2 views

Skip to first unread message

Aug 22, 2005, 4:38:43 AM8/22/05

to

Hello,

let us suppose that we have a quantum harmonic oscillator being in the

first exciting state. It means that system has some definite energy

E_1. Than we change force constant of of the oscillator. As a

consequence eigen states and there energy are changed. I think that

after this change system cannot be in some new eigen state. Because in

this case the system would have some new definite value of energy and

we would have contradiction with conservation low. So I conclude that

after force constant is changed system will be in some superposition of

new eigen states. It means that making measurement we can with some

probability find the system in some state having some energy. I have

two question. Does the energy conservation low implies that sum of

eigen-energies multiplied on the probability to find system in the

corresponding state should be equal to the initial energy of the system

(e_1*v_1 + e_2*v_2 + ... e_n*v_n = E_1)? Let us suppose that we made

measurement and the find system in some new eigen-state with energy

e_k. How to be with the conservation low? I mean e_k is not equal to

E_1 and it should be a problem?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think my questions can be formulated in shorter way:

1. If state of a system is a superposition of the eigen state, how is

defined total energy of the system?

2. Should energy conservation low work for this quantum mechanical

energy?

3. If energy conservation low is satisfied, is it satisfied

statistically (by averaging over many measurements)?

Aug 22, 2005, 9:30:04 AM8/22/05

to

Essentially, in QM there are only conservation laws for the

*expectation values* of observables. And expectation values are

defined essentially as you wrote above, e_1*v_1 + ... = E_1.

Bye,

Bjoern

Aug 22, 2005, 10:24:03 AM8/22/05

to

Maybe in QM. In quantum field theory, conserved quantities are

conserved at every vertex, and by each propagator. So, they are

conserved microscopically.

To the OP: You talk about "changing the force." Think about how

that might happen. For example, you might have a charged particle

in an electric field that had the right shape. (I don't know just

how you'd create that field, but whatever. Maybe you can do it in

one dimension and ignore the other two dimensions?) How would you

change it? You'd have to move charges around. You'd have to change

the electromagnetic field around the charge in the eigenstate.

In other words, you'd have to fling photons around. And these

photons would have to carry energy of comparable amount to the

energy of the eigenstate you are considering.

Take an example that is more achievable. Consider an atom with

6 happy electrons and six happy protons, and enough neutrons

to make everything stable. (Homework: What chemical element is it?)

Now suppose you look at the energy eigenstate of the electron

that is highest in energy inside the atom. And suppose you follow

what happens to it when you smack out one of the other electrons

by hitting it with a photon. You can have as high energy a photon

as you like, making the other electron go away very quickly.

What you wind up with is the electrons that stay have now got

less negative charge to compete with. They are goiong to see

the six charges on the nucleus with less screening. So they

will all have to adjust their energy levels. So, what happens

is, the atom will emit one or more photons, to readust its

energy levels to be in the ground state for the new system.

During that process, there's a lot of complicated jostling,

and a lot of virtual photons exchanged, and just generally a

lot of complexity. After, you have some few photons flying away

and the atom in a the new ground state with 5 electrons around

the nucleus instead of 6.

Socks

Aug 22, 2005, 11:25:19 AM8/22/05

to

If my system is in a superposition of the eigen states (and I know the

corresponding wave function), I can say with which probability given

eigen energy will be found in the experiment. But if measurement is

already made and I found system in the first excited state, does it

means that I destroyed the previous state and system is know in the

first excited state? Or I need to say that after measurement system is

in the same superposition of states as it was before measurement and if

I do new measurement I can find the system in the second excited state?

Can one speak about measurements which do not change wave function of

measured system?

corresponding wave function), I can say with which probability given

eigen energy will be found in the experiment. But if measurement is

already made and I found system in the first excited state, does it

means that I destroyed the previous state and system is know in the

first excited state? Or I need to say that after measurement system is

in the same superposition of states as it was before measurement and if

I do new measurement I can find the system in the second excited state?

Can one speak about measurements which do not change wave function of

measured system?

Aug 22, 2005, 11:38:50 AM8/22/05

to

Does your example with charged particle in an electric field imply that

one cannot change the force constant of the quantum harmonic oscillator

without changing its energy?

one cannot change the force constant of the quantum harmonic oscillator

without changing its energy?

