DOCSLIB.ORG

Open N-Qubit System As a Quantum Computer with Four-Valued Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open N-Qubit System As a Quantum Computer with Four-Valued Logic View metadata, citation and similar papers at Ocore.ac.ukpen n-Qubit System as a Quantum Computer brought to you by CORE with Four-Valued Logic provided by CERN Document Server Vasily E. Tarasov Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Preprint of Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University, Moscow SINP MSU 2001-31/671 20 August 2001 Abstract In this paper we generalize the usual model of quantum computer to a model in which the state is an operator of density matrix and the gates are general superoperators (quantum operations), not necessarily unitary. A mixed state (operator of density matrix) of n two- level quantum system (open or closed n-qubit system) is considered as an element of 4n- dimensional operator Hilbert space (Liouville space). It allows to use quantum computer (circuit) model with 4-valued logic. The gates of this model are general superoperators which act on n-ququats state. Ququat is quantum state in a 4-dimensional (operator) Hilbert space. Unitary two-valued logic gates and quantum operations for n-qubit open system are considered as four-valued logic gates acting on n-ququats. We discuss properties of quantum 4-valued logic gates. In the paper we study universality for quantum four-valued logic gates. PACS 3.67.Lx; 03.65-w; 3.65.Bz Keywords: Quantum computation, open quantum systems, ququats, many-valued logic 1 IIntroduction II Quantum stateand qubit Usual models for quantum computer use closed n-qubit sys- II.1 Pure states tems and deal only with unitary gates on pure states. In these models it is difficult or impossible to deal formally with mea- A quantum system in a pure state is described by unit vector surements, dissipation, decoherence and noise. It turns out, in a Hilbert space . In the Dirac notation a pure state is de- noted by Ψ >. TheH Hilbert space is a linear space with an that the restriction to pure states and unitary gates is unneces- | H sary [1]. inner product. The inner product for Ψ1 >, Ψ2 > is de- noted by < Ψ Ψ >. A quantum bit| or qubit,| the fundamen-∈H One can describe an open system starting from a closed 1| 2 system if the open system is a part of the closed system. How- tal concept of quantum computations, is a two-state quantum system. The two basis states labeled 0 > and 1 >,areor- ever, situations can arise where it is difficult or impossible to | | find a closed system comprising the given open system. This thogonal unit vectors, i.e. would render theory of dissipative and open systems a fun- <kl>= δkl, damental generalization of quantum mechanics [2]. Under- | standing dynamics of open systems is important for studying 2 where k, l 0, 1 . The Hilbert space of qubit is 2 = C . quantum noise processes [3, 4, 5], quantum error correction The quantum∈{ system} which corresponds to a quantumH com- [6, 8, 9, 11, 12], decoherence effects [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, puter (quantum circuits) consists of n quantum two-state par- 19, 20, 21] in quantum computations and to perform simula- ticles. The Hilbert space (n) of such a system is a ten- tions of open quantum systems [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. H sor product of n Hilbert spaces 2 of one two-state particle: In this paper we generalize the usual model of quantum (n) H (n) n = 2 2 ... 