Mixed States of Silver Atoms in a Stern-Gerlach Experiment

In summary, the conversation discusses an experiment involving silver atoms in a purely spin-up state that are fed into a Stern-Gerlach apparatus at an angle of pi/4 between the x and z axes. The observable J_pi/4 is measured and the corresponding outcomes are represented by |+> and |->. The question arises about the new state when the two beams are recombined, and it is determined that the new state will be a mixed state of |+> and |->. However, there is some confusion about the coefficients and probabilities involved in this mixed state. The conversation also touches on finding the operator for angular momentum in a certain direction and its corresponding eigenstates.
  • #1
Kreizhn
743
1

Homework Statement


In an experiment, we've isolated silver atoms that are in a purely [itex] |\uparrow \rangle [/itex] state with respect to the z-axis, and feed these into a Stern-Gerlach apparatus oriented at an angle of [itex] \frac{\pi}{4} [/itex] between the x and z axes, which measures an observable we will call [itex] J_\frac{\pi}{4} [/itex]. Let the corresponding outcomes be represented by [itex] |+ \rangle, |-\rangle [/itex]. If we were to recombine these beams into a single beam, what is this new state?

The Attempt at a Solution



I imagine that the new state will be a mixed state of [itex] |+ \rangle, |-\rangle [/itex], or also as a mixed state up [itex] |\uparrow \rangle, |\downarrow \rangle [/itex]. Thus we can write [itex] | \psi \rangle = p_1 |+ \rangle + p_2 |-\rangle [/itex]. I'm not sure what p1 and p2 should be though, are they just [itex] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [/itex] since they will occur with equal probabilities?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If the apparatus measures an observable [itex]J_{\frac{\pi}{4}}[/itex], then shouldn't the final state be

[tex] \left| \psi \right> = \hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} \left| \uparrow \right> [/tex]

? (I've used a hat to denote the fact that J is an operator)

But what is [itex]\hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}}[/itex] in terms of |+ [itex]\rangle, |-\rangle [/itex] and the corresponding bras? And what is [itex] \left| \uparrow \right>[/itex] in terms of those basis vectors?
 
  • #3
Kreizhn said:
I imagine that the new state will be a mixed state of [itex] |+ \rangle, |-\rangle [/itex], or also as a mixed state up [itex] |\uparrow \rangle, |\downarrow \rangle [/itex]. Thus we can write [itex] | \psi \rangle = p_1 |+ \rangle + p_2 |-\rangle [/itex].

There is a big difference between a mixed state and a superposition. [itex] | \psi \rangle = p_1 |+ \rangle + p_2 |-\rangle [/itex] is a superposition, not a mixed state. If you write it as a superposition, the coefficients would be square roots of probabilities, not probabilities.

I'm not sure what p1 and p2 should be though, are they just [itex] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [/itex] since they will occur with equal probabilities?

The probabilities are not equal. They would be equal if the magnetic field would be in the x direction.

In any case, you have to think about how you could recombine the two "beams." For instance, one way would be to just go through the inverse process...
 
  • #4
gabbagabbahey said:
If the apparatus measures an observable [itex]J_{\frac{\pi}{4}}[/itex], then shouldn't the final state be

[tex] \left| \psi \right> = \hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} \left| \uparrow \right> [/tex]

? (I've used a hat to denote the fact that J is an operator)
No that's not the final state: instead you have to decompose the initial state in terms of the two eigenstates of
[itex] \hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} [/itex].
 
  • #5
borgwal said:
No that's not the final state: instead you have to decompose the initial state in terms of the two eigenstates of
[itex] \hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} [/itex].

I fail to see how [itex]\hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} \left|\uparrow \right>[/itex] isn't the final state, the initial state [itex] \left| \uparrow \right>[/itex] is acted upon by J to produce two beams which are then combined into a single beam/state [itex] \left| \psi \right>[/itex]. To get anything useful out of that, you will have to decompose both J and the initial state into the eigenbasis of J, but I had already hinted at that with my next two (rhetorical) questions.
 
  • #6
gabbagabbahey said:
I fail to see how [itex]\hat{J}_{\frac{\pi}{4}} \left|\uparrow \right>[/itex] isn't the final state, the initial state [itex] \left| \uparrow \right>[/itex] is acted upon by J to produce two beams which are then combined into a single beam/state [itex] \left| \psi \right>[/itex]. To get anything useful out of that, you will have to decompose both J and the initial state into the eigenbasis of J, but I had already hinted at that with my next two (rhetorical) questions.

A measurement of the observable [itex] A [/itex] certainly does not create the state [itex] A|\psi\rangle [/itex] . It projects onto eigenstates instead.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Well, in any case I should be able to write it either as a superposition or a mixed state. I do realize though my mistake in that the mixed state density matrices allow us to write probabilities in a linear sense, whereas superpositions are quadratic in nature (though I did use the correct coefficient in saying that if they were equal, it would be [itex] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [/itex].

