Register to reply

Basis ambiguity?

by Talisman
Tags: ambiguity, basis
Share this thread:
Talisman
#1
Jun21-07, 12:32 AM
P: 32
I'm reading a seminal paper by Zurek on decoherence (preprint here), and am afraid I don't grasp one of the claims he makes. Briefly, consider an entagled state of two qubits:

[tex]|\psi{\rangle} = \sum_i x_i |A_i{\rangle}|B_i{\rangle}[/tex]

He claims that one can choose a different basis for the first qubit, and get a different representation for psi:

[tex]|\psi{\rangle} = \sum_i y_i |A'_i{\rangle}|B'_i{\rangle}[/tex]

However, if psi becomes entangled with a _third_ qubit:

[tex]|\psi{\rangle} = \sum_i x_i |A_i{\rangle}|B_i{\rangle}|C_i{\rangle}[/tex]

Then the basis ambiguity is lost: one cannot, in general, pick a different basis for A and expect to get a similar representation with alternate bases for B and C.

Perhaps my lin alg is a bit rusty, but I don't follow either claim. Can anyone elucidate?

Thanks!

[edited to use tex]
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Detecting neutrinos, physicists look into the heart of the Sun
Measurement at Big Bang conditions confirms lithium problem
Researchers study gallium to design adjustable electronic components
Talisman
#2
Jun21-07, 01:39 AM
P: 32
Okay, so I've partially convinced myself of the first part, although I can't yet prove it in general. I started with a singlet state:

I) [tex]\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (|0{\rangle}|0{\rangle} + |1{\rangle}|1{\rangle})[/tex]

And then considered it in the "Hadamard Basis" (did I just make that term up?):

| -/+ > = (|0> -/+ |1>) / 2

And discovered (to my dismay) that (I) can indeed be rewritten as:

II) [tex]\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2} (|-{\rangle}|-{\rangle} + |+{\rangle}|+{\rangle})[/tex]

Should this have been obvious? Is there a nice way of thinking about the tensor product H2 @ H2 with rotated basis sets?
Hurkyl
#3
Jun21-07, 02:22 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Any pair of bases for the vector spaces V and W naturally yield (in the obvious way) a basis for their tensor product V @W.


I think what he's saying about the 3-particle system is not merely that it gets entangled -- but we also focus our attention on just two of the particles (by taking a partial trace). Then, even if we started with a pure state, we (usually) now have a mixed state.

Talisman
#4
Jun21-07, 10:26 AM
P: 32
Basis ambiguity?

Thanks Hurkyl. I'm still not sure I follow:

Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
Any pair of bases for the vector spaces V and W naturally yield (in the obvious way) a basis for their tensor product V @W.
Certainly, but this doesn't by itself imply anything about the separability of states of the form mentioned, does it?

The curious thing is that psi can (apparently) be written as a sum of tensor products with two different pairs of basis sets ({Ai}, B{i}) and (A'{i}, B'{i}) each in H2. Is that more clear?

I think what he's saying about the 3-particle system is not merely that it gets entangled -- but we also focus our attention on just two of the particles (by taking a partial trace). Then, even if we started with a pure state, we (usually) now have a mixed state.
To make sure I understand: the overall state is still pure, but the reduced density matrix, being near-zero in the off-diagonals, makes the smaller system appear mixed?

I'm still inclined to believe the second claim made in the paper, but maybe I'll give it some deeper mathematical thought or take it to the lin alg section of this forum.

Thanks!
Hurkyl
#5
Jun21-07, 03:50 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
By (one) definition, the tensor product [itex]V \otimes W[/itex] of two vector spaces V and W is the set of things that can be written as the finite sum

[tex]\sum v_i \otimes w_i[/tex]

for any vi in V and ai in W.


If you choose a basis for V and a basis for W, then you can take any of those sums and replace vi and wi as a linear combination of basis vectors. When you distribute, you are again left with a sum

[tex]\sum a_j \left( v'_j \otimes w'_j \right)[/tex]

but with each of the vj' and wj basis vectors, and the aj scalars.