2. The space is a N =2 computer to a model in which the state is a density matrix dimensionalH H ⊗H complex⊗ linear⊗H space. Let usH choose a basis for operator and the gates are general superoperators (quantum (n) which is consists of the N =2n orthonormal states operations), not necessarily unitary. Pure state of n two-level H n k>, where k is in binary representation. The state k>is a closed quantum systems is an element of 2 -dimensional Hilbert| (n) | tensor product of the states ki > in : space and it allows to realize quantum computer model with | H 2-valued logic. The gates of this computer model are unitary k>= k1 > k2 > ... kn >= k1k2...kn >, operators act on a such state. In general case, mixed state | | ⊗| ⊗ ⊗| | (operator of density matrix) of n two-level quantum systems where ki 0, 1 and i =1, 2, ..., n. This basis is usually is an element of 4n-dimensional operator Hilbert space (Li- called computational∈{ } basis which has 2n elements. A pure ouville space). It allows to use quantum computer model with state Ψ(t) > (n) is generally a superposition of the basis 4-valued logic. The gates of this model are general superop- states| ∈H erators (quantum operations) which act on general n-ququats N 1 state. Ququat [55] is quantum state in a 4-dimensional (op- − Ψ(t) >= ak(t) k>, (1) erator) Hilbert space. Unitary gates and quantum operations | | Xk=0 for quantum two-valued logic computer can be considered as four-valued logic gates of new model. In the paper we con- n N 1 2 with N =2 and − ak(t) =1. The inner product sider universality for general quantum 4-valued logic gates k=0 | | between Ψ > and PΨ0 > is denoted by < Ψ Ψ0 > and acting on ququats. | | | In Sections 2, 3 and 5, the physical and mathematical N 1 − background (pure and mixed states, Liouville space and su- < Ψ Ψ0 >= a∗a0k . | k peroperators, evolution equations for closed and open quan- kX=0 tum) are considered. In Section 4, we introduce generalized computational basis and generalized computational states for II.2 Mixed states 4n-dimensional operator Hilbert space (Liouville space). In the Section 6, we study some properties of general four-valued In general, a quantum system is not in a pure state. Open logic gates. Unitary gates and quantum operations of two- quantum systems are not really isolated from the rest of the valued logic computer are considered as four-valued logic universe, so it does not have a well defined pure state. Lan- gates. In Section 7, we introduce a four-valued classical logic dau and von Neumann introduced a mixed state and a density matrix into quantum theory. A density matrix is a Hermitian formalism. In Section 8, we realize classical 4-valued logic (n) gates by quantum gates. In Section 9, we consider a universal (ρ† = ρ), positive (ρ>0) operator on with unit trace (Trρ =1). Pure states can be characterizedH by idempotent set of quantum 4-valued logic gates. In Section 10, quantum 2 four-valued logic gates of order (n,m) as a map from density condition ρ = ρ. A pure state (1) is represented by the oper- ator ρ = Ψ >< Ψ . matrix operator on n-ququats to density matrix operator on | | m-ququats are discussed. One can represent an arbitrary density matrix operator ρ(t) for n-qubits in terms of tensor products of Pauli matrices σµ: 1 ρ(t)= Pµ ...µ (t)σµ ... σµ . (2) 2n 1 n 1 ⊗ ⊗ n µ1X...