A "false" superimposed qubit vs a "real one"

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Julian Blair
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qubit Qubits
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the distinction between a "false" qubit, created through probabilistic means, and a "real" qubit, generated via a Rabi process. Participants explore whether Alice can differentiate between these two types of qubits through gates and measurements, delving into concepts of quantum superposition and measurement outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a "false" qubit created by firing a resonance photon at a Hydrogen atom, resulting in a 50/50 probability of being in state |0> or |1>, but not a true superposition.
  • Another participant suggests that if the phase is preserved, Rabi oscillations could be used to distinguish the states, with the superposition case allowing for 100% ground or excited state atoms, while the probabilistic case would not.
  • A later reply questions the argument, noting that the probabilistic case is in a definite state (either |0> or |1>), seeking clarification on how Rabi oscillations would apply to the two qubits.
  • Another participant points out that the discussion involves distinguishing pure states from mixed states, explaining how a Hadamard operation could be used to differentiate between the two types of qubits.
  • The explanation includes details about the effects of the Hadamard operation on the states and the implications for measurement outcomes, emphasizing that repeated measurements can increase confidence in the state being pure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the qubits and the methods for distinguishing them. There is no consensus on the effectiveness of the proposed methods or the implications of the measurements.

Contextual Notes

Uncertainties remain regarding the assumptions about phase preservation and the specific conditions under which the measurements are made. The discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in distinguishing between the states.

Julian Blair
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
<< All caps removed from post by Moderator >> [/color]

A "false" (equally superimposed qubit) is created by mechanically firing with 50/50 probability a resonance photon at a Hydrogen atom qubit in the ground state. This qubit is sent to Alice and it now has 50/50 probability of being in state |0> or state |1>, but it is not a quantum mechanical supoerimposed state! Alice is also sent a "real" 50/50 superimposed qubit created by a Rabi process.
QUESTION: Is there any way that Alice can perform gates and measurements on the two qubits to determine which is which?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the phase between the two states in the second case is preserved and nothing else disturbs the measurement, she should be able to use Rabi oscillations again. The superposition case should allow to get 100% ground state (or excited state) atoms while the probabilistic case should not.
 
mfb said:
If the phase between the two states in the second case is preserved and nothing else disturbs the measurement, she should be able to use Rabi oscillations again. The superposition case should allow to get 100% ground state (or excited state) atoms while the probabilistic case should not.
Sorry, I don't quite understand your argument. Alice doesn't know if the "probabilistic case" is in |0> or in |1>, but in either case the qubit is in a 100% state, one or the other. Can you please give me some more details as to how you would use the Rabi oscillations on the two different qubits?
Thanks.
 
Julian Blair said:
but in either case the qubit is in a 100% state, one or the other.
If that is the case, then where is the difference?
Also, why two different qbits? What does the second one do?
 
You're asking about distinguishing pure states from mixed states.

A qubit in the pure state ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle + \left| 1 \right\rangle)## can be probabilistically distinguished from a qubit in the mixed state ##50\% \left| 0 \right\rangle + 50\% \left| 1 \right\rangle## by applying a Hadamard operation to the qubit before measuring it.

The Hadamard operation, equivalent to a 180 degree rotation around the diagonal X+Z axis of the Bloch sphere, turns ##\left| 0 \right\rangle## into ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle + \left| 1 \right\rangle)## but turns ##\left| 1 \right\rangle## into ##\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle - \left| 1 \right\rangle)##. It's also its own inverse.

In your case a Hadamard operation will turn the pure state you're asking about into the state ##\left| 0 \right\rangle## while turning the mixed state into ##50\% \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle + \left| 1 \right\rangle) + 50\% \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle - \left| 1 \right\rangle)##.

When you measure the Hadamard'ed pure state, you will always measure 0. When you measure the Hadamard'ed mixed state, you will measure 0 half of the time and 1 half of the time. So if someone says they are sending you a stream of qubits in the 0+1 pure state, you can gain more and more confidence that they are telling the truth as you apply Hadamard operations and measure each qubit in turn while seeing more and more 0s without seeing any 1s. You never become infinitely certain, but you do accumulate evidence.

(Note that other operations, like a square root of not, can be used in place of the Hadamard operation. Also note that the relative phase of the 0 and 1 parts of the pure state matters; ##H(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle + \left| 1 \right\rangle)) = \left| 0 \right\rangle## but ##H(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\left| 0 \right\rangle - \left| 1 \right\rangle)) = \left| 1 \right\rangle##.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K