Density operators

Quantum information and computing

lecture 3: Density operators
Jani-Petri Martikainen
Jani-Petri.Martikainen@helsinki.fi

http://www.helsinki.fi/˜jamartik

Department of Physical Sciences
University of Helsinki

Department of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/˜kvanttilaskenta/ – p. 1/39

Entanglement application:superdense coding
Simple example demonstrating the application of basic
quantum mechanics.
Alice is in possesion of two classical bits of information
and want’s to send these bits to Bob. However, she can
only send a single qubit. Is her task possible?
Answer: Yes!
Assume that Alice and Bob share a pair of qubits in an
entangled state

|00 + |11
|ψ = √ (7)
2


Note: someone else might have prepapared the state
|ψ and just sending the qubits to Alice and Bob before
hand.
If Alice wishes to transmit 00, she does nothing to her
qubit.
If Alice wishes to transmit 01, she applies phase ﬂip Z to
the her qubit.
If Alice wishes to transmit 10, she applies quantum NOT
gate X to the her qubit.
If Alice wishes to transmit 11, she applies iY to the her
qubit. 2 3
0 1
iY = 4 5 (8)
−1 0


The states map according to:

|00 + |11
00 : |ψ → √ (9)
2

|00 − |11
01 : |ψ → √ (10)
2
|10 + |01
10 : |ψ → √ (11)
2
|01 − |10
11 : |ψ → √ (12)
2


Alice then sends her qubit to Bob
The four states above are an orthonormal basis of the
2-qubit Hilbert space. (known as the Bell basis, Bell
states, and EPR pairs)
Orthogonal states can be distinguished by making an
appropriate quantum measurement
From the measured state Bob can then identify which of
the four alternatives Alice send him.
In some sense, this is delayed communication. The
qubits where entangled and in order for them to get
entangled they must have interacted in the past. The
channel capacity was already “waiting” as a resource in
the entangled state.


Density operator
QM can also be formulated in terms of density operator
or density matrix not just state vector.
Suppose system is at state |ψi with probability pi . We
call {pi , |ψi } an ensemble of pure states
The density operator is deﬁned through

ρ= pi |ψi ψi | (13)
i

Evolution: ρ → U ρU †
If the initial state was |ψi then the probability of the
outcome m is
† †
p(m|i) = ψi |Mm Mm |ψi = T r(Mm Mm |ψi ψi |) (14)


Density operator
Pure state:We know the state exactly and ρ = |ψ ψ|.
Also, for pure states T r(ρ2 ) = 1
Otherwise a mixed state. For a mixed state T r(ρ2 ) < 1
Assume that or record for the result m was lost. We
could now have state ρm with probability p(m), but we
no longer know the value m. Such a system would be
described by a density operator
†
† Mm ρMm
ρ = p(m)ρm = T r(Mm Mm ρ) †
m m T r(Mm Mm ρ)
†
= Mm ρMm (18)
m


Density operator: requirements
For an operator ρ to be a density operator:
1. ρ must have a trace equal to one
2. ρ must be a positive operator


Density operator
Postulate 4: If each subsystem is described by a density
matrix ρi the joint state of the total system is
ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 ⊗ · · · ρn .
Density operators shine when, a) describing a quantum
system whose state is not known and b) describing
subsystems of a composite quantum system.
Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the density matrix do
NOT have a special signiﬁcance with regard too the
ensemble of quantum states represented by that
density matrix.


Density operator
3 1
For example, ρ = 4 |0 0| + 4 |1 1| probability of being in
|1 1/4 and probability of being in |0 3/4 (???) Not
necessarily!
suppose 1/2 prob. for both

|a = 3/4|0 + 1/4|1 (19)

and
|b = 3/4|0 − 1/4|1 (20)

The density matrix
ρ = 1/2|a a| + 1/2|b b| = 3/4|0 0| + 1/4|1 1|
Different ensembles can give rise to the same density
matrix


Density operator
What class of emsembles gives rise to the same
density matrix?
˜
Vectors (not necessarily normalized) |ψi generate the
˜ ˜
operator ρ ≡ |ψi ψi |... connection to usual ensemble
˜i = √pi |ψi .
picture of density operators : |ψ
˜ ˜
Answer:The sets |ψi and |φi generate the same
density matrix if and only if

˜
|ψi = ˜
uij |φj , (21)
j

˜
where uij is a unitary matrix. (Pad which ever set |ψi or
˜
|φi is shorter with additional vectors having probability
0 so that both sets have the same number of elements.)