µn 2 where each µi 0, 1, 2, 3 and i =1, ..., n.Hereσµ are called Liouville space attached to or the associated Hilbert Pauli matrices ∈{ } space, or Hilbert-Schmidt space [28]-[54].H Let k> be an orthonormal basis of (n): 01 0 i {| } H σ1 = ,σ2 = − , 10 i 0 N 1 − <kk0 >= δkk0 , k><k = I. 10 10 | | | σ = ,σ= I = . Xk=0 3 0 1 0 01 − Then k, l)= k><l) is an orthonormal basis of the Liou- The real expansion coefficients P (t) are given by | (||n) | µ1...µn ville space : H P t Tr σ ... σ ρ t . µ1...µn ( )= ( µ1 µn ( )) N 1 N 1 ⊗ ⊗ − − (k, l k0,l0)=δkk δll , k, l)(k, l = I,ˆ (4) Normalization (Trρ =1) requires that P0:::0(t)=1.Since | 0 0 | | Xk=0 Xl=0 the eigenvalues of the Pauli matrices are 1, the expansion ± n n coefficients satisfy Pµ1...µn (t) 1. Let us rewrite (2) in the where N =2 . This operator basis has 4 elements. Note | |≤ form: that k, l) = kl >= k> l>and | 6 | | ⊗| N 1 1 − k, l)= k1,l1) k2,l2) ... kn,ln) , (5) ρ(t)= σµPµ(t), | | ⊗| ⊗ ⊗| 2n µX=0 where ki,li 0, 1 , i =1, ..., n and ∈{ } n where σµ = σµ ... σµ , µ =(µ1...µn) and N =4 . 1 n ki,li) kj,lj)= ki > kj >, < li <lj ). An arbitrary⊗ general⊗ one-qubit state ρ(t) can be repre- | ⊗| || ⊗| |⊗ | sented as (n) For an arbitrary element A) of we have 3 | H 1 N 1 N 1 ρ(t)= σµPµ(t), − − 2 A)= k, l)(k, l A) (6) µX=0 | | | kX=0 Xl=0 where P (t)=Tr(σ ρ(t)) and P (t)=1. The pure state µ µ 0 with can be identified with Bloch sphere 2 2 2 (k, l A)=Tr( l><kA)=<kA l>= Akl. P1 (t)+P2 (t)+P3 (t)=1. | | | | | An operator ρ(t) of density matrix for n-qubits can be con- The mixed state can be identified with close ball (n) sideredasanelement ρ(t)) of the space .From(6)we P 2(t)+P 2(t)+P 2(t) 1. get | H 1 2 3 ≤ N 1 N 1 Not all linear combinations of quantum states ρj(t) are − − states. The operator ρ(t)) = k, l)(k, l ρ(t)) , (7) | | | kX=0 Xl=0 ρ(t)= λ ρ (t) j j where N =2n and Xj N 1 − is a state iff j λj =1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Lattice Structure of Quantum Logic
    BULL. AUSTRAL. MATH. SOC. MOS 8106, *8IOI, 0242 VOL. I (1969), 333-340 On the lattice structure of quantum logic P. D. Finch A weak logical structure is defined as a set of boolean propositional logics in which one can define common operations of negation and implication. The set union of the boolean components of a weak logical structure is a logic of propositions which is an orthocomplemented poset, where orthocomplementation is interpreted as negation and the partial order as implication. It is shown that if one can define on this logic an operation of logical conjunction which has certain plausible properties, then the logic has the structure of an orthomodular lattice. Conversely, if the logic is an orthomodular lattice then the conjunction operation may be defined on it. 1. Introduction The axiomatic development of non-relativistic quantum mechanics leads to a quantum logic which has the structure of an orthomodular poset. Such a structure can be derived from physical considerations in a number of ways, for example, as in Gunson [7], Mackey [77], Piron [72], Varadarajan [73] and Zierler [74]. Mackey [77] has given heuristic arguments indicating that this quantum logic is, in fact, not just a poset but a lattice and that, in particular, it is isomorphic to the lattice of closed subspaces of a separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space. If one assumes that the quantum logic does have the structure of a lattice, and not just that of a poset, it is not difficult to ascertain what sort of further assumptions lead to a "coordinatisation" of the logic as the lattice of closed subspaces of Hilbert space, details will be found in Jauch [8], Piron [72], Varadarajan [73] and Zierler [74], Received 13 May 1969.
