Professional Documents
Culture Documents
III.
Observable
Operator
Operator
Name
Symbol
Symbol
Operation
Position
Momentum
Multiply by
Total energy
Dynamic variable
A(r, p, E)
A( , ,
is given by
probability that a measurement will return a particular value is due to the fact that
the various dynamic variables which we employ in order to study microscopic
particles do not have well-defined values. In short, the particle doesnt have a welldefined state before the measurement occurs. Let us take an example where we are
measuring the position of the particle. The particle doesnt have an exact position
until the position is measured. The act of measurement forces the particle to
randomly assume some position, with the probability density given by the modulus
of the wave function. This event is called the wave function collapse, because
after the measurement, the wave function collapses to become peaked at the
measured value.
Thus, there are two different kinds of physical processes which occur in quantum
mechanics: the ordinary ones, in which the state of a system evolves undisturbed
according to some wave equation (the Schrdinger equation is a good
approximation for non-relativistic limits), and measurements, which cause the
wave function to suddenly and discontinuously collapse. The mechanism of
collapse is unknown, and the word measurement yet lacks a rigorous definition.
Moreover, since the particle doesnt have a well-defined position before
measurement, we can no longer give meaningful physical interpretations to terms
like velocity, momentum, trajectory of the particle, etc. In fact, these terms are not
well-defined for microscopic particles, because such particles simply dont have a
well-defined position, momentum, etc. before they are measured.
To make the matters worse, it turns out that there are certain pairs of conjugate
variables, like position and momentum, which cannot be simultaneously
measured. It is engrained within the very nature of the wave function that it cannot
collapse into a state which simultaneously has an exact position and momentum.
Thus, if we know with certainty about the exact position of a particle at some
instant, the particle simply wont have a well-defined momentum, such that if the
very next moment its momentum were measured, it could turn out to be anything.
The more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely
its momentum can be known, and vice versa. A formal inequality relating
the standard deviation of position x and the standard deviation of momentum p is
given as:
same state must be zero. This is the Pauli Exclusion Principle: two identical
fermions cannot occupy the same state. This rule does not hold for bosons.
Another strange aspect of quantum mechanics is that although the position of a
particle is not certain, the time recorded by its internal clock does not suffer from
the same uncertainty. In short, particles dont have real positions, but they do have
a real age. If this were not the case, then we would have to discard our usual
approach of treating time as a parameter, and without a well-defined parameter we
would not be able to describe the evolution of physical systems. The whole of
physics would be thrown into disarray, and we would have no clue so as to which
direction we should advance. Thankfully, that didnt happen.
What quantum mechanics currently lacks is a proper system to determine the
operator for any observable, given the three basic operators. It also lacks a
theoretical justification of the exact relationship between operators and
observables. What is the theoretical connection between a dynamical variable, and
its quantum operator?
One has an intuitive feeling that the classical definition of the dynamical variables
and the mathematical nature of the operators have some connection. If we
understood this connection, we would also understand why the eigenvalues of the
operators correspond to the possible outcomes of measurement. This could also
have got something to do with the very nature of the wavefunction.
What we need is the correct mathematics that would enable us to easily construct
operators, given any observable. I can see half of the problems melting away if we
could do that. For example, how would you construct the operator for XP (position
times momentum)? Is it XP or PX (since the two operators do not commute)? This
ambiguity cannot be theoretically resolved, and only an experiment can provide an
answer. For another instance, using the usual method of operator construction does
not enable us to construct an operator for the rate of change of momentum with
respect to time (because the rate of change of the momentum operator with respect
to time is simply meaningless; operators dont change with time).
In short, we need the exact science of operator construction. Since quantum
particles dont have a real position, the phrase, measuring the position is actually
misleading. A more accurate description of the measurement process would be like
this: when we interact with the quantum particle using the same procedure as used
in measuring the position of a classical particle, the value we get is one of the
eigenvalues of the position operator. The measurement procedure has a direct
effect on the wavefunction, and the procedure itself is related to the classical
definition of the observable. Hence, the nature of the observable and the effect it
has on the wavefunction must have some connection. It is my intuitive guess that
all the answers lie in the nature of the wavefunction, including the way it interacts
with its surroundings.
We know that when an observable is a linear symmetric combination of the three
basic observables, we can find its operator simply by replacing the three basic
variables by their respective observables. However, if the combination is linear but
not symmetric, we get an ambiguous case, and if the combination is not linear, we
get meaningless results when we apply the above method for operator construction.
For instance, what would be the operator for sin P? Supposedly, the sine of the
momentum operator is supposed to be another operator the one corresponding to
sin P. Basically what this means is that if A is an operator corresponding to A, then
f(A) is an operator whose eigenvalues are the f of the eigenvalues of A. This
definition would then be consistent with the condition that a measurement of A
returns one of the eigenvalues of A. So if we measure f(A), the result should be the
f of the eigenvalues of eigenvalues of A. However, these values are precisely
supposed to be the eigenvalues of f(A).