In the second example (electron in atom) I do not understand what you

mean under "adjust their energy levels". I can imagine an arbitrary

system with some energy levels and particle which whose state is

superposition of eigen states. What I do not understand is which

superposition of eigen states (or simply which state) more adjust

energy levels. I would say, that in the case of absence of external

perturbations system will always stay in the initial superposition of

states. And in the case of atom, electron will always be in excited

state and never emit photon (if there are no external perturbations).

Aug 22, 2005, 11:42:19 AM8/22/05

to

kurda...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Does your example with charged particle in an electric field imply that

> one cannot change the force constant of the quantum harmonic oscillator

> without changing its energy?

> Does your example with charged particle in an electric field imply that

> one cannot change the force constant of the quantum harmonic oscillator

> without changing its energy?

What it implies is, you can't learn quantum mechanics by

asking vague questions and getting people to stroke you

for an extended time. If you want to understand this stuff,

then go crack open a book and read about it. Do the homework

questions. If you still have questions after you've read

at least three textbooks on QM, and done all the homework

questions, then come back. Or if you have specific questions

on individual questions you want help with, come back.

Socks

Aug 22, 2005, 3:22:18 PM8/22/05

to

Hi, Kurda,

> If my system is in a superposition of the eigen states (and I know the

> corresponding wave function), I can say with which probability given

> eigen energy will be found in the experiment. But if measurement is

> already made and I found system in the first excited state, does it

> means that I destroyed the previous state and system is know in the

> first excited state?

That depends on whether you subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation

of QM. There are other interpretations in which the wave function never

collapses.

> Or I need to say that after measurement system is

> in the same superposition of states as it was before measurement and if

> I do new measurement I can find the system in the second excited state?

> Can one speak about measurements which do not change wave function of

> measured system?

No. Measurement of a quantum system always perturbs it.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

Aug 22, 2005, 3:45:39 PM8/22/05

to

In article <1124699923.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,

A classic problem is a particle in the ground state of an infinite

potential well with some given width. Then "suddenly" the well expands to

twice that width.

The new wavefunction is the same as the old because of the "sudden"

assumption-- it's half of a sine wave sitting in the middle of a potential

well. You can Fourier transform that to express it as a superposition of

energy eigenstates of the new system, and give the probability that the

result will be E1 or E2 or E3...

It might seem at first that energy isn't conserved, because the system

could be in any state. But it wasn't explained HOW the well was expanded.

It wasn't explored whether the particle did work on the moving walls of

the well, or the walls did work on the particle. It was simply declared

"Let it be so."

A more complete problem might have involved something like an electron

trapped between boundaries on a carbon chain, and then a photon knocks

into the side of it, distorting the molecule.

At any rate, energy is conserved in quantum mechanics, although a given

problem may not be specified completely enough to explore that.

--

"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the

invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.

Aug 22, 2005, 3:48:49 PM8/22/05

to

> What it implies is, you can't learn quantum mechanics by

> asking vague questions and getting people to stroke you

> for an extended time.

My question is not vague and I do not understand why I getting people> asking vague questions and getting people to stroke you

> for an extended time.

to stroke.

> If you want to understand this stuff,

> then go crack open a book and read about it.

I think that communication with people is much more productive than

reading of books. Moreover, I think it is much easier to ask my

question to a person who really knows the answer than to find answer in

textbooks.

> Do the homework

> questions.

I did.

> If you still have questions after you've read

> at least three textbooks on QM,

I have read more than three textbooks on QM.

> and done all the homework

> questions,

I did.

> then come back.

I am here.

> Or if you have specific questions

> on individual questions you want help with, come back.

I think my question is quit specific.

With the usage of my knowledge of QM I have concluded that a harmonic

oscillator cannot be in eigenstate, after an external changes of the

force constant was performed (under condition than at t=0 harmonic

oscillator was in eigenstate). And I asked whether my derivation is

correct. You did not give me a direct answer but pointed you example

where a change of the force constant cannot be performed without

photons and corresponding energy flow to/from the system. I asked

whether this is a fundamental property. And you send me to read

textbooks.

By the way, you did not explain why do you think that system (electrons

in atom) should go to ground state? I think that I was right when I say

that without external perturbation a system will always stay in an

excited state (within QM, I do not speak about quantum electrodynamic).

Aug 22, 2005, 4:17:54 PM8/22/05

to

Hi, Kurda,

> My question is not vague and I do not understand why I getting people

> to stroke.

