F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

Assignment 2
Due October 25th

This assignment is due on Friday, October 25th by 11:59pm (A minute before midnight).
There will be no late assignments accepted and that includes any kind of technical problems
with Crowdmark, so I recommend handing in the day before to avoid this kind of problem!!!
Please do not email the TAs or the Professor asking for a late assignment hand-in.

1 Some Photon BS (marked by Adam)

One of the most basic experiments in a physics laboratory is interferometry. It typically
consists of an array of mirrors arranged in such a way that to light beams will interfere,
causing an interference pattern. The interference pattern contains information that can
be used to deduce physics of the phenomenon under study. It is a very basic but versatile
experimental setup that countless variations (different mirror setups or using electrons,
neutrons, atoms, or even big molecules1 as the ‘source’) exists for equally many purposes.
In this problem we will consider one of the simplest setup involving only five main
ingredients: a light source, a beam splitter, mirrors, phase control and photodetectors.
This is shown in Figure 1. The light source will be producing pulses with two possible
polarizations states — horizontal and vertical polarization states |Hi , |V i, analogous to
the classical linear polarization in optics.

(a) A beam splitter (BS) is classically a material that splits a light beam into two parts
with smaller amplitudes along two different paths (cf. Figure 1). If it is a 50/50 BS,
the light is split into two equal amplitudes. Quantum mechanically, this will be a
material that takes in an input light state and gives a superposition of polarization
states and 50/50 BS means the superposition has equal weight, i.e.
1 1
|V i → √ |V i + √ |Hi ,
2 2
(1.1)
1 1
|Hi → √ |V i − √ |Hi .
2 2
1
People are ‘this’ close to do interferometry and double-slit experiments with small viruses!’

Page 1
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

Figure 1: setup of the interferometer.

We can then label path 1 as the path where only vertically polarized light is allowed,
and path 2 otherwise (i.e. the BS acts as a polarization filter2 ).
Find the matrix representation of the beam splitter operator3 , denoted B̂, in the
polarization basis {|V i , |Hi}. Show your working.

(b) In interferometry there is equipment that can adjust the phase of a light beam on
one path. We call this equipment a phase control4 (PC) which can add a phase φ
to a state. If the PC adds a phase φ to |Hi and does nothing to |V i, find the matrix
representation for the phase control operator Ĉ in this basis. Show your working.

(c) At the end we have two photodetectors D1 , D2 which are positioned in such a way
that D1 will register a click if a photon arrives via path 1 and D2 if the photon
arrives via path 2. Let us assume as an approximation that those detectors carry out
projective measurements. Find the matrix representation for the projection that D1
and D2 implement on |ψi.

(d) If the input state for the experiment is |V i, compute the output state right before
the measurement is performed. What is the probability that D1 and D2 registers a
click? Does the phase φ matter?
2
Want to buy one? You can do it , e.g., here https://www.thorlabs.com/navigation.cfm?guide_id=
2318. I am not paid to say this.
3
This gives a nice heuristic interpretation that in experiments we can actually think of lab equipment
as operators that acts on the state.
4
You can find them online too! https://www.thorlabs.com/NewGroupPage9.cfm?ObjectGroup_ID=711

Page 2
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

(e) Now we consider a variation where just before the photodetectors, we insert another
identical beam splitter (call it BS2) as in part (a), so the setup looks like Figure 2
below. Current technology allows us to insert this faster than the light-crossing time
of the interferometer arms (before light reaches the end of the interferometer), so we
can insert BS2 after we have sent the light pulse through BS15 .

Figure 2: variation of the first interferometer which includes the second beam splitter BS2.

Compute the output state after BS2 and compute the probability that D1 registers a
click. What happens to the detection probability when φ = 0, π/2, π? Is the outcome
of the experiment different from part (d)?
Moral of the story: The light pulse was originated in the source, and only when it
has already gone through the beam splitter, the extra beam splitter is introduced in
part (e). That means the light pulse (or the ‘photon’, if you insist on calling it that)
could not have made the decision of which path to go in advance. In view of part (d)
and part (e), it seems that the fact that light behaves as a particle (no interference,
as in part (e), which means that only one detector clicks, the photon goes only on
one path) or as a wavelike entity (interference pattern as in part (d), which means
that both detectors click and the ‘photon’ is in a superposition of going through both
paths) is experiment-dependent and completely independent of any decisions made at
the source. The source does not influence if the light behaves as a classical particle,
or as a quantum entity that can go through both paths at the same time. It is indeed
the experimental setup after the light is emitted that conditions how light behaves,
and more concretely, whether we obtain information of which path the ‘photon’ goes
5
This prevents the ‘photons’ from, for instance, know in advance whether they should make an interfer-
ence pattern or not!

