Quantum measurement

In the beginning an excited two level atom is created: but it is not an eigenstate
of the Hamiltonian because the Hamiltonian contains the term:
( )

=
j
r k i
ba j j
r k i
ab j j j
j j
e e g d a e g e d a i r E D

*
) ( c c q
,
3
0
2 L
j
j
c
e
q

=
may be expressed (conceptually, not practically) as coherent superposition of
energy eigenstates. These eigenstate evolve deterministically in time.
Suppose we dont have infinite resources to monitor all the infinite vacuum states. Even more
modestly, we ask what is the projection on the Hilbert space spanned by the atomic state and
. There is no wavefunction answer to this question because the atomic Hilbert space is
entangled to the Electromagnetic modes Hilbert space. However, we can calculate probability
(not probability amplitude) to measure the system in certain atomic state using the density matrix
formalism by tracing out the vacuum modes. We will come back to this probabilistic approach
(which agrees with the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) after we
understand better the deterministic approach (which agrees with the so called Einselection or
Quantum Darwinism).
By performing measurement we change the Hamiltonian. The ideal measurement Hamiltonian
couples the atomic states to macroscopic Hilbert space, which may include the electrons
wavefunctions in the computers hard disk (no conscious mind need be present in the
measurement process). i.e. : ,
Where or stands for two
large sets of kets. Each ket contains more than Avogadros number degrees of freedom. These
states are related to pointer states.
If we abandon for just a moment the point of view that we are the center of the universe, then in
accordance with the above analysis, if there is an observer, the and contain its state. i.e


Since the and contains more than Avogadros number degrees of freedom they never
interfere. Because in order to have interference, the resulting state from different paths must be
identical in all its degrees of freedom. Thus the observer who experienced detection (of ground
or excited state) might as well believe that his reality is the only reality (this corresponds to the
point of view that we are the center of the universe).
From now on we will adopt the point of view that matches our intuition and perception, namely
that we are the center of the universe. From this point of view, the observer before the
measurement is evolved to only one out of the two sets of states or with certain
probabilities. Assuming the observer is not interested in most degrees of freedom, e.g. only the
two level atom is relevant, then the most common way to describe the physical situation is
through the density matrix formalism. Formally, the relevant 2x2 reduced density matrix that
describes the two level atom is obtained by partial tracing the complete density matrix over all
the Hilbert spaces except the two level atom Hilbert space. This way, the expectation value of
any operator

acting on the two-level system, calculated using the reduced density matrix, will
give the same result as the expectation value of

calculated using the complete density

[ ]

]
The time evolution of the reduced density matrix follow the so called Master equation or Linblad
equation. Its general derivation is beyond the scope of this course. However, for the specific case
presented above, we can use Fermi golden rule to calculate the probabiliy of the atom to be in the
excited state

t
e
I

t
e
I
.
To conclude: the reduced density matrix contains the complete information about the two-level
system, assuming the information about the electromagnetic modes is inaccessible.











Simulation of two-level system
Lets try to postulate simpler mechanism, which doesnt take into account the interaction with
the vacuum, but still agrees with exponentially decaying probability for the atom to be in the
excited state. In the most naive model the atom continuously decays from the excited to the
ground state. In order to disprove this model, a discrete quantum jump had to be measured. Once
single particle traps were feasible, this has actually been observed by 3 groups simultaneously.
The quantum jump mechanism has been observed between the two level encircled in the
following figure. The excited level is called shelf level in this articles jargon. Once the electron
gets to the shelf level (the path is indicated by thin solid and dashed line), it stays there for quite
a few seconds (the life time of this level is ~30 seconds) and no signal is observed. Once the
electron decays from the shelf state it is subject to rapid rabbi oscillations, indicated by the bold
solid lines. During these Rabi oscillations the electron may as well decay spontaneously. The life
time of the 493.3 nm transition is very short. Thus just after the electron decay from the shelf
level, many subsequent decays, accompanied with fluorescence, are observed. At the moment the
fluorescence has begun to be observed, a quantum jump from the shelf level has occurred.

In light of the above experiment, we are urged to postulate a bit more sophisticated model:
during a time interval dt, the atom has probability p(t)dt = p(t)dt / to jump from the excited
state to the ground state, where p(t) is its probability to be in the excited state.
Following this model, the probability of an initially excited atom to stay excited at time t is:

, in accordance with the measured reality.
However, if the initial probability to be in the ground state is 0 < P < 1, there should be
probability P that a photon will never be emitted. But using this model, step by step (dt by dt), it
seems that eventually a photon will be emitted. Could you resolve this discrepancy without
changing the model? (Hint: How does p(t) evolve during dt given no photon is emitted ?)