DOCSLIB.ORG

PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix PHY305: Notes on Entanglement and the Density Matrix Here follows a short summary of the definitions of qubits, EPR states, entanglement, the density matrix, pure states, mixed states, measurement, and decoherence. Definition of a qubit A qubit is the simplest quantum mechanical system that one can consider: it only has two states. The most familiar example is to think of a qubit as the spin state of a spin 1/2 particle. Consider a qubit, called A. A general state of state of A be written as a linear sum of a spin up and a spin down state |ψiA = a0| ↑ iA + a1| ↓ iA (1) Here a0 and a1 are two arbitrary complex numbers, that satisfy 2 2 |a0| + |a1| = 1 . (2) The real dimension of the Hilbert space of states of a qubit is therefore dim Hqubit = 3 (3) Instead of using spin up or spin down, we can also write the two states as |ψiA = a0 | 0 i + a1 | 1 i, (4) and think of | 0 i and | 1 i as the two possible states of a classical bit – the bit that is used in binary computations. The difference between a qubit and a classical bit is that the state of a qubit is a linear superposition of states of a classical bit. We can measure the state of a qubit, by measuring the eigenvalue of some hermitian operator O, that acts on the Hilbert space of the qubit. These observables O are 2 × 2 hermitian matrices. Any such observable can be expanded as 3 X O = v01 + vjσj (5) j=1 where σj, j = 1, .., 3 denote the three Pauli matrices. Special cases of observables are the spin operators σj themselves, which measure (up to a prefactor ~/2) the component of the spin in the direction j. Measuring σ3 yields either spin up or spin down. Doing this particular measurement is called reading the qubit. The resulting outcome is a classical bit. 2 2 The numbers |a0| and |a1| are the probabilities that a measurement yields as outcome the corresponding classical bit. 1 Two qubit states Now let us look at a system consisting of two qubits, called A and B. Now things get more interesting. A possible state of the two qubits is | Ψproduct i = |ψiA |φiB (6) with |ψiA as in eqn (1) and |ψiB = b0| ↑ iB + b1| ↓ iB . (7) Now while | ψ iA and | φ iB are general states for each individual qubit, the state (5) is not the most general state of the two qubit system. State (5) is called a product state, because it factorizes as the product of a state of qubit A times a state of qubit B. A more interesting two qubit state is the EPR state 1 |ΨEPRi = √ (| ↑ i | ↓ i − | ↓ i | ↑ i ) (8) 2 A B A B This state has the special property that, if we would read out the state of qubit B (mea- sure its spin along the z-axis), then thet state of qubit A depends on the outcome of the measurement on qubit B. We say that the EPR state is an entangled state. We will give a more general definition of an entanglement in a moment. N qubit states Let us take a brief look at the most general state of N qubits. As a quick warm-up, the state of N classical bits is characterized by N numbers x = {s1, s2, s3, . , sN } (9) where si = 0, 1 is the i-th classical bit. The number of possible states x of N classical bits is 2N . The most general quantum mechanical state of N qubits is a linear combination of all possible classical states X |Ψi = cx | x i (10) N qubits 0≤ x <2N where x is short-hand notation of the state of N classical bits. So the general N qubit states N P 2 is specified by 2 complex amplitudes cX , subject to one single constraint x |cx| = 1 . Thus the dimension of the N qubit Hilbert space is N dim HN qbits = 2 · 2 − 1 (11) For say N = 100, this is already very large number! This large number arises because the general state of N qubits is not the product of N single qubit states, but is highly entangled. And for N = 100, this entanglement contains a lot of information! (More on this later.) 