Reduced density operator
Describe subsystems by using a reduced density operator
Suppose the system is composed of A and B , then the
reduced density operator for system A is

ρA ≡ T rB (ρAB ). (26)

Above the partial trace is deﬁned by

T rB (|a1 a2 | ⊗ |b1 b2 |) ≡ |a1 a2 |T r(|b1 b2 |) (27)

where |ai and |bi are any vectors in the respective
state spaces and T r(|b1 b2 |) = b2 |b1 as usual. Partial
trace must also be linear in its input.


Reduced density matrix gives the correct measurement statistics (this justiﬁes its use
physically)
√
Take the Bell state (|00 + |11 )/ 2 (pure state):

|00 00| + |11 00| + |00 11| + |11 11|
ρ= (28)
2

Trace out the second qubit:

T r2 (|00 00|) + T r2 (|11 00|) + T r2 (|00 11|) + T r2 (|11 11|)
ρ1 = T r2 (ρ) =
2
|0 0| 0|0 + |1 0| 1|0 + |0 1| 0|1 + |1 1| 1|1 |0 0| + |1 1|
= = = I/2
2 2

This state is a mixed state even though the composite state was pure! Hallmark of
entanglement.


Why the partial trace?
Partial trace turns out to be a unique operation which
gives rise to the correct description of observable
quantities for subsystems of composite systems.
Suppose M is an observable on A and we have a
measuring device capable of realizing the
˜
measurement of M ...let M be the corresponding
measurement on the composite system AB
If the system is in state |m |ψ with |ψ some arbitrary
state on B and |m an eigenstate of M , the measuring
device must give the result m with a probability of 1.


Therefore, if Pm is the projector onto the m eigenspace
of the observable M , then the corresponding projector
˜
on M must be Pm ⊗ IB ...we have

˜
M= mPm ⊗ IB = M ⊗ IB (29)
m

Then let us show that the partial trace procedure gives
the correct measurement statistics for observations on
a subsystem.
Physical consistency requires that any prescription
associating a ’state’ ρA to system A, must have the
property that measurement averages be the same as
for the whole system i.e.
˜
T r(M ρA ) = T r(M ρAB ) = T r((M ⊗ IB )ρAB ) (30)


This equation is certainly satisﬁed if ρA = T rB (ρAB ).
In fact, partial trace turns out to be a unique function
having this property.
Let f (·) be any map of density operators on AB to
density operators on A such that

T r(M f (ρAB )) = T r((M ⊗ IB )ρAB ) (31)

Let Mi be orthonormal basis of operators for the space
of Hermitian operators with respect to Hilbert-Schmidt
inner product (see text book page 76) (X, Y ) = T r(XY ),
then we can expand f (ρAB ) in this basis...


...

f (ρAB ) = Mi T r(Mi f (ρAB ))
i

= Mi T r((M ⊗ IB )ρAB ) (32)
i

Therefore, f is uniquely determined by Eq. (30)
Moreover, the partial trace satisﬁes Eq. (30), so it is the
unique function having this property.


Schmidt decomposition and Purification
Schmidt number is the number of non-zero λi and in
some sense it quantifies the amount of entanglement
between systems A and B .
a state of the composite system is a product state (and
thus not entangled) if and only if it has a Schmidt
number 1.
Purification: suppose we are given a state ρA of a
quantum system A. We can introduce another system
R and a pure state |AR there, such that
ρA = T rR (|AR AR|)
This mathematical procedure is known as purification
and enables us to associate pure states with mixed
states.


EPR and Bell inequality
What is actually the difference between quantum
mechanics and the classical world? What makes
quantum mechanics non-classical?
In QM an unobserved particle does not possses
properties that exist independent of observation. For
example, a qubit does not possess deﬁnite properties of
’spin in the z-direction’, and ’spin in the x-direction’ each
of which can be revealed by performing the appropriate
measurement.
In the ’EPR-paper’ Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen
proposed a thought experiment which they believed
demonstrated the incompleteness of QM as a theory of
Nature.