Page 3
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

Figure 3: Experimental setup for the Stern-Gerlach experiment (Reference)

in our experiment. More on that on Block 3!

2 Stern-Gerlach again and again... (Marked by Rick)

In 1922 Otto Stern and Walter Gerlach experimentally verified the prediction of Peter
Debye and Arnold Sommerfeld that electrons have an intrinsic6 angular momentum that is
quantized. In Fig. 3 the experiment is shown. We consider a source that provides silver ions
which are spin-1/2 particles, and assume that half of the atoms are prepared in the state
corresponding to the positive eigenvalue of the spin operator in the z direction ŝz = 21 σ̂z ,
and the other half prepared in the state corresponding to the negative eigenvalue. Denote
the eigenstates by |±zi. These atoms fly then through an inhomogeneous magnet where
the magnetic field is along the z direction and the gradient of the field is parallel to that.
The interaction potential of the atom and the field is V̂ = −µ̂ · B̂, where the magnetic
moment of the atom is µ̂ = gµB ŝ, g is the Landé factor, µB is the Bohr magneton and ŝ
is the spin operator of the atom ŝ = (ŝx , ŝy , ŝz ).

(a) If the force experienced by the atoms of the beam is proportional to the gradient of
the interaction potential F̂ = −∇V̂, show that the interaction results in a spatial
splitting of the two different preparations of the atoms.

(b) Assume now that the atoms with negative spin in the z-component after the first
magnet are discarded. This is equivalent to doing a projective measurement on the
z-direction of spin on the remaining beam, with its corresponding update rule. Now
let the remaining beam of atoms go through a second magnet which is aligned in the
x-direction. How many beams of atoms will appear on the glass plate gathering the
6
Different from the orbital angular momentum X̂ × P̂ .

Page 4
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

results of the experiment? Relate your answer with the fact that the atoms cannot
be simultaneously in an x and z eigenstates of the corresponding spin operators.

(c) What is the expectation value and variance of ŝx for the ensemble of atoms in the
state |zi after the first magnet?

(d) Now assume again that after the second magnet the atoms with negative spin in
ŝx are discarded. The other atoms go through a third magnet aligned along an
arbitrary direction given by the unit spatial vector n which forms an angle θ with
the z axis and an angle φ with the x axis (the usual co-latutide and azimuthal angles
in spherical coordinates). What is the spin operator ŝn that this third splitter would
be measuring (represented in the eigenbasis of ŝz )?

(e) What are the eigenstates of ŝn in the eigenbasis of ŝz ?

(f) Calculate the probabilities that an atom after the second magnet is found in the
eigenstate corresponding to the positive and negative eigenvalues of ŝn (spin up or
down with respect to the n direction). Particularize your result for the special cases:

(a) θ = 0, φ = π,
(b) φ = 0, θ = π/2,
(c) θ, φ = π/2.

3 Quantum Guess Who? (Marked by Rick)

Consider that you are given a qubit, that is, a two-level quantum system i.e the Hilbert
space is two-dimensional. Let {|0i , |1i} be a basis of the qubit Hilbert space. The person
who has given you the qubit tells you that they do not remember the state of the system,
but they recall that it was either

• |ψi1 = |0i or
√
• |ψi2 = (|0i + |1i)/ 2

Since you go around claiming that you are a physicist, the person asks for your help.

(a) First, you wonder whether to perform a projective measurement in the {|0i , |1i} basis
of the qubit would do the job. Compute the probabilities of getting each result, 0 or
1, and explain if you can distinguish unambiguously the state you were given, either
|ψi1 or |ψi2 by doing this kind of projective measurement. Notice that you can only
distinguish the state unambiguously if for both options there is an outcome of your
measurement such that you can be sure that the state was either one or the other.

Page 5
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

(b) Now consider the following POVM elements:

√
2
• Ê1 = √ |1ih1|
1+ 2
√
2
• Ê2 = √ (|0i − |1i)(h0| − h1|)/2
1+ 2
• Ê3 = 1 − Ê1 − Ê2
Discuss if with this set of measurements you can distinguish the state. Take into
account that some outcomes from the measurement can be inconclusive, but never
leading to a mistake.