    [Show full text]
  • Relational Quantum Mechanics
    Relational Quantum Mechanics Matteo Smerlak† September 17, 2006 †Ecole normale sup´erieure de Lyon, F-69364 Lyon, EU E-mail: [email protected] Abstract In this internship report, we present Carlo Rovelli’s relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, focusing on its historical and conceptual roots. A critical analysis of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument is then put forward, which suggests that the phenomenon of ‘quantum non-locality’ is an artifact of the orthodox interpretation, and not a physical effect. A speculative discussion of the potential import of the relational view for quantum-logic is finally proposed. Figure 0.1: Composition X, W. Kandinski (1939) 1 Acknowledgements Beyond its strictly scientific value, this Master 1 internship has been rich of encounters. Let me express hereupon my gratitude to the great people I have met. First, and foremost, I want to thank Carlo Rovelli1 for his warm welcome in Marseille, and for the unexpected trust he showed me during these six months. Thanks to his rare openness, I have had the opportunity to humbly but truly take part in active research and, what is more, to glimpse the vivid landscape of scientific creativity. One more thing: I have an immense respect for Carlo’s plainness, unaltered in spite of his renown achievements in physics. I am very grateful to Antony Valentini2, who invited me, together with Frank Hellmann, to the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Canada. We spent there an incredible week, meeting world-class physicists such as Lee Smolin, Jeffrey Bub or John Baez, and enthusiastic postdocs such as Etera Livine or Simone Speziale.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Postulate (QM4): Quantum Measurements
    Part IIC Lent term 2019-2020 QUANTUM INFORMATION & COMPUTATION Nilanjana Datta, DAMTP Cambridge 1 Postulate (QM4): Quantum measurements An isolated (closed) quantum system has a unitary evolution. However, when an exper- iment is done to find out the properties of the system, there is an interaction between the system and the experimentalists and their equipment (i.e., the external physical world). So the system is no longer closed and its evolution is not necessarily unitary. The following postulate provides a means of describing the effects of a measurement on a quantum-mechanical system. In classical physics the state of any given physical system can always in principle be fully determined by suitable measurements on a single copy of the system, while leaving the original state intact. In quantum theory the corresponding situation is bizarrely different { quantum measurements generally have only probabilistic outcomes, they are \invasive", generally unavoidably corrupting the input state, and they reveal only a rather small amount of information about the (now irrevocably corrupted) input state identity. Furthermore the (probabilistic) change of state in a quantum measurement is (unlike normal time evolution) not a unitary process. Here we outline the associated mathematical formalism, which is at least, easy to apply. (QM4) Quantum measurements and the Born rule In Quantum Me- chanics one measures an observable, i.e. a self-adjoint operator. Let A be an observable acting on the state space V of a quantum system Since A is self-adjoint, its eigenvalues P are real. Let its spectral projection be given by A = n anPn, where fang denote the set of eigenvalues of A and Pn denotes the orthogonal projection onto the subspace of V spanned by eigenvectors of A corresponding to the eigenvalue Pn.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Circuits with Mixed States Is Polynomially Equivalent in Computational Power to the Standard Unitary Model
    Quantum Circuits with Mixed States Dorit Aharonov∗ Alexei Kitaev† Noam Nisan‡ February 1, 2008 Abstract Current formal models for quantum computation deal only with unitary gates operating on “pure quantum states”. In these models it is difficult or impossible to deal formally with several central issues: measurements in the middle of the computation; decoherence and noise, using probabilistic subroutines, and more. It turns out, that the restriction to unitary gates and pure states is unnecessary. In this paper we generalize the formal model of quantum circuits to a model in which the state can be a general quantum state, namely a mixed state, or a “density matrix”, and the gates can be general quantum operations, not necessarily unitary. The new model is shown to be equivalent in computational power to the standard one, and the problems mentioned above essentially disappear. The main result in this paper is a solution for the subroutine problem. The general function that a quantum circuit outputs is a probabilistic function. However, the question of using probabilistic functions as subroutines was not previously dealt with, the reason being that in the language of pure states, this simply can not be done. We define a natural notion of using general subroutines, and show that using general subroutines does not strengthen the model. As an example of the advantages of analyzing quantum complexity using density ma- trices, we prove a simple lower bound on depth of circuits that compute probabilistic func- arXiv:quant-ph/9806029v1 8 Jun 1998 tions. Finally, we deal with the question of inaccurate quantum computation with mixed states.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Feynman Path Integration?