They think that the question you are asking is homework. I myself

wasn't quite sure.

> With the usage of my knowledge of QM I have concluded that a harmonic

> oscillator cannot be in eigenstate, after an external changes of the

> force constant was performed (under condition than at t=0 harmonic

> oscillator was in eigenstate).

A lot depends on how the force constant was changed. Your question

sounds very much like a homework question, in that it is rather

artificial. In real experimental situations, any perturbation that

changes the force constant will most likely also interact directly with

the electron. As Greg says, the "obvious" assumption would be that the

wavefunction is left unaltered by the instantaneous change of force

constant. If it were an eigenstate of the system with the original

force constant, then it would be a superposition of the eigenstates of

the new one.

> <...>

> By the way, you did not explain why do you think that system (electrons

> in atom) should go to ground state? I think that I was right when I say

> that without external perturbation a system will always stay in an

> excited state (within QM, I do not speak about quantum electrodynamic).

Yes, you're right, without external perturbation a system can stay

indefinitely in any of its eigenstates. However real systems radiate,

and otherwise interact with their environment, ending up with an energy

of the order of kT = 4e-21 J = 0.025 eV at room temperature. If you are

talking about electronic transitions of small systems like atoms, that

means the ground state.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

Aug 22, 2005, 5:29:23 PM8/22/05

to

Hi, Zigoteau,

As far as I know different interpretations of QM are vary often just a

matter of wording (searching of appropriate combination of words) since

on the level of experiments they give the some results. However, I

agree that sometimes different formulations predict different results

of experiments and such experiments are rather tricky (complicated) and

were performed only very recently (something related with EPR paradox).

What I want to say is that measurement of energy distribution should

not be the case where different interpretations are mater. May be I am

wrong.

My question was about interpretation of superposition. If a system is

in a superposition of two states we can with some probability find a

system in one of these states. However, I think that it would be

incorrect to say that superposition of states means that we just do not

know in which of the two states is the considered system. It means that

if we performed experiment and during experiment we found the system in

the first eigenstate we still cannot say that system noe is in the

first state (system is still in the superposition of states). The

probability to find the system during the second measurement in the

second eigenstate is still not equal to zero, I think. And it is true

(what I said) under two suppositions:

1. superposition cannot be interpreted as lack of knowledge about the

system,

2. measurement does not influence on the system.

But experiment always influences on the system and my question is

whether what I said is true even if we do not neglect by this influence

(interaction with meassuring device).

For example:

1. Psi = C_1*phi_1 + C_2*phi_2 - before the first measurement.

2. During measurement we found that energy of the system is E_1 (what

corresponds to state phi_1).

Question:

What is the state of the system after measurement?

Possible answers:

1. C_k_new = C_k_old?

2. C_1_new =1, C_2_new=0?

3. C_k_new not equal to C_k_old?

Kurda.

Aug 22, 2005, 5:46:09 PM8/22/05

to

Hi Gregory,

System that I am speaking about is a large molecule (about 50 atoms),

and harmonic oscillators correspond to normal modes. System is not in

equilibrium (in the sense of atomic position) partially because of the

influence of the solvent. It means that geometry of the molecule is

changed and as a consequence frequency of normal modes is also changed.

I cannot said that change of frequency (force constant, potential

energy) is vary fast, moreover it is very slow in comparison to the

period of normal mode vibration. Therefore, I do not think that after

force constant is changed the wave function will be the same, it will

somehow follow changes. Moreover, I cannot say that oscillator performs

some work which changes potential energy (in terms of your example,

movement of particle is not a reason why potential energy (width of

box) was changed). One of the problems is that something that changes

potential energy of oscillator can also change the total energy of

oscillator. But I do not understand, what is a mechanism of these

changes? Te only way how particle can "see" the external world is the

time dependent potential energy which was already taken into account. I

suppose that I need to solve time dependent SchrÃ¶dinger equation and I

think that in this case total energy will be automatically constant,

isn't?

Kurda.

Aug 23, 2005, 10:05:37 AM8/23/05

to

In article <1124747169.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

I think your question can be answered simply on the conceptual level-- the

molecule exchanges energy with the solvent. If your wavefunction doesn't

include the solvent, then it won't include the energy of the solvent.

The potential well problem I gave is easy to work, but not very realistic.

