DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum State Transformation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quantum State Transformation Quantum Computing 1 ✬ ✩ Quantum State Transformation Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 2 ✬ ✩ Quantum State Transition Postulate It seems that nature does not allow arbitrary state transformation. Change of states (over time) of a closeda quantum mechanical system are caused by a specific class of transformations, mathematically known as unitary transformations. aBy a closed system we mean that no measurement is performed on the sys- tem. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 3 ✬ Unitary Transformation ✩ A unitary transformation U : H H is an • → isomorphism, where H an inner product space (Hilbert space). So U is a bijection that preserves inner • product. In our notation U : x y and if • | i 7→ | i x , x′ H, then | i | i ∈ < x , x′ >=< Ux , Ux′ >. | i | i | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 4 ✬ ✩ Unitary Matrix A unitary transformation will be represented by a unitary matrix. We call a complex matrix U as unitary if its conjugate transpose (Hermitian transpose) U † (or U ∗) is its inverse i.e UU † = I. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 5 ✬ ✩ One Qubit Transformation 1 0 We encode 0 = 0 and 1 = 1 . • | i | i So an 1-qubit unitary transformation or • 1-qubit gate is a 2 2 unitary matrix U i.e. × U †U = I. 1 This means U † = U − and U † is also unitary. • Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 6 ✬ ✩ Properties It is clear that any quantum transformation is reversible, as U x = y if and only if | i | i U † y = x . | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 7 ✬ ✩ Properties A unitary operator U is linear by definition. • If a quantum state x is a superposition of • | i a1 x1 + + a x , then | i ··· n | ni U x = U(a1 x1 + + a x )= | i | i ··· n | ni a1U x1 + + a U x . | i ··· n | ni Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 8 ✬ Properties ✩ The inner-product of U x and U y is • | i | i x U U y = x I y = x y . h | † | i h | | i h | i A unitary operator preserves the norm or • length of a state vector. It maps an orthonormal basis to another • orthonormal basis e.g. 1 √2 1 √2 H = / / : 0 , 1 + , . 1/√2 1/√2 − {| i | i} → {| i |−i} Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 9 ✬ ✩ Properties We know that U †U = I = UU † i.e. u1j u2j 1 if i = j, [ u1i u2i uni ] = I = . · · · ij · · · · 0 if i = j. unj 6 So the columns of U are orthonormal . U † is also unitary, the columns of U † are also orthonormal. So the rows of U are so. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 10 ✬ Properties ✩ If U1 and U2 are two unitary operators on • the same space, their product U1U2 is also unitary: (U1U2)†U1U2 = U2†U1†U1U2 = U2†IU2 = I. If U1 and U2 are unitary operators on spaces • V1 and V2 respectively, then U1 U2 is an ⊗ unitary operator on V1 V2: ⊗ (U † U †)(U1 U2) = (U †U1) (U †U2)= 1 ⊗ 2 ⊗ 1 ⊗ 2 I1 I2. ⊗ Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 11 ✬ ✩ Properties If U1 and U2 are unitary operators on spaces • V1 and V2 respectively, then U1 U2 is an ⊕ unitary operator on V1 V2. ⊕ U1 + U2 need not be unitary, even if U1 and • U2 are. kU need not be unitary, even if U is. • Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 12 ✬ ✩ Cloning of Classical Bit We can use a CNOT gate to copy a classical bit. a a 0 0 a = a ⊕ CNOT Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 13 ✬ ✩ No-Cloning Principle There is no unitary operator that can create clone of an arbitrary qubit state. This is essentially an outcome of linearity. Assume that there is a 2-qubit unitary • transformation U such that U a0 = aa for | i | i any qubit state a . | i Let a and b be orthogonal states. • | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 14 ✬ No-Cloning Principle ✩ We have U a0 = aa and U b0 = bb . • | i | i | i | i Consider the state c0 , where • | i c = 1 ( a + b ). So c0 = 1 ( a0 + b0 ). | i √2 | i | i | i √2 | i | i 1 U c0 = (U a0 + U b0 ), by linearity | i √2 | i | i 1 = ( aa + bb ) by cloning. √2 | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 15 ✬ ✩ No-Cloning Principle On the other hand, U c0 = cc , by cloning | i | i 1 1 = ( a + b ) ( a + b ), √2 | i | i ⊗ √2 | i | i 1 = ( aa + ab + ba + bb ). 