    Journal of Uncertain Systems Vol.5, No.x, pp.xx-xx, 2011 Online at: www.jus.org.uk Why Feynman Path Integration? Jaime Nava1;∗, Juan Ferret2, Vladik Kreinovich1, Gloria Berumen1, Sandra Griffin1, and Edgar Padilla1 1Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA 2Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA Received 19 December 2009; Revised 23 February 2010 Abstract To describe physics properly, we need to take into account quantum effects. Thus, for every non- quantum physical theory, we must come up with an appropriate quantum theory. A traditional approach is to replace all the scalars in the classical description of this theory by the corresponding operators. The problem with the above approach is that due to non-commutativity of the quantum operators, two math- ematically equivalent formulations of the classical theory can lead to different (non-equivalent) quantum theories. An alternative quantization approach that directly transforms the non-quantum action functional into the appropriate quantum theory, was indeed proposed by the Nobelist Richard Feynman, under the name of path integration. Feynman path integration is not just a foundational idea, it is actually an efficient computing tool (Feynman diagrams). From the pragmatic viewpoint, Feynman path integral is a great success. However, from the founda- tional viewpoint, we still face an important question: why the Feynman's path integration formula? In this paper, we provide a natural explanation for Feynman's path integration formula. ⃝c 2010 World Academic Press, UK. All rights reserved. Keywords: Feynman path integration, independence, foundations of quantum physics 1 Why Feynman Path Integration: Formulation of the Problem Need for quantization.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+
    University of Oxford Department of Physics High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+ Christopher J. Ballance −1 10 0.9 Photon scattering Motional error Off−resonant lightshift Spin−dephasing error Total error budget Data −2 10 0.99 Gate error Gate fidelity −3 10 0.999 1 2 3 10 10 10 Gate time (µs) A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Hertford College Michaelmas term, 2014 Abstract High-Fidelity Quantum Logic in Ca+ Christopher J. Ballance A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Michaelmas term 2014 Hertford College, Oxford Trapped atomic ions are one of the most promising systems for building a quantum computer – all of the fundamental operations needed to build a quan- tum computer have been demonstrated in such systems. The challenge now is to understand and reduce the operation errors to below the ‘fault-tolerant thresh- old’ (the level below which quantum error correction works), and to scale up the current few-qubit experiments to many qubits. This thesis describes experimen- tal work concentrated primarily on the first of these challenges. We demonstrate high-fidelity single-qubit and two-qubit (entangling) gates with errors at or be- low the fault-tolerant threshold. We also implement an entangling gate between two different species of ions, a tool which may be useful for certain scalable architectures. We study the speed/fidelity trade-off for a two-qubit phase gate implemented in 43Ca+ hyperfine trapped-ion qubits. We develop an error model which de- scribes the fundamental and technical imperfections / limitations that contribute to the measured gate error.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit
    Analysis of Nonlinear Dynamics in a Classical Transmon Circuit Sasu Tuohino B. Sc. Thesis Department of Physical Sciences Theoretical Physics University of Oulu 2017 Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Classical network theory4 2.1 From electromagnetic fields to circuit elements.........4 2.2 Generalized flux and charge....................6 2.3 Node variables as degrees of freedom...............7 3 Hamiltonians for electric circuits8 3.1 LC Circuit and DC voltage source................8 3.2 Cooper-Pair Box.......................... 10 3.2.1 Josephson junction.................... 10 3.2.2 Dynamics of the Cooper-pair box............. 11 3.3 Transmon qubit.......................... 12 3.3.1 Cavity resonator...................... 12 3.3.2 Shunt capacitance CB .................. 12 3.3.3 Transmon Lagrangian................... 13 3.3.4 Matrix notation in the Legendre transformation..... 14 3.3.5 Hamiltonian of transmon................. 15 4 Classical dynamics of transmon qubit 16 4.1 Equations of motion for transmon................ 16 4.1.1 Relations with voltages.................. 17 4.1.2 Shunt resistances..................... 17 4.1.3 Linearized Josephson inductance............. 18 4.1.4 Relation with currents................... 18 4.2 Control and read-out signals................... 18 4.2.1 Transmission line model.................. 18 4.2.2 Equations of motion for coupled transmission line.... 20 4.3 Quantum notation......................... 22 5 Numerical solutions for equations of motion 23 5.1 Design parameters of the transmon................ 23 5.2 Resonance shift at nonlinear regime............... 24 6 Conclusions 27 1 Abstract The focus of this thesis is on classical dynamics of a transmon qubit. First we introduce the basic concepts of the classical circuit analysis and use this knowledge to derive the Lagrangians and Hamiltonians of an LC circuit, a Cooper-pair box, and ultimately we derive Hamiltonian for a transmon qubit.