2 Entanglement with environment The notion of entanglement is important in any realistic description of a quantum system A that is in contact with some other quantum system B. This other system B is in fact always present, since any finite quantum system A is always in contact with some environ- ment, which for example includes the measuring aparatus by which we plan to measure the quantum system A. So let us just call system B the environment of system A. Up to now we have considered situations where the state of the quantum system and its environment factorizes into a product state | Ψproduct i = |ψiA |φiB . (12) In this product situation, we can simply ignore the environment, and just describe the quantum system A by the state |ψiA . Indeed, if we consider an operator OA that just acts on the quantum system A (and not on the quantum system b), we have hΨproduct|OA |Ψproducti = A hψ| OA | ψiA (13) We say that the quantum system A is in a pure state. Now let | i i label some basis of the Hilbert space of system A. Similarly, let | j i denote the basis of quantum states of the environment. Then we can decompose X X | ψ iA = ai | i iA , | φ iB = bj | j iB , (14) i j X | Ψproduct i = aibj | i iA | j iB (15) i,j for some set of amplitudes ai and bj. Product states of this form are special, however, and they are hard to realize experimentally. A general quantum state of systems A and B looks as follows X | Ψ i = cij | i iA | j iB (16) i,j where cij are arbitrary complex amplitudes. We have cij = aibj for a product state (17) but in general, cij can not be factorized in this way. If cij can not be factorized in the above form, we say that the quantum system A and its environment B are entangled. In this case, the state of the quantum system A is called a mixed state. We would like to find a way to describe such a mixed state, without having to include the environment in our description. 3 Definition of a density matrix Let | i i label some basis of the Hilbert space of system A. The density matrix is a matrix with entries ρij. One often write the density matrix as an operator that acts on the Hilbert space, as follows X ρ = | i iρijh j |. (18) ij P (Note that this expression indeed acts on the Hilbert space via: ρ| φ i = i,j ρijh j |φi| i i.) The three properties that we will require of the density matrix ρij are ∗ X 1) ρij = ρji ; 2) ρii = 1 ; 3) ρii ≥ 0. (19) i The first two conditions say that the density matrix is hermitian and has trace equal to 1: 1) ρ = ρ† ; 2) Tr(ρ) = 1 . (20) The main use of the density matrix is to define the expectation values of operators O that act on the Hilbert space. This definition is as follows X h O i = ρij h j | O | i i = Tr(ρ O) (21) i,j Diagonal form of the density matrix For a given density matrix ρ it is possible to find a special basis | n i such that the density matrix ρ is diagonal: X ρ = | n iρnnh n | (22) n 0 ≤ ρnn ≡ pn ≤ 1. (23) Here pn is the probability that the system is in the state | n i. A density matrix thus describes statistical mixture of quantum states. The requirement that Tr(ρ) = 1 amounts to the condition that the probabilities add up to 1: X pn = 1 . (24) In this diagonal basis, the formula for the expectation value of the operator O takes the form of a statistical average X h O i = pn h n |O| n i (25) n 4 Density matrix of a pure state. A quantum system in a pure state is described by a wave function X |ψi = ai| i i (26) i The expectation value of an operator O then reads X ∗ h O i = h ψ | O| ψ i = aiaj h j | O| i i (27) i,j From the definition (21) we read off that the density matrix associated to the state (26) is X ∗ ρ = | i i aiaj h j | = |ψihψ| (28) i,j