The other one was barely more realistic, but still solvable. That's the

way it usually goes. We can hope that a simple problem gives some insight

into a more complicated one, even if it doesn't solve it. The sudden

approximation apparantly isn't valid in your problem. Maybe the

adiabatic aproximation is good enough. That is, if we go back to the

potential well problem, the walls move away slowly enough that we can say

the particle is always in the ground state. If you're between those two

extremes, it's hard.

You don't need to solve the time-dependent Schroedinger equation unless

you want to work out the time-dependent behavior. If you just want to see

energy conserved you can solve the time-independent equation for a

wavefunction that includes the molecule and every molecule of solvent.

But large molecules in solvents are complicated systems, and I'm not very

good at working with them.

--

"The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear

an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut."

-- Dr. Robert Buckman, Human Wildlife, p119.

Aug 24, 2005, 9:11:45 AM8/24/05

to

Hi, Kurda,

> As far as I know different interpretations of QM are vary often just a

> matter of wording (searching of appropriate combination of words) since

> on the level of experiments they give the some results. However, I

> agree that sometimes different formulations predict different results

> of experiments and such experiments are rather tricky (complicated) and

> were performed only very recently (something related with EPR paradox).

> What I want to say is that measurement of energy distribution should

> not be the case where different interpretations are mater. May be I am

> wrong.

There are two cases where the Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QM

gives results in contradiction to experiment. My favorite is Hund's

paradox. The Hamiltonian of a chemical molecule is for all practical

purposes invariant with respect to reflection in a plane. The are no

observable differences between the properties of chiral entantiomers.

Even if the weak interaction is chiral, there is no way an enantiomer

represents a pure eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Yet it is possible to

prepare a sample of essentially pure enantiomer, and the sample does

not racemize on observation of its chirality e.g. by measuring its

rotatory power, or by measuring the interaction of a single molecule

with e.g. a suitable antibody.

The second case was recently published by Shahriar Afshar, both in the

serious and popular scientific press. His experiment was mainly

optical. You will find mention of his work by doing a Google groups

search on "Shariar Afshar" and group:sci.physics.

The Everett multiple-worlds interpretation of QM says that the

wavefunction never collapses. This way of resolving the paradox leaves

you with Schroedinger's cat. CI wants to limit the amount of structure

in the universe to the - still staggering - amount of information

conceived of in classical mechanics. However it ends up by being

solipsistic: you and everybody else in the universe are figments of my

imagination. I am quite happy that I can only ever be aware of a very

small part of the universe. I know, for example, that there are many

mobile phone conversations and TV programs going through my brain as EM

waves, of which I am totally oblivious. The fact that I am only aware

of the cat being alive, and not aware of it being dead at the same

time, just shows how limited my perception is.

> My question was about interpretation of superposition. If a system is

> in a superposition of two states we can with some probability find a

> system in one of these states. However, I think that it would be

> incorrect to say that superposition of states means that we just do not

> know in which of the two states is the considered system. It means that

> if we performed experiment and during experiment we found the system in

> the first eigenstate we still cannot say that system noe is in the

> first state (system is still in the superposition of states). The

> probability to find the system during the second measurement in the

> second eigenstate is still not equal to zero, I think. And it is true

> (what I said) under two suppositions:

> 1. superposition cannot be interpreted as lack of knowledge about the

> system,

Superposition is one thing, our knowledge about the system is another.

I take it we are talking about the real world here. Are you talking,

for example, about an atom constrained in a UHV system by optical

molasses? I think you will find that your little mathematical

expression is a vast simplification for teaching purposes only.

> 2. measurement does not influence the system.

No, that's not right. Quantum systems are very readily perturbed, and

it is not possible either to predict or to compensate for this

perturbation.

> But experiment always influences on the system and my question is

> whether what I said is true even if we do not neglect by this influence

> (interaction with meassuring device).

>

> For example:

> 1. Psi = C_1*phi_1 + C_2*phi_2 - before the first measurement.

> 2. During measurement we found that energy of the system is E_1 (what

> corresponds to state phi_1).

>

> Question:

> What is the state of the system after measurement?

>

> Possible answers:

> 1. C_k_new = C_k_old?

> 2. C_1_new =1, C_2_new=0?

> 3. C_k_new not equal to C_k_old?

Definitely 3.

Cheers,

Zigoteau.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu