DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1710.11586V2 [Quant-Ph] 29 Mar 2018 the Most Use of Every Copy He Receives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1710.11586V2 [Quant-Ph] 29 Mar 2018 the Most Use of Every Copy He Receives Residual and Destroyed Accessible Information after Measurements Rui Han,1, 2 Gerd Leuchs,1, 2, 3 and Markus Grassl1 1Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, 91058 Erlangen, Germany 2Institut f¨urOptik, Information und Photonik, Universit¨atErlangen-N¨urnberg, 91058 Erlangen, Germany∗ 3University of Ottawa, Ottawa ON K1N 6N5, Canada When quantum states are used to send classical information, the receiver performs a measure- ment on the signal states. The amount of information extracted is often not optimal due to the receiver's measurement scheme and experimental apparatus. For quantum non-demolition measure- ments, there is potentially some residual information in the post-measurement state, while part of the information has been extracted and the rest is destroyed. Here, we propose a framework to characterize a quantum measurement by how much information it extracts and destroys, and how much information it leaves in the residual post-measurement state. The concept is illustrated for several receivers discriminating coherent states. PACS numbers: 03.67.Hk, 42.79.Sz, 32.80.-t Introduction.| Quantum measurements are often as- mutual information. sociated with the expectation value of an observable, Bob extracts information about Alice's state through which corresponds to a physical quantity, such as the his measurement outcome, and the amount of Bob's in- average energy of a system or the mean photon num- formation is upper bounded by the so-called accessible ber. For this, one has to make repeated measurements information. In general, it is very often not possible on identically prepared copies of a quantum state (en- for Bob to implement an optimal measurement attaining semble average). In the context of quantum information, the upper bound. When Bob performs a von Neumann on the other hand, one usually considers one-shot mea- measurement given by rank-one projections, the state af- surements. The result of the measurement is described ter the measurement carries no additional information as one out of M possible outcomes, and the measurement as it only depends on the measurement outcome, but no provides some classical information about the quantum longer on the initial state. Hence, the information that state. Quantum state discrimination is a special case of has not been extracted by Bob is fully destroyed. On this scenario. The receiver who performs the measure- the other hand, if Bob performs a generalized quantum ment knows that the state he receives is from a set of measurement { typically referred to as positive-operator given quantum states with fixed prior probabilities, and valued measure (POVM) or probability operator measure he only needs to identify which state it is. (POM) { with operators of rank larger than one, the post- In the following scenario, referred to as classical- measurement state could still contain some information quantum (cq) communication [1], Alice encodes her clas- about the input state. That residual information can be sical information using a given set of (orthogonal or non- extracted through a subsequent measurement to increase orthogonal) quantum states and sends a particular signal Bob's total information gain [6{9]. How much informa- state to Bob. Bob constructs a set of measurements on tion is extracted by the measurement depends only on the signal he receives to decode the information from his the POVM element. The amount of residual information measurement outcomes. In order to make the commu- left in the post-measurement state, however, depends on nication channel between Alice and Bob as efficient or the very operators used to implement the POVM mea- secure as possible, Bob should not count on having iden- surement. tical copies of the same quantum state, but instead, make In the full realm of quantum mechanics, very often, arXiv:1710.11586v2 [quant-ph] 29 Mar 2018 the most use of every copy he receives. the error probability or the gain of knowledge have been In order to characterize the communication channel used to quantify the effectiveness of measurements, and between Alice and Bob, one often uses the average er- fidelity measures have been used to quantify the distur- ror probability or the mutual information. For a certain bance of measurements on a quantum state [7{11]. In the class of pure quantum signals, the average probability present work, however, we fully characterize a quantum for Bob making an error when decoding Alice's signal is measurement using mutual information as the figure of minimized by the so-called square-root measurement or merit, more specifically the amount of information that is by the Helstrom measurement [2{4]. From a communi- extracted, how much information is destroyed, and how cation perspective, the mutual information, quantifying much is left-over in the post-measurement state. We il- how much information is transmitted between Alice and lustrate, with practical examples, the power of this ap- Bob, is the more relevant figure of merit [5]. The two con- proach by looking at four different measurement schemes cepts are not equivalent as, for example, minimizing the for binary coherent-state discrimination. error probability does not necessarily result in maximal Quantum measurements.| In the general scenario of 2 classical-quantum communication, Alice encodes the in- on the accessible information in terms of the so-called formation using an ensemble of N signal states ρj : j = Holevo quantity. Although the Holevo bound is asymp- 1; 2;:::;N , which can beE mixed or pure, withf prior totically achievable when collective measurements on a g probability distribution ηj : j = 1; 2;:::;N . Bob, in large number of signals are allowed, it is very often not order to identify the statef he receives fromg Alice, can tight when only single-copy measurements are allowed perform any von Neumann or generalized measurement [13, 20{22]. on the state. The measurement can be either direct, When Bob's POVM does not extract all possible in- i.e., measuring the state itself, or indirect by entangling formation, he could, at least in principle, perform a sub- the state to an ancilla system first and then measuring sequent measurement on the post-measurement state to the ancilla [12]. We describe Bob's measurement by an proceed further. Each POVM element corresponds to M-element POVM on the signal state: Π Πk : k = a general quantum operation with Kraus operator Ak, M ≡ f 1; 2;:::;M , Π = 11. When Bob wants to es- where Πk = Ay Ak [23]. When the measurement outcome g k=1 k k tablish a one-to-one correspondence between the mea- for Πk is obtained, the normalized post-measurement P (k) surement outcomes and the full set of signal states, one state ρj corresponding to Alice's state ρj and the new clearly needs M N. For M > N, the most simple prior probabilities are [24] scheme is obtained≥ by grouping the POVM elements, for example, Bob could associate the measurement outcomes (k) AkρjAky (k) ηjtr(Πkρj) ρj = and ηj = : (4) of Π1;:::; Πk1 with the state ρ1. tr(Πkρj) tr(Πkρ) The initial knowledge of the signal state can be repre- sented by the statistical operator ρ = N η ρ , where They form the ensemble of post-measurement states (k), j=1 j j E tr(ρ) = 1. The joint probability that the state ρj is sent conditioned on a particular measurement outcome Πk. P and that the measurement outcome is Πk, is given by Note that we can also express the conditional Shannon P (ρ ; Π ) = η tr(Π ρ ). The marginal over the label j entropy H( Πk) in Eqs. (2) and (3) as the Shannon j k j k j E j of the input states, entropy H( (k)). To discriminate the post-measurement states, BobE then can perform any subsequent POVM. N For an optimal subsequent measurement on (k), the re- P = η tr(Π ρ ) = tr(Π ρ) ; (1) E Πk j k j k maining ignorance about the ensemble is reduced to j=1 E X H( (k)) I ( (k)). Then the maximal mutual infor- E − acc E gives the total probability of having measurement out- mation between the ensemble of signal states and the E come Πk, and the marginal over the label k of the mea- outcomes of optimal subsequent measurements is given M by surement outcomes, k=1 P (ρj; Πk) = ηj, is just the prior probability of the state ρj. The mutual informa- P M tion, (k) (k) I0 ( ; Π) = H( ) P H( ) I ( ) ; max E E − Πk E − acc E M kX=1 h i I( : Π) = H( ) P H( Π ) (2) (5) E E − Πk Ej k k=1 which only depends on and Bob's first measurement Π. X Note that Bob's final messageE solely depends on the out- quantifies how much information is shared between Al- come of the subsequent measurement, because the result ice and Bob through Bob's POVM measurement Π. The of the first measurement is incorporated in the updated Shannon entropy of Alice's signal is given by H( ) = (k) N E new prior probabilities ηj for the discrimination of j=1 ηjlog2ηj. The conditional entropy H( Πk) (k) f g − E j ρ . Therefore, I0 ( ; Π) is never smaller than the quantifies Bob's remaining ignorance about the signal f j g max E P mutual information I( : Π) of the first measurement, i.e., state given the measurement outcome Πk. The accessible E information of the ensemble is defined as the maximal Imax0 ( ; Π) I( : Π). Equality holds if and only if the E post-measurementE ≥ E states are independent of the input mutual information attainable over all possible POVMs, (k) state, i.e., when Iacc( ) = 0 for all k.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory
    The Minimal Modal Interpretation of Quantum Theory Jacob A. Barandes1, ∗ and David Kagan2, y 1Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 2Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA 02747 (Dated: May 5, 2017) We introduce a realist, unextravagant interpretation of quantum theory that builds on the existing physical structure of the theory and allows experiments to have definite outcomes but leaves the theory's basic dynamical content essentially intact. Much as classical systems have specific states that evolve along definite trajectories through configuration spaces, the traditional formulation of quantum theory permits assuming that closed quantum systems have specific states that evolve unitarily along definite trajectories through Hilbert spaces, and our interpretation extends this intuitive picture of states and Hilbert-space trajectories to the more realistic case of open quantum systems despite the generic development of entanglement. We provide independent justification for the partial-trace operation for density matrices, reformulate wave-function collapse in terms of an underlying interpolating dynamics, derive the Born rule from deeper principles, resolve several open questions regarding ontological stability and dynamics, address a number of familiar no-go theorems, and argue that our interpretation is ultimately compatible with Lorentz invariance. Along the way, we also investigate a number of unexplored features of quantum theory, including an interesting geometrical structure|which we call subsystem space|that we believe merits further study. We conclude with a summary, a list of criteria for future work on quantum foundations, and further research directions. We include an appendix that briefly reviews the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and the measurement problem of quantum theory, as well as the instrumentalist approach and a collection of foundational theorems not otherwise discussed in the main text.
    [Show full text]
  • Measurements of Entropic Uncertainty Relations in Neutron Optics
    applied sciences Review Measurements of Entropic Uncertainty Relations in Neutron Optics Bülent Demirel 1,† , Stephan Sponar 2,*,† and Yuji Hasegawa 2,3 1 Institute for Functional Matter and Quantum Technologies, University of Stuttgart, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany; [email protected] 2 Atominstitut, Vienna University of Technology, A-1020 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] or [email protected] 3 Division of Applied Physics, Hokkaido University Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Received: 30 December 2019; Accepted: 4 February 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 Abstract: The emergence of the uncertainty principle has celebrated its 90th anniversary recently. For this occasion, the latest experimental results of uncertainty relations quantified in terms of Shannon entropies are presented, concentrating only on outcomes in neutron optics. The focus is on the type of measurement uncertainties that describe the inability to obtain the respective individual results from joint measurement statistics. For this purpose, the neutron spin of two non-commuting directions is analyzed. Two sub-categories of measurement uncertainty relations are considered: noise–noise and noise–disturbance uncertainty relations. In the first case, it will be shown that the lowest boundary can be obtained and the uncertainty relations be saturated by implementing a simple positive operator-valued measure (POVM). For the second category, an analysis for projective measurements is made and error correction procedures are presented. Keywords: uncertainty relation; joint measurability; quantum information theory; Shannon entropy; noise and disturbance; foundations of quantum measurement; neutron optics 1. Introduction According to quantum mechanics, any single observable or a set of compatible observables can be measured with arbitrary accuracy.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of Quantum Entanglement in Physical Systems
    Detection of quantum entanglement in physical systems Carolina Moura Alves Merton College University of Oxford A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Trinity 2005 Abstract Quantum entanglement is a fundamental concept both in quantum mechanics and in quantum information science. It encapsulates the shift in paradigm, for the descrip- tion of the physical reality, brought by quantum physics. It has therefore been a key element in the debates surrounding the foundations of quantum theory. Entangle- ment is also a physical resource of great practical importance, instrumental in the computational advantages o®ered by quantum information processors. However, the properties of entanglement are still to be completely understood. In particular, the development of methods to e±ciently identify entangled states, both theoretically and experimentally, has