2 | i | i | i | i It is a contradiction as. 1 ( aa + bb ) = 1( aa + ab + ba + bb ). √2 | i | i 6 2 | i | i | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 16 ✬ ✩ Outer Product Given a ket vector x , its dual is a bra • | i vector x . h | The inner product of x and y is x y C. • | i | i h | i ∈ The outer product of x and y is x y . • | i | i | i h | Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 17 ✬ ✩ Outer Product If we represent x as a column vector • | i (x1, ,x ), then x is the row vector ··· n h | [x1 x ], where x is the conjugate of x . ··· n i i The outer product x y , is the tensor • | i h | product x y . | i ⊗ h | Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 18 ✬ ✩ Outer Products: 1-bit Base Vectors 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 = 1 0 = h i = | ih | 0 ⊗ h i 0 0 0 h 1 0 i 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 = 0 1 = h i = | ih | 0 ⊗ h i 0 0 0 h 0 1 i 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 = 1 0 = h i = | ih | 1 ⊗ h i 1 1 0 h 1 0 i 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 = 0 1 = h i = . | ih | 1 ⊗ h i 1 0 1 h 0 1 i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 19 ✬ ✩ 1-Bit Transformation Any 1-bit transformation is a linear combination of the outer products of vectors. a b = a( 0 0 ) + b( 0 1 ) + c( 1 0 ) + d( 1 1 ), c d | i h | | i h | | i h | | i h | Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 20 ✬ ✩ Property of Outer Product Let x , y be two states of the state-space of a | i | i quantum system, then ( x x ) y = x x y , | i h | | i | i h | i = x y x . h | i| i The outer product x x projects a vector y to the subspace spanned| i h by| x . | i | i Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 21 ✬ ✩ Example 1 1 ( 0 0 ) 0 + 1 | i h | √2 | i √2 | i 1 = (( 0 0 ) 0 + ( 0 0 ) 1 ) √2 | i h | | i | i h | | i 1 = ( 0 0 0 + 0 0 1 ) √2 | i h | i | i h | i 1 = 0 . √2 | i Note: 0 0 is not a unitary transformation. | i h | Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 22 ✬ ✩ 1-qubit Unitary Transformations The first 1-qubit unitary transformation is the identity map, the 2 2 identity matrix that × keeps a qubit state unchanged. 1 0 . 0 1 Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 23 ✬ 1-qubit Unitary Transformations ✩ Next 1-qubit unitary transformation is the • not gate. It should interchange the amplitudes of base vectors i.e. (a 0 + b 1 )= b 0 + a 1 . ¬ | i | i | i | i The Boolean transformation matrix for NOT • will do the job. 0 1 a b 0 1 = , where = 0 1 + 1 0 . | ih | | ih | 1 0 b a 1 0 Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 24 ✬ ✩ 1-qubit Unitary Transformations 1-qubit not-gate is called X or σ or σ1. It is • x one of the three Pauli matrices. In Boolean logic, identity and not are the • only two possible 1-bit reversible gates. But the situation is different in case of • quantum gates. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 25 ✬ Unitary Transformations are Uncountable ✩ cos sin U = θ θ is a unitary operator. sin θ cos θ • − cos θ sin θ The adjoint of U is U † = − , • sin θ cos θ satisfying cos θ sin θ cos θ sin θ 1 0 UU † = − = . sin θ cos θ sin θ cos θ 0 1 • − So for every value of θ we have a unitary • gate. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 26 ✬ No Finite Set of Generators ✩ There are uncountably many unitary • transformations. So it is impossible to get a finite set of generators or universal transformation gates. However there are finite set of • transformations that can approximate any arbitrary transformation to any desired accuracy. Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 27 ✬ Tensor Product of Transformations ✩ Multi-qubit transformations can be • expressed as linear combination of tensor products of 1-qubit or 2-qubit transformations. Let in an n-qubit system the transformations • U1, ,U are applied to qubits ··· k (1,i1), (i1 + 1,i2), , (ik 1,n) respectively. ··· − The combined transformation on n-qubits is U = U1 U . ⊗···⊗ k Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 28 ✬ ✩ Qubit Gate Array U1 U3 U4 U6 I 1 O1 I2 O2 I 3 O3 I 4 O4 U2 U5 Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 29 ✬ ✩ Tensor Product of Transformations The leftmost transformation is • U1 I I U2. ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ Second one is U3 I I. • ⊗ ⊗ Third one is U4 I U5. • ⊗ ⊗ Last transformation is U6 I I. • ⊗ ⊗ Lect 3 Goutam Biswas ✫ ✪ Quantum Computing 30 ✬ ✩ General Form of an 1-Qubit Operator Let U be an 1-qubit operator.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Quaslfree States of CAR and Bogoliubov Automorphisms