Comparing with eqn (22), we see that the density matrix of a pure state | ψ i, when diago- nalized, has one single eigenvalue pn = 1 (for | n i = | ψ i) while pm = 0 for all other m 6= n. This implies that the density matrix of a pure state has the special property that ρ2 = ρ. In general, we deduce the following criterion for a density matrix: Tr(ρ2) = 1 for a pure state Tr(ρ2) < 1 for a mixed state (29) Mixed state from an entangled state Let us return to the general entangled state (16) for the two quantum systems A and B. We want to compute the density matrix that describes the mixed state of system A. Consider an operator OA that acts within the Hilbert space of A only. Its expectation value can be evaluated as h O i = h Ψ | O| Ψ i X ∗ = cij ckl Bh l | j iBAh k | O | i iA i,j,k,l X X ∗ = cij ckj Ah k | O | i iA (30) i,k j So we read off that the density matrix for the quantum system A is A X ∗ ρik = cij ckj (31) j ∗ For the product state (17), this is of the form ρik = aiak, which describes a pure state.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quantum Information
    Quantum Information J. A. Jones Michaelmas Term 2010 Contents 1 Dirac Notation 3 1.1 Hilbert Space . 3 1.2 Dirac notation . 4 1.3 Operators . 5 1.4 Vectors and matrices . 6 1.5 Eigenvalues and eigenvectors . 8 1.6 Hermitian operators . 9 1.7 Commutators . 10 1.8 Unitary operators . 11 1.9 Operator exponentials . 11 1.10 Physical systems . 12 1.11 Time-dependent Hamiltonians . 13 1.12 Global phases . 13 2 Quantum bits and quantum gates 15 2.1 The Bloch sphere . 16 2.2 Density matrices . 16 2.3 Propagators and Pauli matrices . 18 2.4 Quantum logic gates . 18 2.5 Gate notation . 21 2.6 Quantum networks . 21 2.7 Initialization and measurement . 23 2.8 Experimental methods . 24 3 An atom in a laser field 25 3.1 Time-dependent systems . 25 3.2 Sudden jumps . 26 3.3 Oscillating fields . 27 3.4 Time-dependent perturbation theory . 29 3.5 Rabi flopping and Fermi's Golden Rule . 30 3.6 Raman transitions . 32 3.7 Rabi flopping as a quantum gate . 32 3.8 Ramsey fringes . 33 3.9 Measurement and initialisation . 34 1 CONTENTS 2 4 Spins in magnetic fields 35 4.1 The nuclear spin Hamiltonian . 35 4.2 The rotating frame . 36 4.3 On-resonance excitation . 38 4.4 Excitation phases . 38 4.5 Off-resonance excitation . 39 4.6 Practicalities . 40 4.7 The vector model . 40 4.8 Spin echoes . 41 4.9 Measurement and initialisation . 42 5 Photon techniques 43 5.1 Spatial encoding .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes: Qubit Representations and Rotations
    Phys 711 Topics in Particles & Fields | Spring 2013 | Lecture 1 | v0.3 Lecture notes: Qubit representations and rotations Jeffrey Yepez Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Hawai`i at Manoa Watanabe Hall, 2505 Correa Road Honolulu, Hawai`i 96822 E-mail: [email protected] www.phys.hawaii.edu/∼yepez (Dated: January 9, 2013) Contents mathematical object (an abstraction of a two-state quan- tum object) with a \one" state and a \zero" state: I. What is a qubit? 1 1 0 II. Time-dependent qubits states 2 jqi = αj0i + βj1i = α + β ; (1) 0 1 III. Qubit representations 2 A. Hilbert space representation 2 where α and β are complex numbers. These complex B. SU(2) and O(3) representations 2 numbers are called amplitudes. The basis states are or- IV. Rotation by similarity transformation 3 thonormal V. Rotation transformation in exponential form 5 h0j0i = h1j1i = 1 (2a) VI. Composition of qubit rotations 7 h0j1i = h1j0i = 0: (2b) A. Special case of equal angles 7 In general, the qubit jqi in (1) is said to be in a superpo- VII. Example composite rotation 7 sition state of the two logical basis states j0i and j1i. If References 9 α and β are complex, it would seem that a