    [Show full text]
  • Theoretical Physics Group Decoherent Histories Approach: a Quantum Description of Closed Systems
    Theoretical Physics Group Department of Physics Decoherent Histories Approach: A Quantum Description of Closed Systems Author: Supervisor: Pak To Cheung Prof. Jonathan J. Halliwell CID: 01830314 A thesis submitted for the degree of MSc Quantum Fields and Fundamental Forces Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Mathematical Formalism9 2.1 General Idea...................................9 2.2 Operator Formulation............................. 10 2.3 Path Integral Formulation........................... 18 3 Interpretation 20 3.1 Decoherent Family............................... 20 3.1a. Logical Conclusions........................... 20 3.1b. Probabilities of Histories........................ 21 3.1c. Causality Paradox........................... 22 3.1d. Approximate Decoherence....................... 24 3.2 Incompatible Sets................................ 25 3.2a. Contradictory Conclusions....................... 25 3.2b. Logic................................... 28 3.2c. Single-Family Rule........................... 30 3.3 Quasiclassical Domains............................. 32 3.4 Many History Interpretation.......................... 34 3.5 Unknown Set Interpretation.......................... 36 4 Applications 36 4.1 EPR Paradox.................................. 36 4.2 Hydrodynamic Variables............................ 41 4.3 Arrival Time Problem............................. 43 4.4 Quantum Fields and Quantum Cosmology.................. 45 5 Summary 48 6 References 51 Appendices 56 A Boolean Algebra 56 B Derivation of Path Integral Method From Operator
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Zeno Dynamics from General Quantum Operations
    Quantum Zeno Dynamics from General Quantum Operations Daniel Burgarth1, Paolo Facchi2,3, Hiromichi Nakazato4, Saverio Pascazio2,3, and Kazuya Yuasa4 1Center for Engineered Quantum Systems, Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Macquarie University, 2109 NSW, Australia 2Dipartimento di Fisica and MECENAS, Università di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy 3INFN, Sezione di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy 4Department of Physics, Waseda University, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan June 30, 2020 We consider the evolution of an arbitrary quantum dynamical semigroup of a finite-dimensional quantum system under frequent kicks, where each kick is a generic quantum operation. We develop a generalization of the Baker- Campbell-Hausdorff formula allowing to reformulate such pulsed dynamics as a continuous one. This reveals an adiabatic evolution. We obtain a general type of quantum Zeno dynamics, which unifies all known manifestations in the literature as well as describing new types. 1 Introduction Physics is a science that is often based on approximations. From high-energy physics to the quantum world, from relativity to thermodynamics, approximations not only help us to solve equations of motion, but also to reduce the model complexity and focus on im- portant effects. Among the largest success stories of such approximations are the effective generators of dynamics (Hamiltonians, Lindbladians), which can be derived in quantum mechanics and condensed-matter physics. The key element in the techniques employed for their derivation is the separation of different time scales or energy scales. Recently, in quantum technology, a more active approach to condensed-matter physics and quantum mechanics has been taken. Generators of dynamics are reversely engineered by tuning system parameters and device design.