    Publ. RIMS Kyoto Univ. Vol. 6 (1970/71), 385-442 On Quaslfree States of CAR and Bogoliubov Automorphisms By Huzihiro ARAKI Abstract A necessary and sufficient condition for two quasifree states of CAR to be quasiequivalent is obtained. Quasif ree states is characterized as the unique KMS state of a Bogoliubov automorphism of CAR. The structure of the group of all inner Bogoliubov automorphisms of CAR is clarified. §1. Introduction A classification of gauge invariant quasifree states of the canonical anticommutation relations (CAR) up to quasi and unitary equivalence is recently obtained by Powers and St0rmer [12]. We shall generalize their result to arbitrary quasifree states. We use the formalism developped earlier [2] and study quasifree state <ps of a self dual CAR algebra. It is then shown that <pSi and <pS2 are quasiequivalent if and only if Sllz — Sllz is in the Hiibert Schmidt class. For a gauge invariant quasifree state <pA in the paper of Powers and St0rmer, S = A@(1 — A) and hence our result is a direct generali- zation of Powers and St0rmer. The quasifree primary state <ps for which 5 does not have eigen- value 1 is shown to be the unique KMS state for the one parameter group r(£/GO) of Bogoiiubov * automorphisms of CAR, where r(t/GO) corresponds to a unitary transformation U(£)=ex.piAH of the direct sum of testing function spaces of creation and annihilation operators and H is related to 5 by S= (l + e"*)"1. This is used to simplify some of arguments. A quasifree state q>s is primary unless 1/2 is an isolated point spectrum of 5, has an odd multiplicity and S(l — S1) is in the Received May 6, 1970 and in revised form November 17, 1970.
    [Show full text]
  • Unitary and Anti-Unitary Quantum Descriptions of the Classical Not Gate
    G. Cattaneo, · G. Conte, · R. Leporini Unitary and Anti-Unitary Quantum Descriptions of the Classical Not Gate Abstract Two possible quantum descriptions of the classical Not gate are investigated in the framework of the Hilbert space C2: the unitary and the anti{unitary operator realizations. The two cases are distinguished interpret- ing the unitary Not as a quantum realization of the classical gate which on a fixed orthogonal pair of unit vectors, realizing once for all the classical bits 0 and 1, produces the required transformations 0 ! 1 and 1 ! 0 (i.e., logical quantum Not). The anti{unitary Not is a quantum realization of a gate which acts as a classical Not on any pair of mutually orthogonal vectors, each of which is a potential realization of the classical bits (i.e., universal quantum Not). Although the latter is not completely positive, one can give an approximated unitary realization of the gate by appending an ancilla. Fi- nally, we consider the unitary and the anti{unitary operator realizations of two important genuine quantum gates that transform elements of the com- putational basis of C2 into its superpositions: the square root of the identity and the square root of the Not. Keywords Quantum gates, universal quantum Not, square root of the Not, square root of the identity. G. Cattaneo Dipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione, Universit`adegli Studi di Milano{Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi 8 Milano, 20126, Italy E-mail: [email protected] G. Conte Dipartimento di Filosofia, Universit`adegli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 3 Milano, 20126, Italy E-mail: [email protected] R.
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Operators
    C H A P T E R 10 Linear Operators Recall that a linear transformation T ∞ L(V) of a vector space into itself is called a (linear) operator. In this chapter we shall elaborate somewhat on the theory of operators. In so doing, we will define several important types of operators, and we will also prove some important diagonalization theorems. Much of this material is directly useful in physics and engineering as well as in mathematics. While some of this chapter overlaps with Chapter 8, we assume that the reader has studied at least Section 8.1. 10.1 LINEAR FUNCTIONALS AND ADJOINTS Recall that in Theorem 9.3 we showed that for a finite-dimensional real inner product space V, the mapping u ’ Lu = Óu, Ô was an isomorphism of V onto V*. This mapping had the property that Lauv = Óau, vÔ = aÓu, vÔ = aLuv, and hence Lau = aLu for all u ∞ V and a ∞ ®. However, if V is a complex space with a Hermitian inner product, then Lauv = Óau, vÔ = a*Óu, vÔ = a*Luv, and hence Lau = a*Lu which is not even linear (this was the definition of an anti- linear (or conjugate linear) transformation given in Section 9.2). Fortunately, there is a closely related result that holds even for complex vector spaces. Let V be finite-dimensional over ç, and assume that V has an inner prod- uct Ó , Ô defined on it (this is just a positive definite Hermitian form on V). Thus for any X, Y ∞ V we have ÓX, YÔ ∞ ç.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Concepts in Quantum Computation