qubit should have four free real-valued parameters (two magnitudes and two phases): I. WHAT IS A QUBIT? iθ0 α φ0 e jqi = = iθ1 : (3) Let us begin by introducing some notation: β φ1 e 1 state (called \minus" on the Bloch sphere) Yet, for a qubit to contain only one classical bit of infor- 0 mation, the qubit need only be unimodular (normalized j1i = the alternate symbol is |−i 1 to unity) α∗α + β∗β = 1: (4) 0 state (called \plus" on the Bloch sphere) 1 Hence it lives on the complex unit circle, depicted on the j0i = the alternate symbol is j+i: 0 top of Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion of the Reduced Density Operator
    Motion of the Reduced Density Operator Nicholas Wheeler, Reed College Physics Department Spring 2009 Introduction. Quantum mechanical decoherence, dissipation and measurements all involve the interaction of the system of interest with an environmental system (reservoir, measurement device) that is typically assumed to possess a great many degrees of freedom (while the system of interest is typically assumed to possess relatively few degrees of freedom). The state of the composite system is described by a density operator ρ which in the absence of system-bath interaction we would denote ρs ρe, though in the cases of primary interest that notation becomes unavailable,⊗ since in those cases the states of the system and its environment are entangled. The observable properties of the system are latent then in the reduced density operator ρs = tre ρ (1) which is produced by “tracing out” the environmental component of ρ. Concerning the specific meaning of (1). Let n) be an orthonormal basis | in the state space H of the (open) system, and N) be an orthonormal basis s !| " in the state space H of the (also open) environment. Then n) N) comprise e ! " an orthonormal basis in the state space H = H H of the |(closed)⊗| composite s e ! " system. We are in position now to write ⊗ tr ρ I (N ρ I N) e ≡ s ⊗ | s ⊗ | # ! " ! " ↓ = ρ tr ρ in separable cases s · e The dynamics of the composite system is generated by Hamiltonian of the form H = H s + H e + H i 2 Motion of the reduced density operator where H = h I s s ⊗ e = m h n m N n N $ | s| % | % ⊗ | % · $ | ⊗ $ | m,n N # # $% & % &' H = I h e s ⊗ e = n M n N M h N | % ⊗ | % · $ | ⊗ $ | $ | e| % n M,N # # $% & % &' H = m M m M H n N n N i | % ⊗ | % $ | ⊗ $ | i | % ⊗ | % $ | ⊗ $ | m,n M,N # # % &$% & % &'% & —all components of which we will assume to be time-independent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Representations of SU(2)
    A Representations of SU(2) In this appendix we provide details of the parameterization of the group SU(2) and differential forms on the group space. An arbitrary representation of the group SU(2) is given by the set of three generators Tk, which satisfy the Lie algebra [Ti,Tj ]=iεijkTk, with ε123 =1. The element of the group is given by the matrix U =exp{iT · ω} , (A.1) 1 where in the fundamental representation Tk = 2 σk, k =1, 2, 3, with 01 0 −i 10 σ = ,σ= ,σ= , 1 10 2 i 0 3 0 −1 standard Pauli matrices, which satisfy the relation σiσj = δij + iεijkσk . The vector ω has components ωk in a given coordinate frame. Geometrically, the matrices U are generators of spinor rotations in three- 3 dimensional space R and the parameters ωk are the corresponding angles of rotation. The Euler parameterization of an arbitrary matrix of SU(2) transformation is defined in terms of three angles θ, ϕ and ψ,as ϕ θ ψ iσ3 iσ2 iσ3 U(ϕ, θ, ψ)=Uz(ϕ)Uy(θ)Uz(ψ)=e 2 e 2 e 2 ϕ ψ ei 2 0 cos θ sin θ ei 2 0 = 2 2 −i ϕ θ θ − ψ 0 e 2 − sin cos 0 e i 2 2 2 i i θ 2 (ψ+ϕ) θ − 2 (ψ−ϕ) cos 2 e sin 2 e = i − − i . (A.2) − θ 2 (ψ ϕ) θ 2 (ψ+ϕ) sin 2 e cos 2 e Thus, the SU(2) group manifold is isomorphic to three-sphere S3.
