Arxiv:1404.2635V2 [Quant-Ph] 20 Nov 2019 B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The quantum-to-classical transition and decoherence Maximilian Schlosshauer Department of Physics, University of Portland, 5000 North Willamette Boulevard, Portland, Oregon 97203, USA I give a pedagogical overview of decoherence and its role in providing a dynamical account of the quantum-to-classical transition. The formalism and concepts of decoherence theory are reviewed, followed by a survey of master equations and decoherence models. I also discuss methods for mitigating decoherence in quantum information processing and describe selected experimental investigations of decoherence processes. Note: Please see arXiv:1911.06282 [quant-ph] (published as Phys. Rep. 831, 1{57, 2019) for a much more extensive and up-to-date review of decoherence. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION I. Introduction1 Realistic quantum systems are never completely iso- lated from their environment. When a quantum system II. Basic formalism and concepts2 interacts with its environment, it will in general become A. Decoherence and interference damping2 entangled with a large number of environmental degrees B. Environmental monitoring and information of freedom. This entanglement influences what we can transfer3 locally observe upon measuring the system. In partic- C. Environment-induced superselection and ular, quantum interference effects with respect to cer- decoherence-free subspaces4 tain physical quantities (most notably, \classical" quan- 1. Pointer states and the commutativity tities such as position) become effectively suppressed, criterion5 making them prohibitively difficult to observe in most 2. Decoherence-free subspaces6 cases of practical interest. This is the process of deco- D. Proliferation of information and quantum herence, sometimes also called dynamical decoherence or Darwinism6 environment-induced decoherence [1{10]. Stated in gen- E. Decoherence versus dissipation and noise7 eral and interpretation-neutral terms, decoherence de- scribes how entangling interactions with the environment III. Master equations7 influence the statistics of results of future measurements A. Born{Markov master equations8 on the system. B. Lindblad master equations8 Formally, decoherence can be viewed as a dynamical C. Non-Markovian decoherence9 filter on the space of quantum states, singling out those states that, for a given system, can be stably prepared IV. Decoherence models 10 and maintained, while effectively excluding most other A. Collisional decoherence 10 states, in particular, nonclassical superposition states of B. Quantum Brownian motion 11 the kind popularized by Schr¨odinger'scat. In this way, C. Spin{boson models 13 decoherence lies at the heart of the quantum-to-classical D. Spin-environment models 13 transition. It ensures consistency between quantum and V. Qubit decoherence, quantum error correction, classical predictions for systems observed to behave clas- and error avoidance 14 sically. It provides a quantitative, dynamical account of A. Correction of decoherence-induced quantum the boundary between quantum and classical physics. In errors 14 any concrete experimental situation, decoherence theory arXiv:1404.2635v2 [quant-ph] 20 Nov 2019 B. Quantum computation on decoherence-free specifies the physical requirements, both qualitative and subspaces 15 quantitative, for pushing the quantum{classical bound- ary toward the quantum realm. Decoherence is a pure C. Environment engineering and dynamical quantum effect, to be distinguished from classical dissi- decoupling 16 pation and stochastic fluctuations (noise). VI. Experimental studies of decoherence 16 Decoherence processes are extremely efficient. Even A. Atoms in a cavity 17 when the environment does not, from a classical point B. Matter-wave interferometry 17 of view, impart significant classical perturbations on the C. Superconducting systems 17 system, quantum-mechanically the system will in most circumstances become rapidly and strongly entangled VII. Decoherence and the foundations of quantum with the environment. Furthermore, due to the many un- mechanics 19 controllable degrees of freedom of the environment, such entanglement is usually irreversible for all practical pur- References 19 poses. Increasingly realistic models of decoherence pro- 2 cesses have been developed, progressing from toy models freedom somewhere in the world that, if they were mea- to complex models tailored to specific experiments (see sured, would allow us to make, with a certain degree of Sec.IV). Advances in experimental techniques have made confidence, a statement about the path of the particle it possible to observe the gradual action of decoherence through the slits. While we cannot say that prior to in experiments such as matter-wave interferometry [11], their measurement, these degrees of freedom have en- cavity QED [12], and superconducting systems [13] (see coded information about a particular, definitive path of Sec.VI). the particle|instead, we have merely correlations involv- The superposition states necessary for quantum in- ing both possible paths|no actual measurement is re- formation processing are typically also those most sus- quired to bring about the decrease in interference visibil- ceptible to decoherence. Thus, decoherence is a major ity. It is enough that, in principle, we could make such barrier to implementing devices for quantum informa- a measurement to obtain which-path information. tion processing such as quantum computers (see Sec.V). This is somewhat loose talk, and conceptual caveats Qubit systems must be engineered to minimize environ- lurk. But it captures quite well the essence of what is mental interactions detrimental to the preparation and happening in decoherence, where those \degrees of free- longevity of the desired superposition states. At the dom somewhere in the world" are the degrees of freedom same time, they must remain sufficiently open to al- of the system's environment interacting with the system, low for their control. Quantum error correction can leading to the creation of quantum correlations (entan- undo some of the decoherence-induced degradation of glement) between system and environment. Decoherence the superposition state and will be an integral part of can thus be thought of as a process arising from the con- quantum computers (see Sec.VA). Not only is deco- tinuous monitoring of the system by the environment; herence relevant to quantum information, but also vice effectively, the environment is performing nondemolition versa. An information-centric view of quantum mechan- measurements on the system (see Sec.IIB). We now give ics proves helpful in conveying the essence of the deco- a formal quantum-mechanical account of what we have herence process and is also used in recent explorations just tried to convey in words, and then flesh out the con- of the role of the environment as an information channel sequences and details. (see Sec. IIB). It is a curious \historical accident" (Joos's term [14, p. 13]) that the role of the environment in quantum me- A. Decoherence and interference damping chanics was appreciated only relatively late. While one can find—for example, in Heisenberg's writings [15]|a Consider again the double-slit experiment and denote few early anticipatory remarks about the role of environ- the quantum states of the particle (call it S, for \sys- mental interactions in the quantum-mechanical descrip- tem") corresponding to passage through slit 1 and 2 by tion of systems, it wasn't until the 1970s that the ubiquity js1i and js2i, respectively. Suppose that the particle in- and implications of environmental entanglement were re- teracts with another system E|for example, a detec- alized by Zeh [1, 16]. It took another decade for the for- tor or an environment|such that if the quantum state malism of decoherence to be developed, chiefly by Zurek of the particle before the interaction is js1i, then the [2,3], and for concrete models and numerical estimates quantum state of E will become jE1i (and similarly for of decoherence rates to be worked out [17, 18]. js2i), resulting in the final composite states js1i jE1i and Review papers on decoherence include Refs. [4{6, 10, js2i jE2i, respectively. For an initial superposition state 19]. There are two books on decoherence: a volume α js1i+β js2i, the final composite state will be entangled, by Joos et al. [8] (a collection of chapters written by jΨi = α js i jE i + β js i jE i : (1) different authors) and a monograph by this author [9]. 1 1 2 2 Ref. [20] also contains material on decoherence. Foun- The statistics of all possible local measurements on S dational implications of decoherence are discussed in are exhaustively encoded in the reduced density matrix Refs. [6,7,9, 21]. ρS, ρS = TrE(ρSE) = TrEjΨihΨj 2 2 II. BASIC FORMALISM AND CONCEPTS = jαj js1ihs1j + jβj js2ihs2j ∗ ∗ + αβ js1ihs2jhE2jE1i + α βjs2ihs1jhE1jE2i: (2) In the double-slit experiment, we cannot observe an in- For example, suppose we measure particle's position by terference pattern if we also measure which slit the parti- letting the particle impinge on a distant detection screen. cle went through (that is, if we obtain perfect which-path Statistically, the resulting particle probability density information). In fact, there is a continuous tradeoff be- p(x) will be given by tween interference (phase information) and which-path information: the better we can distinguish the two pos- p(x) = TrS(ρSx) sible paths, the less visible the interference pattern be- 2 2 2 2 = jαj j 1(x)j + jβj j 2(x)j comes [22]. What is more, for a decrease in interference