i = B ^  ψ i https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_2_B.tif"/> It follows that for any state vector Ψ, which can be expanded in the form ( 3.55) , we have: 4.2 (  B ^ − B ^  ) Ψ = 0 or  B ^ − B ^  = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_3_B.tif"/> This means, in view of Eq.(2.80) , that simultaneous measurements on a dynamical system are restricted to those observables for which the associated operators commute.

CRC Press eBooks•Nov 5, 2020•0 citations

Commutation Rules and Uncertainty Relations

Steven A. Adelman

In this chapter, we develop results that will prove to be very important later. First, we show that if two observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0001.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0002.tif"/> are compatible , that is, if their Hermitian operator representatives A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0003.tif"/> and B ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0004.tif"/> commute, then these representatives have a complete orthonormal set of common eigenfunctions Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0005.tif"/> which are the solutions of the simultaneous eigenvalue problem A ^ Ψ a n , b m ( r ) = a n Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0006.tif"/> and B ^ Ψ a n , b m ( r ) = b n Ψ a n , b m ( r ) . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0007.tif"/> Consequently, from the discussion at the end of Section 4.5 , when the system is in a quantum state specified by one of the common eigenfunctions Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0008.tif"/> , both A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0009.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0010.tif"/> have definite values, a n https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0011.tif"/> for A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0012.tif"/> and b m https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0013.tif"/> for B . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0014.tif"/> In contrast, we show that if two observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0015.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0016.tif"/> are incompatible , that is, if their representatives A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0279.tif"/> and B ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0017.tif"/> do not commute, then these representatives have few if any common eigenfunctions. As a consequence rarely if ever can one find quantum states for which two incompatible observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0018.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0019.tif"/> both have definite values rather than spreads of values. Therefore, two incompatible observables cannot (with rare exceptions) be simultaneously precisely measured. Rather, in analogy to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation Δ x Δ p x ≥ ℏ 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0020.tif"/> which exists between the incompatible position and momentum observables, a Heisenberg uncertainty relation exists between any pair of incompatible observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0021.tif"/> and B . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0022.tif"/>

CRC Press eBooks•May 31, 2021•0 citations

Observables and Their Values

K. Kong Wan

Postulate 26.1(OV) An observable A of a quantum system is describable by a selfadjoint operator A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5203.tif"/> in the state space H → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5204.tif"/> of the system. The measurable values of the observable are given by the elements of the spectrum s p ( A ^ ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5205.tif"/> of the operator .

•Jul 9, 2019•0 citations

Schrödinger Equation

Lukong Cornelius Fai

In the previous chapter, we did not examine the change of a state with time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_1.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . It has been assumed that we have been examining a state at a given moment https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_2.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . In the general case, the state of a system changes with time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_3.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . For example, say the motion of an electron in a potential field, its wave function depends on time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_4.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> : https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ψ = Ψ q , t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_5.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . Such a dependence has to be described by a differential equation in which we may have https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ∂ Ψ ∂ t , ∂ 2 Ψ ∂ t 2 , ⋯ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_6.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> .

CRC Press eBooks•Apr 19, 2022•0 citations

Physical prerequisites

In-Gee Kim

The quantum revolution in the beginning of the 20th century changed our concepts of dynamics. The dynamic variables such as position r $ {\mathbf{r}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_1.tif"/> and momentum p $ {\mathbf{p}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_2.tif"/> are replaced by the corresponding position and momentum operators r ^ $ {\hat{\mathbf{r}}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_3.tif"/> and p ^ $ {\hat{\mathbf{p}}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_4.tif"/> , respectively When one would like to observe a dynamical variable, say ω , of a particle, one has to introduce a wavefunction ψ , which contains all the dynamical information of particles, and to apply the corresponding dynamical operator Ω ^ $ \hat{\Omega } $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_5.tif"/> to the wavefunction ψ . Then one may obtain the desired dynamical value of the particle as the eigenvalue of the operator, 1.1 Ω ^ ψ = ω ψ . $$ \hat{\Omega }\psi = \omega \psi . $$ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/math1_1.tif"/>

•Mar 14, 2018•0 citations

Quantum measurement 1

Helmut Bez, Tony Croft

In this chapter, the simplest quantum measurement situation, i.e., where the state is an eigenvector of the observable to be measured, is considered. The states are therefore non-superimposed and measurement Axiom 3.2 of Section 13.7 in the previous chapter is applicable. We consider states in https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 , ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_1.tif "/> and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_2.tif "/> . The generalisation to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ⊗ n ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_3.tif "/> is then clear.

Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks•Jan 6, 2023•0 citations
The representation of physical observables by Hermitian linear operators was postulated assuming that an expectation value, defined by Eqs.(2.11) and (2.12) , is associated with any observable A measured in a quantum state Ψ of a dynamical system. In view of measurement uncertainties, defined by the dispersion: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈 A 2 〉 − 〈 A 〉 2 = 〈 ( A − 〈 A 〉 ) 2 〉 = 〈 ( δ A ) 2 〉 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_1_B.tif"/> the expectation value 〈 A 〉 is taken in a state Ψ if and only if (Δ Α ) 2 vanishes. It is convenient to introduce the deviation operator: 3.1 δ  =  − 〈 A 〉 Î https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_2_B.tif"/> such that the condition of a vanishing dispersion for the observable A in a given state Ψ reads: 〈 Ψ |( δ  ) 2 Ψ 〉 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_3_B.tif"/> Because δ is a Hermitian operator, we can also write: 〈 δ Â Ψ | δ Â Ψ 〉 = | δ Â Ψ | 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_4_B.tif"/> which means that the norm of δ Â Ψ is zero and this implies that we have a null function δ Â Ψ = 0. In other words: 3.2 Â Ψ = 〈 A 〉 Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_5_B.tif"/> It follows that the state function Ψ where a definite expectation value 〈 A 〉 of the observable A is observed, should be a solution of Eq.(3.2) rather than an arbitrary 112 function. The action of the operator  on Ψ has to be simply that of rescaling. All the state functions which are solutions of Eq.(3.2) are called eigenfunctions of  , and the constant factor 〈 A 〉 is said to be the corresponding eigenvalue. Hence we have shown that if ((δ  ) 2 ) = 0, the state function should be an eigenfunction of  , which means that a physical observable only takes definite values in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated quantum operator. Conversely, given a quantum operator  one can systematically determine all its eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, which are solutions of the so-called eigenvalue equation: 3.3 Â Ψ = λ Ψ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_6_B.tif"/> It is visible that the eigenvalue equation fixes the eigenfunctions only up to an overall scale factor, which may always be chosen such that the eigenfunctions be considered normalized. Then, in view of Eq.(2.11) , Eq.(3.3) gives: 〈  〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Â Ψ d x = λ ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_7_B.tif"/> If we further apply the operator  to Eq.(3.3) , we obtain  2 Ψ = λ 2 Ψ and this leads to: 〈  2 〉 = ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ *  2 Ψ d x = λ 2 ∫ − ∞ ∞ Ψ * Ψ d x = λ 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_8_B.tif"/> It follows that: ( Δ A ) 2 = 〈  2 〉 − 〈  〉 2 = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn3_9_B.tif"/> and this shows that the dispersion vanishes if a physical observable is measured in states represented by eigenfunctions of the associated operator.
In view of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, introduced in Chapter 1 , the application of Postulate 3 to a dynamical system faces one problem never encountered in classical mechanics, namely to define the conditions which make possible the simultaneous measurement of different observables. Because each physical observable takes definite values in the eigenstates of its associated operator, the simultaneous measurements of different observable will only be possible if their associated operators have a common eigenbasis. If such a complete orthonormal set of vectors ψ i are simultaneous eigenfunctions of two operators  and B̂: 4.1  ψ i = λ i ψ i , B ^ ψ i = µ i ψ i https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_1_B.tif"/> we have for each basis vector:  B ^ ψ i =  µ i ψ i = λ i µ i ψ i = µ i λ i ψ i = B ^  ψ i https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_2_B.tif"/> It follows that for any state vector Ψ, which can be expanded in the form ( 3.55) , we have: 4.2 (  B ^ − B ^  ) Ψ = 0 or  B ^ − B ^  = 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003078265/e77b8ce0-ccb3-48ed-9f6d-a84c8cb529c5/content/eqn4_3_B.tif"/> This means, in view of Eq.(2.80) , that simultaneous measurements on a dynamical system are restricted to those observables for which the associated operators commute.
In this chapter, we develop results that will prove to be very important later. First, we show that if two observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0001.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0002.tif"/> are compatible , that is, if their Hermitian operator representatives A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0003.tif"/> and B ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0004.tif"/> commute, then these representatives have a complete orthonormal set of common eigenfunctions Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0005.tif"/> which are the solutions of the simultaneous eigenvalue problem A ^ Ψ a n , b m ( r ) = a n Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0006.tif"/> and B ^ Ψ a n , b m ( r ) = b n Ψ a n , b m ( r ) . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0007.tif"/> Consequently, from the discussion at the end of Section 4.5 , when the system is in a quantum state specified by one of the common eigenfunctions Ψ a n , b m ( r ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0008.tif"/> , both A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0009.