    [Show full text]
  • Density Matrix Description of NMR
    Density Matrix Description of NMR BCMB/CHEM 8190 Operators in Matrix Notation • It will be important, and convenient, to express the commonly used operators in matrix form • Consider the operator Iz and the single spin functions α and β - recall ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ Ix α = 1 2 β Ix β = 1 2α Iy α = 1 2 iβ Iy β = −1 2 iα Iz α = +1 2α Iz β = −1 2 β α α = β β =1 α β = β α = 0 - recall the expectation value for an observable Q = ψ Qˆ ψ = ∫ ψ∗Qˆψ dτ Qˆ - some operator ψ - some wavefunction - the matrix representation is the possible expectation values for the basis functions α β α ⎡ α Iˆ α α Iˆ β ⎤ ⎢ z z ⎥ ⎢ ˆ ˆ ⎥ β ⎣ β Iz α β Iz β ⎦ ⎡ α Iˆ α α Iˆ β ⎤ ⎡1 2 α α −1 2 α β ⎤ ⎡1 2 0 ⎤ ⎡1 0 ⎤ ˆ ⎢ z z ⎥ 1 Iz = = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ˆ ˆ ⎥ 1 2 β α −1 2 β β 0 −1 2 2 0 −1 ⎣ β Iz α β Iz β ⎦ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ • This is convenient, as the operator is just expressed as a matrix of numbers – no need to derive it again, just store it in computer Operators in Matrix Notation • The matrices for Ix, Iy,and Iz are called the Pauli spin matrices ˆ ⎡ 0 1 2⎤ 1 ⎡0 1 ⎤ ˆ ⎡0 −1 2 i⎤ 1 ⎡0 −i ⎤ ˆ ⎡1 2 0 ⎤ 1 ⎡1 0 ⎤ Ix = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ Iy = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ Iz = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ ⎣1 2 0 ⎦ 2 ⎣1 0⎦ ⎣1 2 i 0 ⎦ 2 ⎣i 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 −1 2⎦ 2 ⎣0 −1 ⎦ • Express α , β , α and β as 1×2 column and 2×1 row vectors ⎡1⎤ ⎡0⎤ α = ⎢ ⎥ β = ⎢ ⎥ α = [1 0] β = [0 1] ⎣0⎦ ⎣1⎦ • Using matrices, the operations of Ix, Iy, and Iz on α and β , and the orthonormality relationships, are shown below ˆ 1 ⎡0 1⎤⎡1⎤ 1 ⎡0⎤ 1 ˆ 1 ⎡0 1⎤⎡0⎤ 1 ⎡1⎤ 1 Ix α = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = β Ix β = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ = α 2⎣1 0⎦⎣0⎦ 2⎣1⎦ 2 2⎣1 0⎦⎣1⎦ 2⎣0⎦ 2 ⎡1⎤ ⎡0⎤ α α = [1 0]⎢ ⎥
    [Show full text]
  • Multipartite Quantum States and Their Marginals
    Diss. ETH No. 22051 Multipartite Quantum States and their Marginals A dissertation submitted to ETH ZURICH for the degree of Doctor of Sciences presented by Michael Walter Diplom-Mathematiker arXiv:1410.6820v1 [quant-ph] 24 Oct 2014 Georg-August-Universität Göttingen born May 3, 1985 citizen of Germany accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. Matthias Christandl, examiner Prof. Dr. Gian Michele Graf, co-examiner Prof. Dr. Aram Harrow, co-examiner 2014 Abstract Subsystems of composite quantum systems are described by reduced density matrices, or quantum marginals. Important physical properties often do not depend on the whole wave function but rather only on the marginals. Not every collection of reduced density matrices can arise as the marginals of a quantum state. Instead, there are profound compatibility conditions – such as Pauli’s exclusion principle or the monogamy of quantum entanglement – which fundamentally influence the physics of many-body quantum systems and the structure of quantum information. The aim of this thesis is a systematic and rigorous study of the general relation between multipartite quantum states, i.e., states of quantum systems that are composed of several subsystems, and their marginals. In the first part of this thesis (Chapters 2–6) we focus on the one-body marginals of multipartite quantum states. Starting from a novel ge- ometric solution of the compatibility problem, we then turn towards the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. We find that the one-body marginals through their local eigenvalues can characterize the entan- glement of multipartite quantum states, and we propose the notion of an entanglement polytope for its systematic study.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Angular Momentum and Spin
    Chapter 5 Theory of Angular Momentum and Spin Rotational symmetry transformations, the group SO(3) of the associated rotation matrices and the 1 corresponding transformation matrices of spin{ 2 states forming the group SU(2) occupy a very important position in physics. The reason is that these transformations and groups are closely tied to the properties of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter, but also to the properties of composite systems. Examples of the latter with particularly simple transformation properties are closed shell atoms, e.g., helium, neon, argon, the magic number nuclei like carbon, or the proton and the neutron made up of three quarks, all composite systems which appear spherical as far as their charge distribution is concerned. In this section we want to investigate how elementary and composite systems are described. To develop a systematic description of rotational properties of composite quantum systems the consideration of rotational transformations is the best starting point. As an illustration we will consider first rotational transformations acting on vectors ~r in 3-dimensional space, i.e., ~r R3, 2 we will then consider transformations of wavefunctions (~r) of single particles in R3, and finally N transformations of products of wavefunctions like j(~rj) which represent a system of N (spin- Qj=1 zero) particles in R3. We will also review below the well-known fact that spin states under rotations behave essentially identical to angular momentum states, i.e., we will find that the algebraic properties of operators governing spatial and spin rotation are identical and that the results derived for products of angular momentum states can be applied to products of spin states or a combination of angular momentum and spin states.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-State Systems