4 Further ranting on PVM’s (marked by Rick)

In this exercise you will analyze in detail one of the numerous problems related to measuring
schemes involving projector valued measures (PVM). More concretely, we will analyze the
interplay between Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and the fairy tale called “wavefunction
collapse7 ”.
Consider a free quantum-mechanical particle in one dimensional space. The Hilbert
space associated with this physical system is L2 (R). Consider also the following family of
projectors
Z
Π̂Ω = |xihx| dx (4.1)
Ω

where Ω is a subset8
of R. Note that the projector on the whole real line is identity: Π̂R = 1
and that if A and B are two disjoint subsets of R, i.e. A ∩ B = ∅, then Π̂A∪B = Π̂A + Π̂B .
Clearly, these projectors define a probability distribution in the sense that you were
told in previous courses, that is, one can always define the probability of a particle in a
state |ψi to be in a region Ω with Born’s rule
Z
p(particle in Ω) = hψ|Π̂Ω |ψi = |ψ(x)|2 dx. (4.2)
Ω
Since this is a projective measurement, we now the update rule: if you find the particle
somewhere it will remain in that somewhere right? Or in other words, the state after the
measurement should then be given by
Π̂Ω |ψi
|ψ 0 i = , (4.3)
kΠ̂Ω |ψik
7
One of the less cruel German fairy tales, unlike Hänsel and Gretel or the Sleeping Beauty (for reference
check the original stories
8
e.g., an interval.

Page 6
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

but this leads to some problems, as we will see.

4.1 Part I: Oops, there is a problem with this.

(a) Show that the new wave function in the position representation, i.e. hx|ψ 0 i = ψ 0 (x),
is of the form
1
ψ 0 (x) = ψ(x)χΩ (x), (4.4)
kΠ̂Ω |ψik
where 
1 x∈Ω
χΩ (x) =
0 x∈
/Ω
.
(b) Calculate the variance (uncertainty squared) of the momentum operator P̂ , i.e. ∆2P̂ ,
in the new state |ψ 0 i. Consider states not initially moving on average for simplicity,
that is, hψ|P̂ |ψi = 0. Also, consider Ω to be an arbitrary interval (a, b). Will the
new state |ψ 0 i always be in the domain of the momentum operator provided that |ψi
was?

4.2 Part II: Wait, maybe we can fix it?

One could think that the problem appearing in previous part is somehow related to the
sharpness of the measurement, that is, that the projectors defined by equation (4.1) con-
strain too much the information about that system to have a smooth notion of “state
update”. Therefore, one could perhaps expect to be able to find a set of better behaved
projectors.
Indeed, consider a set of functions defined by taking a smooth, compactly supported9
function ψ0 (x) and modulating with a phase and translating it along the real line, i.e.

hx|ψm,n i = ψm,n (x) = ei2πmx ψ0 (x − n), (4.5)

where m, n ∈ Z. Perhaps these functions span all possible states of the system by linear
combination (i.e., ny wavefunction may be written as a combination of them). Further, the
overlap of an arbitrary state with this set of functions (their inner product) should give an
approximate localization of the particle in the real line, provided that the function ψ0 (x) is
supported around zero. Pictorially You can imagine ψ0 (x) as some sort of smooth window
function that decays away from the origin, adding the translation displaces that window,
so we have a set of window functions covering the whole space.
So! do we have a nice basis to project on that is localize in space? As we will see, we
are not required to give an explicit expression for ψ0 (x) to check that, even in this case,
the problem persists.
9
Compactly supported: The support if the function is compact. In other words, for a real function, the
function is closed and bounded (is zero everywhere except it is finite for a finite set of intervals).

Page 7
F2021 Eduardo Martı́n-Martı́nez AMATH 473/AMATH 673/PHYS 454 Assignment 2

For the set of |ψn,m i to give a reasonable measuring scheme, i.e. to assign probabilities,
we require it to be an orthogonal basis of the Hilbert space, in such a way that
X
|ψn,m ihψn,m | = 1. (4.6)
m,n

Moreover, in order to avoid the problem of part I we also require that each |ψn,m i belongs
to the domain of both the momentum and the position operators, in such a way that we
can measure the position and the momentum of the particle consecutively according to the
update rule

Π̂m,n |ψi
|ψ 0 i = , (4.7)
kΠ̂m,n |ψik

where

Π̂m,n = |ψn,m ihψn,m | . (4.8)

You are asked10 to prove that these two requirements are incompatible by answering
the following questions. The way to proceed is to assume that |ψ0 i belongs to the domains
of both position and momentum, and that the set of functions |ψm,n i generated by it forms
a basis. This will lead to a contradiction.

(a) Consider the vectors X̂ |ψ0 i and P̂ |ψ0 i, by assumption they belong to the Hilbert
space. Show that

hψ0 |X̂|ψm,n i = hψ−m,−n |X̂|ψ0 i (4.9)

and that

hψ0 |P̂ |ψm,n i = hψ−m,−n |P̂ |ψ0 i (4.10)

(b) By assuming the completeness relation of the set |ψm,n i, i.e. equation (4.6), show
that

hψ0 |X̂ P̂ |ψ0 i = hψ0 |P̂ X̂|ψ0 i . (4.11)

(c) Finally, reach a contradiction (it’s an obvious one...).

10
In case there is any doubt after so much text, you need to answer only a), b) and c). Anything before
that is for you to read and understand.

Page 8