Derivatives for a density operator

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differentiation of density operators in quantum mechanics, specifically regarding the evolution of a pure state ##\left | \psi (0)\right >##. The density operator at ##0+dz## is derived from the state evolution, leading to the expression for the density matrix. A conflict arises when comparing the exact expression for the density operator with the approximation obtained from the derivative, highlighting that the truncated Taylor expansion does not guarantee purity. The key conclusion is that only the full Taylor expansion maintains the purity of the state, while approximations may lead to non-pure states due to the omission of higher-order terms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and state evolution
  • Familiarity with density operators and their properties
  • Knowledge of Taylor series expansions in mathematical physics
  • Experience with quantum state notation and operators
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Taylor expansion in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the properties of density matrices in quantum systems
  • Explore the concept of purity in quantum states and its mathematical formulation
  • Investigate the role of infinitesimals in quantum mechanics and their mathematical treatment
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum information theory, and students studying advanced quantum mechanics concepts will benefit from this discussion.

Haorong Wu
Messages
419
Reaction score
90
TL;DR
How to properly calculate the derivatives for a density operator?
Hi. Suppose I have a state ##\left | \psi (0)\right >=\sum_m C_m \left | m\right >## evolving as $$\left | \psi (0+dz)\right>=\left | \psi (0)\right >+dz \sum_iD_i\left | i\right >=\sum_m C_m \left | m\right >+dz \sum_iD_i\left | i\right >=\sum_m( C_m+dz D_m)\left |m\right >.$$
Then the density operator at ##0+dz## is \begin{align}\rho(0+dz)&=\left | \psi (0+dz)\right>\left< \psi (0+dz)\right|=\sum_{mn}( C_m+dz D_m)( C^*_n+dz D^*_n)\left |m\right >\left< n\right|\nonumber \\&=\sum_{mn}(C_mC^*_n+dz(D_mC^*_n+C_mD^*_n)+dz^2D_mD^*_n)\left |m\right >\left< n\right|.\end{align}

I have seen in a paper, Roux F S. Infinitesimal-propagation equation for decoherence of an orbital-angular-momentum-entangled biphoton state in atmospheric turbulence[J]. Physical Review A, 2011, 83(5): 053822, that the author take the derivative of the density matrix as $$\partial_z \rho(z)=\sum_{mn}(D_mC^*_n+C_mD^*_n)\left |m\right >\left< n\right|,$$ i.e., terms with ##dz##.

Then when the author tries to recover the density matrix at some point ##z##, the result is given by just integrating the above derivative.

My question is from ##\rho(0+dz)=\left | \psi (0+dz)\right>\left< \psi (0+dz)\right|##, clearly, its a pure state, but if we calculate it from the derivative ##\rho(0+dz)=\rho(0)+dz \partial_z \rho(z)##, then it is not pure since terms with ##dz^2## is lost. Why there is a conflict? Should we discard terms with ##dz^2## or not?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Haorong Wu said:
then it is not pure since terms with ##dz^2## is lost. Why there is a conflict?
A more correct way to do it is to avoid dealing with infinitesimal numbers ##dz##. The truncated Taylor expansion
$$\rho(z) = \rho(0)+\left.\frac{\partial\rho(z)}{\partial z}\right|_{z=0} z+{\cal O}(z^2)$$
is not necessarily pure. Only the full Taylor expansion is guaranteed to be pure. But if you are doing approximation for small (but finite!) ##z##, then a truncated expansion gives you approximate purity. The nonpurity is ##{\cal O}(z^2)##, which is consistent with expansion up to the terms linear in ##z##.

An apparent conflict in your computation arises from the fact that ##\rho(0+z)=|\psi(0+z)\rangle\langle\psi(0+z)|## is exact equality, while ##\rho(0+z)=\rho(0)+z\rho'(0)## is only an approximation. But to see that, you must work with finite ##z## (not with infinitesimal ##dz##, which, as a number, is not a well defined object).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Haorong Wu

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K