    1 TWO-STATE SYSTEMS Introduction. Relative to some/any discretely indexed orthonormal basis |n) | ∂ | the abstract Schr¨odinger equation H ψ)=i ∂t ψ) can be represented | | | ∂ | (m H n)(n ψ)=i ∂t(m ψ) n ∂ which can be notated Hmnψn = i ∂tψm n H | ∂ | or again ψ = i ∂t ψ We found it to be the fundamental commutation relation [x, p]=i I which forced the matrices/vectors thus encountered to be ∞-dimensional. If we are willing • to live without continuous spectra (therefore without x) • to live without analogs/implications of the fundamental commutator then it becomes possible to contemplate “toy quantum theories” in which all matrices/vectors are finite-dimensional. One loses some physics, it need hardly be said, but surprisingly much of genuine physical interest does survive. And one gains the advantage of sharpened analytical power: “finite-dimensional quantum mechanics” provides a methodological laboratory in which, not infrequently, the essentials of complicated computational procedures can be exposed with closed-form transparency. Finally, the toy theory serves to identify some unanticipated formal links—permitting ideas to flow back and forth— between quantum mechanics and other branches of physics. Here we will carry the technique to the limit: we will look to “2-dimensional quantum mechanics.” The theory preserves the linearity that dominates the full-blown theory, and is of the least-possible size in which it is possible for the effects of non-commutivity to become manifest. 2 Quantum theory of 2-state systems We have seen that quantum mechanics can be portrayed as a theory in which • states are represented by self-adjoint linear operators ρ ; • motion is generated by self-adjoint linear operators H; • measurement devices are represented by self-adjoint linear operators A.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Group Theory
    10 Group theory 10.1 What is a group? A group G is a set of elements f, g, h, ... and an operation called multipli- cation such that for all elements f,g, and h in the group G: 1. The product fg is in the group G (closure); 2. f(gh)=(fg)h (associativity); 3. there is an identity element e in the group G such that ge = eg = g; 1 1 1 4. every g in G has an inverse g− in G such that gg− = g− g = e. Physical transformations naturally form groups. The elements of a group might be all physical transformations on a given set of objects that leave invariant a chosen property of the set of objects. For instance, the objects might be the points (x, y) in a plane. The chosen property could be their distances x2 + y2 from the origin. The physical transformations that leave unchanged these distances are the rotations about the origin p x cos ✓ sin ✓ x 0 = . (10.1) y sin ✓ cos ✓ y ✓ 0◆ ✓− ◆✓ ◆ These rotations form the special orthogonal group in 2 dimensions, SO(2). More generally, suppose the transformations T,T0,T00,... change a set of objects in ways that leave invariant a chosen property property of the objects. Suppose the product T 0 T of the transformations T and T 0 represents the action of T followed by the action of T 0 on the objects. Since both T and T 0 leave the chosen property unchanged, so will their product T 0 T . Thus the closure condition is satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • (Ab Initio) Pathintegral Molecular Dynamics
    (Ab initio) path-integral Molecular Dynamics The double slit experiment Sum over paths: Suppose only two paths: interference The double slit experiment ● Introduce of a large number of intermediate gratings, each containing many slits. ● Electrons may pass through any sequence of slits before reaching the detector ● Take the limit in which infinitely many gratings → empty space Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Do nuclei really behave classically ? Example: proton transfer in malonaldehyde only one quantum proton Tuckerman and Marx, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2001) Example: proton transfer in water + + Classical H5O2 Quantum H5O2 Marx et al. Nature (1997) Proton inWater-Hydroxyl (Ice) Overlayers on Metal Surfaces T = 160 K Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2010) Proton inWater-Hydroxyl (Ice) Overlayers on Metal Surfaces Li et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. (2010) The density matrix: definition Ensemble of states: Ensemble average: Let©s define: ρ is hermitian: real eigenvalues The density matrix: time evolution and equilibrium At equilibrium: ρ can be expressed as pure function of H and diagonalized simultaneously with H The density matrix: canonical ensemble Canonical ensemble: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation One particle one dimension: K and Φ do not commute, thus, Trotter decomposition: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Evaluation of: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Matrix elements of in space coordinates: acts on the eigenstates from the left: Canonical density matrix: Path integral formulation Where it was used: It can be Monte Carlo sampled, but for MD we need momenta! Path integral isomorphism Introducing a chain frequency and an effective potential: Path integral molecular dynamics Fictitious momenta: introducing a set of P Gaussian integrals : convenient parameter Gaussian integrals known: (adjust prefactor ) Does it work? i.