    Basic concepts in quantum computation Artur Ekert, Patrick Hayden and Hitoshi Inamori Centre for Quantum Computation, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom February 1, 2008 1 Qubits, gates and networks Consider the two binary strings, 011, (1) 111. (2) The first one can represent, for example, the number 3 (in binary) and the second one the number 7. In general three physical bits can be prepared in 23 = 8 different configurations that can represent, for example, the integers from 0 to 7. However, a register composed of three classical bits can store only one number at a given moment of time. Enter qubits and quantum registers: A qubit is a quantum system in which the Boolean states 0 and 1 are rep- resented by a prescribed pair of normalised and mutually orthogonal quantum states labeled as 0 , 1 [1]. The two states form a ‘computational basis’ and any other (pure) state{| i | ofi} the qubit can be written as a superposition α 0 + β 1 for some α and β such that α 2 + β 2 = 1. A qubit is typically a microscopic| i | i system, such as an atom, a nuclear| | | spin,| or a polarised photon. A collection of n qubits is called a quantum register of size n. We shall assume that information is stored in the registers in binary form. arXiv:quant-ph/0011013v1 2 Nov 2000 For example, the number 6 is represented by a register in state 1 1 | i ⊗ | i⊗ 0 . In more compact notation: a stands for the tensor product an 1 | i | i | − i⊗ an 2 .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Complex Numbers in Quantum Mechanics
    1 Complex Numbers in Quantum Mechanics Complex numbers and variables can be useful in classical physics. However, they are not essential. To emphasize this, recall that forces, positions, momenta, potentials, electric and magnetic fields are all real quantities, and the equations describing them, Newton's laws, Maxwell's equations,etc. are all differential equations involving strictly real quantities. p Quantum mechanics is different. Factors of i = −1 are everywhere, for example from Heisenberg we have his famous commutation relation, QP − PQ = ih;¯ and from Schr¨odingerhis equally famous equation h¯ @ Ψ = HΨ: i t The wave function Ψ is complex and so is practically every other quantity needed to formulate quantum mechanics. Granted that classical mechanics fails at distances of nanometer or less, why is it suddenly so necessary that everything be complex? Comment 1 An interesting question is the distance scale below which a quantum treatment is essential. A nanometer seems like a reasonable choice. But even more intriguing is the question of what happens on much bigger scales, centimeters, meters, and larger. Does quantum mechanics still govern things, or does it somehow break down? In 2011, it is fair to say no definite answer to this question is known. Returning to the question of why quantum mechanics requires complex quantities, one reason becomes apparent upon trying to describe wavelike phenomena for material particles, electrons, neutrons, etc. To see this point, start with a classical electromagnetic wave. For a plane wave traveling along the z−axis, we can write the following formula for the electric field, ~ E = E0x^ cos(kz − !t): (1) To be more realistic, we should of course superpose nearby frequencies so that the wave has a finite extent.
    [Show full text]
  • Automorphisms and Quasi-Free States of the CAR Algebra N
    Commun. math. Phys. 43, 181—197 (1975) © by Springer-Verlag 1975 Automorphisms and Quasi-Free States of the CAR Algebra N. M. Hugenholtz Instituut voor Theoretische Natuurkunde, Rijksuniversiteit, Groningen, The Netherlands R. V. Kadison Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA Received September 25, 1974 Abstract. We study automorphisms of the CAR algebra which map the family of gauge-invariant, quasi-free states of the CAR algebra onto itself and show (Theorem 3.1) that they are one-particle automorphisms. 1. Introduction The problem discussed in this paper arose from questions regarding equi- librium states of thermodynamical systems. Equilibrium states have been extensively discussed in the framework of C*-algebras of observables (see, for example [6, 15]). Such states are labeled by a very small number of parameters. For example, in the case of a gas of identical particles, the equilibrium states are labeled by the temperature, the chemical potential, and the average velocity of the particles - quantities which relate directly with the conserved quantities - energy, particle number, and total momentum. Since conserved quantities are in one-one correspondence with one-parameter groups of transformations which leave the Hamiltonian invariant, we can describe the situation in a way which remains meaningful for infinite systems. Equilibrium states of thermodynamical systems are labeled by a very small number of parameters which relate directly with one- parameter, automorphism groups of the observable algebra that commute with the time-evolution automorphisms. The fact that there are so few parameters involved, which is related to the fact that there are only a small number of one-parameter groups of automorphisms that commute with the time-evolution, is an aspect of the ergodic nature of most large physical systems.
    [Show full text]