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0010.tif"/> have definite values, a n https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0011.tif"/> for A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0012.tif"/> and b m https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0013.tif"/> for B . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0014.tif"/> In contrast, we show that if two observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0015.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0016.tif"/> are incompatible , that is, if their representatives A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0279.tif"/> and B ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0017.tif"/> do not commute, then these representatives have few if any common eigenfunctions. As a consequence rarely if ever can one find quantum states for which two incompatible observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0018.tif"/> and B https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0019.tif"/> both have definite values rather than spreads of values. Therefore, two incompatible observables cannot (with rare exceptions) be simultaneously precisely measured. Rather, in analogy to the Heisenberg uncertainty relation Δ x Δ p x ≥ ℏ 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0020.tif"/> which exists between the incompatible position and momentum observables, a Heisenberg uncertainty relation exists between any pair of incompatible observables A https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0021.tif"/> and B . https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780429155741/5d159368-dc20-4763-957b-88b0e101c959/content/C005_equ_0022.tif"/>
Postulate 26.1(OV) An observable A of a quantum system is describable by a selfadjoint operator A ^ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5203.tif"/> in the state space H → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5204.tif"/> of the system. The measurable values of the observable are given by the elements of the spectrum s p ( A ^ ) https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9780203702413/2f242b9b-104e-4a03-b478-d3f6577cf44e/content/eq5205.tif"/> of the operator .
In the previous chapter, we did not examine the change of a state with time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_1.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . It has been assumed that we have been examining a state at a given moment https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_2.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . In the general case, the state of a system changes with time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_3.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . For example, say the motion of an electron in a potential field, its wave function depends on time https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_4.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> : https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ψ = Ψ q , t https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_5.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . Such a dependence has to be described by a differential equation in which we may have https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ∂ Ψ ∂ t , ∂ 2 Ψ ∂ t 2 , ⋯ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math2_6.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> .
The quantum revolution in the beginning of the 20th century changed our concepts of dynamics. The dynamic variables such as position r $ {\mathbf{r}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_1.tif"/> and momentum p $ {\mathbf{p}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_2.tif"/> are replaced by the corresponding position and momentum operators r ^ $ {\hat{\mathbf{r}}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_3.tif"/> and p ^ $ {\hat{\mathbf{p}}} $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_4.tif"/> , respectively When one would like to observe a dynamical variable, say ω , of a particle, one has to introduce a wavefunction ψ , which contains all the dynamical information of particles, and to apply the corresponding dynamical operator Ω ^ $ \hat{\Omega } $ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/inline-math1_5.tif"/> to the wavefunction ψ . Then one may obtain the desired dynamical value of the particle as the eigenvalue of the operator, 1.1 Ω ^ ψ = ω ψ . Ω^ψ=ωψ. \hat{\Omega }\psi = \omega \psi . Ω^ψ=ωψ. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315196596/a397f31e-8107-49bb-8694-b978d38168d6/content/math1_1.tif"/>
In this chapter, the simplest quantum measurement situation, i.e., where the state is an eigenvector of the observable to be measured, is considered. The states are therefore non-superimposed and measurement Axiom 3.2 of Section 13.7 in the previous chapter is applicable. We consider states in https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 , ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_1.tif "/> and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 ⊗ ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_2.tif "/> . The generalisation to https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> ⊗ n ℂ 2 https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href=" https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003264569/7139ce19-0d58-4a0c-820f-b76fb033e438/content/math14_3.tif "/> is then clear.