    [Show full text]
  • Spectral Quantum Tomography
    www.nature.com/npjqi ARTICLE OPEN Spectral quantum tomography Jonas Helsen 1, Francesco Battistel1 and Barbara M. Terhal1,2 We introduce spectral quantum tomography, a simple method to extract the eigenvalues of a noisy few-qubit gate, represented by a trace-preserving superoperator, in a SPAM-resistant fashion, using low resources in terms of gate sequence length. The eigenvalues provide detailed gate information, supplementary to known gate-quality measures such as the gate fidelity, and can be used as a gate diagnostic tool. We apply our method to one- and two-qubit gates on two different superconducting systems available in the cloud, namely the QuTech Quantum Infinity and the IBM Quantum Experience. We discuss how cross-talk, leakage and non-Markovian errors affect the eigenvalue data. npj Quantum Information (2019) 5:74 ; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0189-0 INTRODUCTION of the form λ = exp(−γ)exp(iϕ), contain information about the A central challenge on the path towards large-scale quantum quality of the implemented gate. Intuitively, the parameter γ computing is the engineering of high-quality quantum gates. To captures how much the noisy gate deviates from unitarity due to achieve this goal, many methods that accurately and reliably entanglement with an environment, while the angle ϕ can be characterize quantum gates have been developed. Some of these compared to the rotation angles of the targeted gate U. Hence ϕ methods are scalable, meaning that they require an effort which gives information about how much one over- or under-rotates. scales polynomially in the number of qubits on which the gates The spectrum of S can also be related to familiar gate-quality 1–8 act.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of a Spin ½ B
    Structure of a spin ½ B. C. Sanctuary Department of Chemistry, McGill University Montreal Quebec H3H 1N3 Canada Abstract. The non-hermitian states that lead to separation of the four Bell states are examined. In the absence of interactions, a new quantum state of spin magnitude 1/√2 is predicted. Properties of these states show that an isolated spin is a resonance state with zero net angular momentum, consistent with a point particle, and each resonance corresponds to a degenerate but well defined structure. By averaging and de-coherence these structures are shown to form ensembles which are consistent with the usual quantum description of a spin. Keywords: Bell states, Bell’s Inequalities, spin theory, quantum theory, statistical interpretation, entanglement, non-hermitian states. PACS: Quantum statistical mechanics, 05.30. Quantum Mechanics, 03.65. Entanglement and quantum non-locality, 03.65.Ud 1. INTRODUCTION In spite of its tremendous success in describing the properties of microscopic systems, the debate over whether quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory has been going on since its inception1. The basic property of quantum mechanics that belies it as the most fundamental theory is its statistical nature2. The history is well known: EPR3 showed that two non-commuting operators are simultaneously elements of physical reality, thereby concluding that quantum mechanics is incomplete, albeit they assumed locality. Bohr4 replied with complementarity, arguing for completeness; thirty years later Bell5, questioned the locality assumption6, and the conclusion drawn that any deeper theory than quantum mechanics must be non-local. In subsequent years the idea that entangled states can persist to space-like separations became well accepted7.
    [Show full text]