Constructing Optimal Unitary Operators for Distinguishing Quantum States

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction of optimal unitary operators for distinguishing two pure quantum states, specifically focusing on the mathematical framework and procedures involved. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and the implications of unitary transformations in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant discusses the challenge of constructing a unitary operator that maps two quantum states to specific forms as outlined in a reference text.
  • Another participant suggests expressing the states in terms of basis states and finding a unitary matrix that satisfies certain equations derived from the states' inner products.
  • A later reply questions the well-defined nature of the proposed method, suggesting that there may be more equations than unknowns due to the requirements of unitarity.
  • Another participant argues that the four equations derived from the transformation are linear and should yield a unique solution, provided the norms and inner products are preserved.
  • There is a query about the orthogonality of the basis states and its implications for the existence of a unitary transformation.
  • One participant clarifies that while the basis states are orthogonal, the focus is on mapping the states to specific points in a defined space, and that the chosen parameter ensures the necessary preservation of inner products for unitarity.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the nature of the desired operator and its relationship to the original states.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and definition of the unitary transformation, with some asserting that the equations provide a unique solution while others raise concerns about potential over-determination. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of orthogonality and the specific requirements for the unitary operator.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the states and the parameter theta, as well as the dependence on the definitions of the states involved. The discussion highlights the complexity of ensuring unitarity while satisfying the mathematical conditions derived from the states' properties.

Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
Hey,

I've been looking into different aspects of distinguishing two pure quantum states. I've ended up reading a lot of books/papers covering things like "accessible information", but there haven't been too many explanations on how to find optimal measurements.

The book by (Kaye, Laflamme, Mosca) outlines a simple procedure in their appendix, which requires sending the two states [itex]| \Psi_Y \rangle, |\Psi_x \rangle[/itex] to the states
[tex]\cos(\theta) | 0 \rangle + \sin(\theta) |1 \rangle[/tex]
[tex]\sin(\theta) |0 \rangle + \cos(\theta) |1 \rangle[/tex]
where [itex]0 \leq \theta \leq \frac \pi4[/itex] and [itex]\langle \Psi_y | \Psi_x \rangle = \sin(2\theta)[/itex]. However, I'm uncertain as to how to even construct a unitary operator that does the associated mapping.

Other sources consider the states [itex]| \Psi_x \rangle |\Psi_x \rangle, | \Psi_y \rangle |\Psi_y \rangle[/itex], or just talk about accessible information rather than optimal measurements.

If anyone could shed some light on how to construct the Unitary Map necessary for the procedure in Kaye et al. or any other insight into this, it would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First you have to express [itex]| \Psi_x \rangle, |\Psi_y \rangle[/itex] in terms of [itex]| 0 \rangle, |1 \rangle[/itex], eg, [itex]| \Psi_x \rangle = a| 0 \rangle+b |1 \rangle, |\Psi_y \rangle= c| 0 \rangle+d |1 \rangle[/itex], with [itex]|a|^2+|b|^2=1, |c|^2+|d|^2=1, a^*c+b^*d=\sin(2\theta)[/itex]. Then you want to find a 2x2 unitary matrix that takes the column vector [itex](a,b)[/itex] to [itex](\cos\theta,\sin\theta)[/itex] and the column vector [itex](c,d)[/itex] to [itex](\sin\theta,\cos\theta)[/itex]. This is four equations involving the elements of U. Since a 2x2 unitary matrix has four parameters, this should allow you to determine all four. Looks kind of messy to actually do it, though.

EDIT: one specific case is pretty easy: let [itex]| \Psi_x \rangle = | 0 \rangle, |\Psi_y \rangle= \sin(2\theta)| 0 \rangle+\cos(2\theta) |1 \rangle[/itex]. Then [itex]U=((\cos\theta,-\sin\theta),(\sin\theta,\cos\theta))[/itex].
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is the method I had originally tried. I haven't followed the math all the way through, but I don't believe it's as well-defined as you say. The problem is we infact have more than 4 equations to determine the unknowns components of the unitary transformation. These extra equations come from the fact that the mapping is unitary. Hence we may have an over-determined system and the solution may not exist. Is there something in how we've defined [itex]\theta[/itex] that ensures this doesn't happen?
 
The four equations are linear, and so have a unique solution for the four elements of U. As long as the norms and the inner product of the states are unchanged, the result should be consistent with unitarity.
 
Are |0> and |1> orthogonal? If they are, then there is no unitary transformation which will produce |x> and |y>, because a unitary transformation will preserve orthogonality.
 
Kanato, yes |0> and |1> are orthogonal, but this doesn't change anything. In the even that the two states I'm trying to distinguish are orthogonal, then theta =0 and so the unitary transformation is trivial. However, no statement as to the orthogonality of Psi_x and Psi_y were made; we want to map them to the points (cos theta, sin theta) and (sin theta, cos theta) on the space spanned by |0> and |1>. Furthermore, the theta we've chosen is such that the inner-product is preserved as necessary for a unitary mapping.
 
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to do. Are you looking for an operator that behaves like [tex]|\psi_x\rangle = U |0\rangle[/tex], [tex]|\psi_y\rangle = U |1\rangle[/tex]? If so, then any unitary transformation will necessarily result in [tex]\langle \psi_x | \psi_y \rangle = \langle 0 | 1 \rangle[/tex]. If that's not the type of transformation you're looking for, then I don't understand the original question.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K