    [Show full text]
  • Singles out a Specific Basis
    Quantum Information and Quantum Noise Gabriel T. Landi University of Sao˜ Paulo July 3, 2018 Contents 1 Review of quantum mechanics1 1.1 Hilbert spaces and states........................2 1.2 Qubits and Bloch’s sphere.......................3 1.3 Outer product and completeness....................5 1.4 Operators................................7 1.5 Eigenvalues and eigenvectors......................8 1.6 Unitary matrices.............................9 1.7 Projective measurements and expectation values............ 10 1.8 Pauli matrices.............................. 11 1.9 General two-level systems....................... 13 1.10 Functions of operators......................... 14 1.11 The Trace................................ 17 1.12 Schrodinger’s¨ equation......................... 18 1.13 The Schrodinger¨ Lagrangian...................... 20 2 Density matrices and composite systems 24 2.1 The density matrix........................... 24 2.2 Bloch’s sphere and coherence...................... 29 2.3 Composite systems and the almighty kron............... 32 2.4 Entanglement.............................. 35 2.5 Mixed states and entanglement..................... 37 2.6 The partial trace............................. 39 2.7 Reduced density matrices........................ 42 2.8 Singular value and Schmidt decompositions.............. 44 2.9 Entropy and mutual information.................... 50 2.10 Generalized measurements and POVMs................ 62 3 Continuous variables 68 3.1 Creation and annihilation operators................... 68 3.2 Some important
    [Show full text]
  • Are Non-Boolean Event Structures the Precedence Or Consequence of Quantum Probability?
    Are Non-Boolean Event Structures the Precedence or Consequence of Quantum Probability? Christopher A. Fuchs1 and Blake C. Stacey1 1Physics Department, University of Massachusetts Boston (Dated: December 24, 2019) In the last five years of his life Itamar Pitowsky developed the idea that the formal structure of quantum theory should be thought of as a Bayesian probability theory adapted to the empirical situation that Nature’s events just so happen to conform to a non-Boolean algebra. QBism too takes a Bayesian stance on the probabilities of quantum theory, but its probabilities are the personal degrees of belief a sufficiently- schooled agent holds for the consequences of her actions on the external world. Thus QBism has two levels of the personal where the Pitowskyan view has one. The differences go further. Most important for the technical side of both views is the quantum mechanical Born Rule, but in the Pitowskyan development it is a theorem, not a postulate, arising in the way of Gleason from the primary empirical assumption of a non-Boolean algebra. QBism on the other hand strives to develop a way to think of the Born Rule in a pre-algebraic setting, so that it itself may be taken as the primary empirical statement of the theory. In other words, the hope in QBism is that, suitably understood, the Born Rule is quantum theory’s most fundamental postulate, with the Hilbert space formalism (along with its perceived connection to a non-Boolean event structure) arising only secondarily. This paper will avail of Pitowsky’s program, along with its extensions in the work of Jeffrey Bub and William Demopoulos, to better explicate QBism’s aims and goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Choi's Proof and Quantum Process Tomography 1 Introduction
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Choi's Proof and Quantum Process Tomography provided by CERN Document Server Debbie W. Leung IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, USA January 28, 2002 Quantum process tomography is a procedure by which an unknown quantum operation can be fully experimentally characterized. We reinterpret Choi's proof of the fact that any completely positive linear map has a Kraus representation [Lin. Alg. and App., 10, 1975] as a method for quantum process tomography. Furthermore, the analysis for obtaining the Kraus operators are particularly simple in this method. 1 Introduction The formalism of quantum operation can be used to describe a very large class of dynamical evolution of quantum systems, including quantum algorithms, quantum channels, noise processes, and measurements. The task to fully characterize an unknown quantum operation by applying it to carefully chosen input E state(s) and analyzing the output is called quantum process tomography. The parameters characterizing the quantum operation are contained in the density matrices of the output states, which can be measured using quantum state tomography [1]. Recipes for quantum process tomography have been proposed [12, 4, 5, 6, 8]. In earlier methods [12, 4, 5], is applied to different input states each of exactly the input dimension of . E E In [6, 8], is applied to part of a fixed bipartite entangled state. In other words, the input to is entangled E E with a reference system, and the joint output state is analyzed.
    [Show full text]