Attempt to ﬁnd ’elements of reality’ which were not
included in QM. Introduced what they claimed was a
sufﬁcient condition for a physical property to be an
element of reality...namely that it is possible to predict
with certainty the value of that property, immediately
before measurement.
Consider, an entangled pair of qubits (spin singlet)
belonging to Alice and Bob

|01 − |10
√ (36)
2

Measure spin along − axis i.e. − · − for both spins
→
v → →
v σ


No matter what we choose for − the two
→v
measurements are always opposite to one another.
That, if ﬁrst qubit measurement yields +1 the second
will give −1 and vice versa.
Suppose |a and |b are the eigenstates of − · − then
→ →
v σ

|0 = α|a + β|b , |1 = γ|a + δ|b (37)

and
|01 − |10 |ab − |ba
√ = (αδ − βγ) √ (38)
2 2
But αδ − βγ is a determinant of a unitary matrix and
thus just equal to a phase factor eiθ
As if the 2nd qubit knows the result of the measurement
on the 1st

Since Alice can predict the measurement result when
Bob’s qubit is measured along − , that is an ’element of
→v
reality’ and should be included in a complete physical
theory.
Standard QM does not include any fundamental
element to represent the value of − · − for all unit
→ →
v σ
vectors − .
→
v
EPR hoped for a return to a more classical view:
system can be ascribed properties which exist
independently of measurements performed.
Nature experimentally invalidates EPR, while agrees with
QM
Key: Bell’s inequality


Start with a common sense analysis (a’la EPR) and
then proceed with QM analysis...find a difference...let
nature decide.
Perform a measurement outlined in the figure: Charlie
prepares two particles and sends one to Alice and one
to Bob.
Alice can choose to measure two different things which
are physical properties labelled by PQ and PR . She
doesn’t know in advance what measurement she will
conduct...decides by flipping a coin...measurement
outcome is (for simplicity) ±1
Alice’s particle has a value Q for the property PQ . This
value is assumed to be an objective property of Alice’s
particle, which is merely revealed by the measurement.
(similarly R is the value revealed by the measurement
of PR ) ˜
Department of Physical Sciences, University of Helsinki http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/ kvanttilaskenta/ – p. 34/39


ALICE BOB
Q=+−1 S=+−1
R=+−1 1 particle 1 particle R=+−1


Likewise Bob is capable of measuring values S and T
(±1) of properties PS and PT ..also he makes the
chooses the measurement randomly
Timing is such that Alice and Bob measure at the same
time (or at least in causally disconnected manner)...so
Alice’s measurement cannot disturb Bob’s
measurement
Look at QS + RS + RT − QT = (Q + R)S + (R − Q)T
since R, Q = ±1 it follows that either (Q + R)S = 0 or
(R − Q)T = 0
In either case QS + RS + RT − QT = ±2
suppose next that p(q, r, s, t) is the prob. that before
measurements the system is in a state with Q = q ,
R = r, S = s, and T = t.

These probabilities may depend on what Charlie does.
Let E(·) denote the mean value of a quantity...we have

E(QS + RS + RT − QT ) = p(q, r, s, t)(qs + rs + rt − qt)
qrst

≤ p(q, r, s, t) × 2
qrst
= 2 (39)

and
X
E (QS + RS + RT − QT ) = p(q, r, s, t)qs
qrst
X X
+ p(q, r, s, t)rs + p(q, r, s, t)rt
qrst qrst
X
− p(q, r, s, t)qt
qrst

= E(QS) + E(RS) + E(RT ) − E(QT ) (40)

Combine and you have an example of a Bell inequality

E(QS) + E(RS) + E(RT ) − E(QT ) ≤ 2 (41)

By repeating the measurements and comparing their
outcomes Alice and Bob can determine the left hand
side
Now lets put QM back in...Let Charlie prepare a
quantum system of two qubits

|01 − |10
√ (42)
2
Alice and Bob perform measurements Q = Z1 , √
√
S = (−Z2 − X2 )/ 2, R = X1 , and T = (Z2 − X2 )/ 2


Simple calculation (show this...) shows that
√ √ √
QS = 1/ 2, RS = 1/ 2, RT = 1/ 2, and
√
QT = −1/ 2 and thus
√
QS + RS + RT − QT = 2 2 (43)

Violates the inequality and is consistent with
experiments! ...some asumptions going into the
derivation of the Bell inequality must have been wrong
However, if Alice and Bob choose (for example),
Q = Z1 , S = −Z2 , R = X1 , and T = −X2 then

E(QS) + E(RS) + E(RT ) − E(QT ) = 2 (44)

and there is no violation.


Questionable assumptions:
1. Physical properties PQ , PR ,PS , and PT have deﬁnite
values which exist independent of observation
(assumption of realism)
2. Alice’s measurement does not inﬂuence Bob’s
measurement (locality)

World is not locally realistic!
entanglement can be a fundamentally new resource
which goes beyond classical resources...How to exploit
it, is the key question of quantum information and
computing.


Density operators

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Density operators

Similaire à Density operators (20)

Plus de wtyru1989

Plus de wtyru1989 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Density operators