proved to be very challenging. This dissertation addresses this topic by investigating the detection of entanglement in physical systems. Multipartite interferometry is used as a tool to directly estimate nonlinear properties of quantum states. A quantum network where a qubit undergoes single-particle interferometry and acts as a control on a swap operation between k copies of the quantum state ½ is presented. This network is then extended to a more general quantum information scenario, known as LOCC. This scenario considers two distant parties A and B that share several copies of a given bipartite quantum state. The construction of entanglement criteria based on nonlinear properties of quantum states is investigated. A method to implement these criteria in a simple, experimen- tally feasible way is presented. The method is based of particle statistics' e®ects and its extension to the detection of multipartite entanglement is analyzed.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Points from Lecture 21
    KEY POINTS FROM LECTURE 21 No-Cloning Theorem It is impossible to produce a system with the same quantum mechanical properties as another system, without relying on prior knowledge of that system and without altering the state of that system. This can be proved quite simply (see Problem Sheet 6 and Solutions) but it makes some sense. If it were possible to create a large ensemble of cloned systems and measurements on individual systems could be done without effecting the whole ensemble, potentially violating the uncertainty principle. Quantum Teleportation Quantum teleportation is the transfer of the quantum state of a reference system to a target system (by non-cloning the state of the reference system is altered in the process). Initially this sounds like a hard thing to do; the uncertainty principle limits what you can know about the reference state so how can you transfer all the properties to another system? Entanglement helps as follows. Alice has a reference state based on a spin-1/2 qbit, Qbit 3: (3) = Aα(3)+ Bβ(3). She wants to transfer this to a target, Qbit 1, and then send it to Bob. She arranges things such that Qbit 1 is part of an entangled pair with a third qbit, Qbit 2. Ths overall system is then: 1 (1; 2; 3) = p [Aα(3) + Bβ(3)] [α(1)β(2) − β(1)α(2)] 2 This is algebraically identical to: 1 1 (1; 2; 3) = − [Aα(1) + Bβ(1)] (2; 3) + [Aα(1) − Bβ(1)] (2; 3) 2 1 2 2 1 1 − [Aβ(1) + Bα(1)] (2; 3) − [Aβ(1) − Bα(1)] (2; 3) 2 3 2 4 where the expression written in terms of an entangled wave function of Qbits 1 and 2 has been rewritten in terms of entangled states of Qbits 2 and 3: 1 1(2; 3) = p [α(2)β(3) − β(2)α(3)] 2 1 2(2; 3) = p [α(2)β(3) + β(2)α(3)] 2 1 1 3(2; 3) = p [α(2)α(3) − β(2)β(3)] 2 1 4(2; 3) = p [α(2)α(3) + β(2)β(3)] : 2 There four wave functions are known as Bell's States and are the maximally entangled states of two spin-1/2 particles or indeed two particles in any two-level systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissipation and Quantum Operations
    Dissipation and Quantum Operations Ignacio García-Mata Dto. de Física, Lab. TANDAR, Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica Buenos Aires, Argentina International Summer School on Quantum Information, MPI PKS Dresden 2005 Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 1 / 21 Outline 1 Intro 2 Open Systems 3 Open Systems in Phase Space 4 Dissipative Quantum Operations 5 Examples Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 2 / 21 Outline 1 Intro 2 Open Systems 3 Open Systems in Phase Space 4 Dissipative Quantum Operations 5 Examples Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 3 / 21 Intro. Motivations Understanding noise and (trying to) control it. Something to say about how the classical world emerges from the Quantum. Tools Quantum Channels (q. operations, superoperators, QDS’s . ) on an N dimensional Hilbert space, N £ N dimensional phase space (~ = 1=(2¼N)), Kraus operators. Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 4 / 21 Outline 1 Intro 2 Open Systems 3 Open Systems in Phase Space 4 Dissipative Quantum Operations 5 Examples Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 5 / 21 Open Systems Markov (local in time) assumption Lindblad Master equation 1 y y ½_ = (½) = i[H; ½] + [Lk ½; L ] + [Lk ; ½L ] L ¡ 2 k k Xk n o CPTP Quantum Dynamical Semi-group (channel, superoperator, quantum operation,. Lindblad (1976), Gorini et al. (1976)) Kraus operator sum form y S(½) = Mk ½Mk Xk y where k Mk Mk = I for TP. We asume discrete time. P Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 6 / 21 Outline 1 Intro 2 Open Systems 3 Open Systems in Phase Space 4 Dissipative Quantum Operations 5 Examples Nacho García-Mata (Buenos Aires.) Dissipation and Quantum Operations ISSQUI05 7 / 21 Open Systems in Phase Space Representation in phase space by the Wigner function.