In any case, we have the new mixed state in terms of [itex] \rho = p_1 | + \rangle \langle + | + p_2 |-\rangle \langle - | [/itex]. However, I'm still not entirely sure how to get the coefficients. Since these would correspond to probabilities, we want p1 to be the probability of the + state. I calculated the + state as being

[tex] | + \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} | \uparrow \rangle + \frac{1+i}{2} | \downarrow \rangle[/tex]

So then wouldn't we expect [itex] Pr(+) = |\langle + | + \rangle|^2 [/itex]? My problem is that this yields 1
 
  • #8
Shouldn't you have [itex]Pr(+) = |\langle + | \uparrow \rangle|^2 [/itex] since the initial state is [itex]| \uparrow \rangle[/itex]?
 
  • #9
Yes, that does make sense, but doesn't that just yield equal probabilities? And I thought borgwal said they weren't equal.
 
  • #10
Well, there is a part in between where we are asked to find the Jx operator, and so in that I let [itex] | \rightarrow \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( | \uparrow \rangle + e^{i\theta} | \downarrow \rangle \right) [/itex]. Then defining the relative phase with respect to the positive x-axis, I let [itex] \theta = 0 [/itex] (which also mean that [itex] | \leftarrow \rangle [/itex] had an angle associated to [itex] \theta = \pi [/itex]).

Thus, now that I've defined the phase relative to the positive x-axis, then since we're now at an angle of [itex] \frac{\pi}{4} [/itex] I've set [itex] | + \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( | \uparrow \rangle + e^{i\theta}| \downarrow \rangle \right) [/itex] where now [itex] \theta = \frac{\pi}{4} [/itex]. That's how I got that representation.
 
  • #11
What you need is the operator for angular momentum in the [itex] (\hat{x}+\hat{z})/\sqrt(2) [/itex] direction, and its eigenstates.

The states you wrote down [equal superpositions of spin up and down with some relative phase] are eigenstates of components of the angular momentum operator perpendicular to z (i.e., in the x-y plane). In other words, your phase [itex] \theta [/itex] has to do with the angle between the x- and y-axes, not between the x- and z-axes.
 
  • #12
Yes, I made a stupid mistake in the beginning that propagated throughout my work and was confusing me terribly. My methods were correct, but my initial state was not.

A question though, am I allowed to interchange between the mixed state, density matrix representation and the superposition representation?

I ask because now that I've recombined the beams of [itex] J_\frac{\pi}{4} [/itex] I'm told to feed this beam back into [itex] J_x [/itex], and measure the probabilities of getting [itex] \pm\frac{\hbar}{2} [/itex]. I want to do this by applying Jx onto the combined state, but since it was done in density matrix form, I would need to transfer it to the superposition state first.
 
  • #13
Technically, the output state of the spin has become entangled with its center-of-mass motion. So the output is no longer a pure state for the spin, it's a mixed state.

There is really only one way to recombine the beams again, and that is by the inverse transformation (assuming you don't measure where the Ag atom ended up before recombining), which acts on both spin and center-of-mass degree of freedom. If your professor meant a different solution than applying the inverse transformation then I suppose he might mean that you should take the mixed state of the spin and put that on the original Stern Gerlach device. But you cannot recombine the two outputs into one and the same beam while keeping the spin in the same mixed state!

Edit: sorry to make this more difficult than it should be. I think the question about recombining is a bit unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Okay, so given that I have the mixed state, and pass this into an apparatus measuring Jx, how would I go calculating the associated probabilities of the outcomes?
 
  • #15
Given a mixed state [itex] \rho [/itex] and the operator [itex] J_x [/itex], you'd first find its eigenstates |k>, and then calculate [itex] P_k= <k|\rho|k> [/itex]
 

Related to Mixed States of Silver Atoms in a Stern-Gerlach Experiment

1. What is a Stern-Gerlach experiment?

A Stern-Gerlach experiment is a type of physics experiment that involves passing a beam of neutral particles, such as atoms, through a magnetic field in order to measure their intrinsic angular momentum, or spin.

2. What are mixed states of silver atoms?

Mixed states of silver atoms refer to the combination of different spin states that can be observed when silver atoms are passed through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. These mixed states are a result of the fact that the spin of an atom can exist in multiple orientations, rather than being limited to just one.

3. How are mixed states of silver atoms observed in a Stern-Gerlach experiment?

In a Stern-Gerlach experiment, a beam of silver atoms is passed through a magnetic field that causes the atoms to split into two or more beams, each with a different spin orientation. By observing the different paths of the beams, scientists can determine the mixed states of the silver atoms.

4. Why are mixed states of silver atoms important to study?

Mixed states of silver atoms are important to study because they provide insight into the fundamental properties of matter, such as spin and angular momentum. They also have applications in quantum computing and other advanced technologies.

5. Can mixed states of silver atoms be controlled in a Stern-Gerlach experiment?

Yes, mixed states of silver atoms can be controlled in a Stern-Gerlach experiment by manipulating the strength and orientation of the magnetic field. This allows scientists to observe and study how the spin of atoms can be controlled and altered in different ways.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
571
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
10
Views
964
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
970
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
979
Back
Top