Maybe I just don't understand what question you're asking?
Talisman
#6
Jun21-07, 05:39 PM
P: 32
Hmm... perhaps I'm just being dense, but I still don't see the light. I agree that I can rewrite this:

[tex]\sum_i v_i \otimes w_i[/tex]

as this:

[tex]\sum_{i,j} a_{ij} \left( v'_i \otimes w'_j \right) [/tex]

but you're implying that [tex]a_{ij} = \delta_{ij}[/tex] when suggesting it can be written as so:

[tex]\sum a_j \left( v'_j \otimes w'_j \right)[/tex]

Or is there something I'm missing?
Hurkyl
#7
Jun21-07, 05:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
It is true that if the sequences vi' and wi' are each a basis, then every element in [itex]V \otimes W[/itex] can be written uniquely as

[tex]\sum_i \sum_j c_{ij} (v_i' \otimes w_j')[/tex]



But in my previous post I was simply stating something weaker. I was not assuming that vi' and wi' were bases; just they were just sequences of basis vectors. In particular, some basis vectors may be repeated, and others might not appear at all.
Hurkyl
#8
Jun21-07, 06:00 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Oh, maybe I understand what you're asking -- you're wondering specifically about the elements that can be written as

[tex]\sum_i a_i \left( v_i' \otimes w_i' \right)[/tex]

where the vi' and wi' are bases, correct?


Try making the change of basis

|0> = (3/5)|L> - (4/5)|R>
|1> = (4/5)|L> + (3/5)|R>

to both components of

|00>.

What do you get?
Talisman
#9
Jun21-07, 06:40 PM
P: 32
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
Oh, maybe I understand what you're asking -- you're wondering specifically about the elements that can be written as

[tex]\sum_i a_i \left( v_i' \otimes w_i' \right)[/tex]

where the vi' and wi' are bases, correct?
I think we're on the same page now: I was wondering why any state expressible as a sum of Ai @ Bi can be rewritten as a sum of A'i @ B'i, where A'i and B'i are different bases than Ai and Bi.

Try making the change of basis

|0> = (3/5)|L> - (4/5)|R>
|1> = (4/5)|L> + (3/5)|R>

to both components of

|00>.

What do you get?
Yeah, I think that's (roughly) what I learned in my first response. In general,

[tex]|0> = (sin \theta)|L> - (cos \theta)|R>[/tex]
[tex]|1> = (cos \theta)|L> + (sin \theta)|R>[/tex]

Should work for any [tex]\theta[/tex], no? But I was hoping there was a simpler explanation.

I still have no idea about the second claim, although I've got a rough intuitive idea of what constraints would need to be satisfied for a basis change in all three qubits.

P.S. I wrote above:

but you're implying that [tex]a_{ij} = \delta_{ij}[/tex] when suggesting it can be written as so:
I meant:

but you're implying that [tex]a_{ij} = 0[/tex] for [tex] i \neq j[/tex] when suggesting it can be written as so:
Hurkyl
#10
Jun21-07, 07:01 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
Quote Quote by Talisman View Post
Yeah, I think that's (roughly) what I learned in my first response.
Hrm. What did you get when you worked it out?
Talisman
#11
Jun21-07, 08:30 PM
P: 32
Quote Quote by Hurkyl View Post
Hrm. What did you get when you worked it out?
Eh? I got |00> + |11> = |LL> + |RR> as expected (with correct coefficients) in your case (as well as, I bet, in mine).

That's what I was getting at with my "Hadamard Basis" nonsense, but it shouldn't have taken this "flash of insight" (or any calculation) to see why the statement should be true.

EDIT: This only shows an explicit change of basis that works when all the constants xi are the same in my original state. I haven't figured out how to think about it in general.
Hurkyl
#12
Jun22-07, 07:25 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,091
But I wanted you to see what happens to

|00>

not to

(|00> + |11>)
Talisman
#13
Jun22-07, 08:29 AM
P: 32
Okay, I'll bite:

[tex]c_0|00> = \frac{c_0}{25} (9|LL> - 12|LR> - 12|RL> + 16|RR>)[/tex]
Kay zum Felde
#14
Jun23-07, 09:12 AM
P: 8
I am not an expert in this field, but how about, that the entangled state is a measured state, so according to quantum mechanics: the state must have a "direction" (I couldn't find off hand a better description, what I mean: if you measure the spin of a particle, than you give it a direction).

greetings

Kay
Anonym
#15
Jun23-07, 09:55 AM
P: 451
Quote Quote by Kay zum Felde View Post
the entangled state is a measured state, so according to quantum mechanics: the state must have a "direction" (I couldn't find off hand a better description, what I mean: if you measure the spin of a particle, than you give it a direction).
Exactly

Regards, Dany.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Basis ambiguity Differential Geometry 8
Matrix connecting Sz diagonal basis to Sx diag basis Quantum Physics 0
Basis independent and basis dependent formulation of QM Advanced Physics Homework 0
Taking a power of 2 or power of d General Math 2
Just what exactly does this cursive word say? General Discussion 42