    [Show full text]
  • CS191 – Fall 2014 Lecture 14: Open Quantum Systems: Quantum Process Formulation
    CS191 { Fall 2014 Lecture 14: Open quantum systems: quantum process formulation Mohan Sarovar (Dated: October 27, 2014) I. TWO MISSING PIECES Before we start on the bulk of this lecture, we need to cover two concepts that haven't been covered so far. The first is the concept of the entropy of a quantum state, which is defined as: S(ρ) = tr (ρ log ρ) (1) − This expression is most easily evaluated by diagonalizing ρ, in which case S(ρ) = i λi log λi, where λi are the eigenvalues of ρ. 1 The entropy is a measure of how mixed a state is, or how much classical− uncertainty it contains. Another measure of how mixed a state is, which is actually an approximation of theP inverse of the entropy is the purity, which is defined as: P (ρ) = tr (ρ2) (2) Exercise: What are the entropy and purity of a pure state, S( ) and P ( )? What are the j ihId j Idj ih j entropy and purity of the completely mixed state in d dimensions, S( d ) and P ( d )? Note that as the mixedness or uncertainty in the state increases, the entropy increases and the purity decreases. II. OPEN QUANTUM SYSTEMS AND NOISE So far in this course you've mainly seen what ideal quantum operations looks like. For example, a state trans- Pi formation is a unitary map U , and a projective measurement is the following map: j i . But in j i ! j i j i ! ppi reality when we perform a quantum operation (e.g., rotation, measurement, coupling) there will inevitably be errors due to noise in the experimental apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Set # 10 Solutions Problem Set #10 (Due in Class, THURSDAY 02-Dec-10)
    MIT 2.111/8.411/6.898/18.435 Quantum Information Science I Fall, 2010 Sam OckoMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY December 1, 2010 MIT 2.111/8.411/6.898/18.435 Quantum Information Science I November 22, 2010 Problem Set # 10 Solutions Problem Set #10 (due in class, THURSDAY 02-Dec-10) P1: (Circuit models of quantum operations) Let ρout = k EkρinEky. P1: (Circuit models of quantum operations) Let ρout = k Ek†ρinEk. (a) Give the operation elements Ek describing the mappingP for this circuit: (a) Give the operation elements Ek describing the mapping for this circuit: What physical process does this describe? (b)What Give the physicalE for this process circuit, does assuming this describe?ρ = p 0 0 +(1 p) 1 1 : kMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTEe | | OF− TECHNOLOGY| | MITρin 2.111/8.411/6.898/18.435ρout Answer: Quantum⊕ Information Science I We use the identity Ek =ρekENovemberU 0E ,22, and 2010 as a placeholder we say = a 0 + b 1 . h j •j i j i j i j i What physical process does thisProblem describe? Set #10θ θ U(due in0E class,= a THURSDAY00 + b cos( 02-Dec-10)) 10 + b sin( ) 01 P2: (Quantum noise and codesj)i Single j i qubitj quantumi · operations2 j i (ρ) model· 2 quantumj i noise which is corrected by quantum error correction codes. E θ 1 0 P1: ((a)Circuit Construct models operation of quantum elements operations for such) Let thatρ upon= inputE†ρ ofE . any state ρ replaces it with the 0E U 0E = aE 0 + b cosout ( ) k1 k; in k E0 = θ completely randomizedh j j statei j iI/2.j Iti is amazing· 2 thatj i even such noise models0 cos as( 2 ) this may be (a)corrected Give the by operation codes such elements as theEk Shordescribing code! the mapping for this circuit: (b) The action of the bit flip channel can be describedθ by the quantum operationθ (ρ)=(1 0 sin( 2 ) p)ρ + pXρX.
    [Show full text]