Arxiv:2108.13047V1 [Cond-Mat.Stat-Mech] 30 Aug 2021
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Measurement induced quantum walks A. Didi and E. Barkai Department of Physics, Institute of Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel (Dated: August 31, 2021) We investigate a tight binding quantum walk on a graph. Repeated stroboscopic measurements of the position of the particle yield a measured "trajectory", and a combination of classical and quantum mechanical properties for the walk are observed. We explore the effects of the measure- ments on the spreading of the packet on a one dimensional line, showing that except for the Zeno limit, the system converges to Gaussian statistics similarly to a classical random walk. A large deviation analysis and an Edgeworth expansion yield quantum corrections to this normal behavior. We then explore the first passage time to a target state using a generating function method, yielding properties like the quantization of the mean first return time. In particular, we study the effects of certain sampling rates which cause remarkable change in the behavior in the system, like divergence of the mean detection time in finite systems and a decomposition of the phase space into mutually exclusive regions, an effect that mimics ergodicity breaking, whose origin here is the destructive interference in quantum mechanics. For a quantum walk on a line we show that in our system the first detection probability decays classically like (time)−3=2, this is dramatically different compared to local measurements which yield a decay rate of (time)−3, indicating that the exponents of the first passage time depends on the type of measurements used. I. INTRODUCTION time τ, at which point we measure it's position. The free evolution between measurements is given by unitary dy- namics determined by the Hamiltonian of the system, Consider a non-biased random walk in dimension one, typically described by the adjacency matrix of a graph. for example a walk with Gaussian increments, or random After measurement is complete we log the location that walk on a lattice with equal probability to jump left or we found the particle in and then allow it to freely evolve right. In the long time limit the density of particles all for τ time once more, before repeating the process, such starting at the origin will converge to a Gaussian distri- as in the case presented in Fig 1. Our goals in this work bution. On the other hand, for a tight binding quantum are twofold, to better understand the statistical proper- walk on a line with nearest neighbor jumps, it is well ties of such a process were it to repeat indefinitely, and to known that the PDF, given by the square modulus of examine the first detection statistics when we are inter- the wave function, will propagate ballistically in the ab- ested in the amount of time it will take for the system to sence of measurement. The question we seek to answer reach a certain state under this measurement protocol. is, what will happen in the case where we measure the An analogous classical example [1] would be to record position of the particle stroboscopically, as explained in the position of an animal randomly wandering in the the abstract? These measurements yield a path that the wilderness at a constant frequency 1/τ. By doing this particle took, given by the sites that it was detected at. many times, we can define a path that the animal took From this path we may construct in principle the prob- as the list of positions we recorded, with this we can also ability of finding the particle on lattice point x after n ask questions about the statistics of how long it would measurements. Will the repeated collapse of the wave take the animal to travel between two different locations, function cause the statistics of the system to display fea- or to return to it's starting place. Where this analogy tures typical of a classical random walk, or will the pro- breaks down however, is that while for an animal the act cess remain a purely quantum one in spite of this, or of recording its position and the frequency of recording some combination of the two? In our work we found that wouldn't change it's path, in our case it is the driving the measurements induce a Gaussian behavior, similar to force of the random walk, as we'll later show. what one would expect of a classical random walk, how- The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Secs. arXiv:2108.13047v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 30 Aug 2021 ever a closer look at the problem using large-deviation II, III we define our model with regard to both the mea- theory and an Edgeworth expansion reveal the quantum surement induced quantum random walk without termi- nature of the process. Notwithstanding these effects, the nation and the first detection problem. In Sec. IV we convergence to the Gaussian behavior is typically fast, describe the mathematical framework we'll be using and with the exception of the Zeno limit τ ! 0, where the in Secs. V, VI we use it to derive several properties of non-classical effects are better pronounced. this type of random walk. In Sec. VII we apply the To more precisely define our model, we examine a aforementioned results and mathematical tools to study a closed quantum system which is prepared in some defi- measurement induced quantum random walk finite graph nite initial state and evolves unitarily for a predetermined in detail and in Sec. VIII we do the same for an infinite 2 ψin〉 tween nearest neighbours on the infinite line with an am- -3-2-1 0 1 2 3 plitude γ for the jumps, and hence for an initial condi- tion set at the origin these dynamics are sometimes called a tight binding quantum walk [9]. In this example the FIG. 1: A segment of the infinite line. For a particle space X is defined with the vertices on the lattice jxi starting at the origin, we allow it to unitarily evolve for and as usual X^ jxi = x jxi. A schematic representation τ time, and then we measure it's position. The of this Hamiltonian is given in Fig. 1. Another example measurement localizes it's wave function to some single is presented in Fig. 2 where we have a finite ring. It site on the lattice, which we record as being the is well known that the statistical properties of first de- location of the particle at time τ. After this we allow tection time for finite and infinite systems dramatically the particle to freely evolve for τ time once more before differ [1, 6, 10] , so we will later use these two models as we measure it's position again. By repeating this examples in sections VII and VIII. process many times, we generate a "path" that the particle took. For the lattice shown here, an example of a path would be: f0; 2; 1; 0; −3; :::g 0 1 1d lattice. We follow this up in Sec. IX with a compari- son of our measurement scheme to a local measurement model, as such models have seen extensive research in 5 2 papers by Dhar et al. [2, 3], Krovi and Brun [4, 5], and others. In particular, we'll focus on directly comparing our results to those found for the scheme considered in [6{8]. We close the paper with discussions and a sum- mary in Sec. X. Detailed calculations and an additional 4 3 example are presented in the appendices. FIG. 2: Schematic model of a benzene ring. The edges represent jumps between nearest neighbours, all with II. MODEL the same amplitude. In Sec VII we examine the properties of a measurement induced quantum walk on Our model can broadly be divided into two primary this graph, as well as the first detection problem. elements. The first are the quantum dynamics described by the Schr¨odingerequation. The second being the mea- surement protocol which yields the well defined meaning In order to establish the position of the particle at for the position of the particle. Beginning with a de- every step of the random walk, we start by defining the scription of the first part, we consider a single particle measurement protocol as follows: Position measurements whose time evolution is described by a time independent are performed at discrete times t = τ; 2τ; :::Nτ using the ^ Hermitian Hamiltonian H according to the Schr¨odinger position operator X. Between each measurement event d the dynamics are unitary as described above. At every equation H j i = i~ j i where we set ~ = 1. The ini- dt measurement we obtain the exact position of the particle tial wave function is denoted j ini. The H is represented here with a graph where nodes describe states and edges causing the wave function to collapse and be localized describe the hopping amplitudes between these states. to that point on the graph. Of course, the basic postu- Our main focus considers a H which is described by some lates of quantum mechanics mean that the outcome of adjacency matrix, though the theory presented below is the measurement is random. Over the course of many more general. measurements this process produces a list of the loca- The Hilbert space we consider is discrete and is tions the particle was detected at. As the measurements spanned by X which is the set of eigenvectors of the op- combined with the unitary time evolution given by the erator X^. X^ can be any arbitrary Hermitian operator Schr¨odingerequation act as the generators of this ran- as long as all of its eigenvalues are non-degenerate.