Fidelity between initial and final states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of fidelity between an initial quantum state and its evolved final state. Participants explore the evolution of states using Hamiltonians, the definition of fidelity, and the implications of using density matrices for bipartite systems. The conversation includes technical aspects of quantum mechanics, particularly focusing on pure states and their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to evolve the state |0>|alpha> and find the fidelity between the initial and final states, expressing uncertainty about the evolution process.
  • Another participant suggests that having the Hamiltonian is essential for solving Schrödinger's equation to find the final state.
  • After evolving the state, a participant presents the final state as $|\alpha \sin\theta> |\alpha \cos\theta>$ and asks how to calculate fidelity.
  • Concerns are raised about the meaning of fidelity, with one participant noting it typically relates to the likelihood of success in quantum operations and may require consideration of randomness or noise.
  • There is a discussion on whether the initial and final states are pure states, with some participants asserting they are pure and suggesting the use of density matrices for analysis.
  • Multiple participants express confusion about the inner product calculations and the specifics of the states involved, particularly regarding the coherent state representation of |alpha>.
  • Participants discuss the implications of using density matrices and the process of partial tracing in bipartite systems.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for clarity on the Hamiltonian used in the evolution process and the context of the problem being modeled.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the initial and final states are pure and that density matrices are relevant for understanding their properties. However, there is no consensus on the specifics of the fidelity calculation or the interpretation of the evolved states, leading to multiple competing views and unresolved questions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the Hamiltonian governing the system, the specific nature of the coherent state |alpha>, and the assumptions regarding the states' purity and the fidelity calculation method.

deepalakshmi
Messages
95
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
Evolution of state |0>|alpha>
I have a state |0>|alpha>. Now I want to evolve this state at any time t and find the fidelity between the initial and final states. Any ideas how to do that? My main problem is that I don't know how to evolve this state.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you have the Hamiltonian of the system? If so, you can get the final state by solving Schrödinger's equation.
 
I have evolved the state and the final state is $|\alpha isin\theta>$ |\alpha cos\theta>$. Now how to find the fidelity between initial and final state?
 
I am not sure what you mean by fidelity here.
Typically "fidelity" means approximately "how likely something is to work"
That is, the fidelity for an operation (aka gate) that takes you from |0> to |1> would be 1 if you always end up in the |1> state.
This means that calculating the fidelity only really makes sense if there is some "randomness" if in your calculation, either because you are averaging over many runs with slightly different parameters; or because you have included noise and/or decoherence in your calculations (in the simplest case using something like a Lindblad approach)
 
Can I omit sin and cos terms and consider only alpha terms? Can I do like that?
 
Another doubt is that is my initial and final state pure state?
 
deepalakshmi said:
Another doubt is that is my initial and final state pure state?
Since they are expressed in some certain states, they are both pure.

I think purity, fidelity as you need, coherence, and entanglement can be studied via density matrices.

Now that you mentioned pure states, I strongly suggest that you should learn density matrices or density operators.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
deepalakshmi said:
Can I omit sin and cos terms and consider only alpha terms? Can I do like that?

Your states seem to be a bipartite system. Now you want to study the first particle. This can be done via, again, density matrices. Just construct them for your states, and then partial trace out the second particle, and you will get what you want. Generally, the matrices you got will represent mixed states.
 
Here I have two state in initial state. How to find density operator for biparitite system?
 
  • #10
Haorong Wu said:
Your states seem to be a bipartite system. Now you want to study the first particle. This can be done via, again, density matrices. Just construct them for your states, and then partial trace out the second particle, and you will get what you want. Generally, the matrices you got will represent mixed states.
I can't understand. Can you explain it briefly?
 
  • #11
No, you only have one state for the initial state, i.e., ##\left | \psi \right >=\left | 0 \right >\left | \alpha \right >## as a whole.

You can easily construct its corresponding density matrix by ##\rho=\left | \psi \right > \left <\psi \right |## since it is a pure state.

deepalakshmi said:
I can't understand. Can you explain it briefly?

I refer you to Nielsen M A, Chuang I. Quantum computation and quantum information[J]. 2002. section 2.4 and Sakurai J J, Commins E D. Modern quantum mechanics, revised edition[J]. 1995. section 3.4.

I think they are sufficient for you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
  • #12
Then what about final state?
 
  • #13
deepalakshmi said:
Then what about final state?
Still ##\rho=\left | \psi \right >\left<\psi \right |## because you gave a pure state.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
  • #14
Since here both the states are pure should I use F=|<\psi| \fi >|^2 ?
 
Last edited:
  • #15
  • #16
Now according to my question psi is the initial state and fi is the final state. So I have to find the inner product of $|\alpha>|o> with |\alpha>|\alpha>$. How to find that?
 
  • #17
I am not sure what are |\alpha>|o>and |\alpha>|\alpha>.

But when calculating the inner product, always match states for the same particle together.

For example, the inner product for ##\left | 0 \right >_1 \left | 1 \right >_2 ## and ##\left | 2 \right >_1 \left | 3 \right >_2 ## is given by $$\left < 0 \right |_1 \left < 1 \right |_2 \left | 2 \right >_1 \left | 3 \right >_2= \left < 0 \right . \left | 2 \right >_1 \left < 1 \right . \left | 3 \right >_2 .$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
  • #18
Like you said i tried to find the inner product of |α⟩|0⟩ and |α⟩|α⟩
This is my calculation
<α|<0| |α⟩|α⟩= | <α|α⟩ <0|α⟩ |^2 where <α|α⟩=1. But what is <0|α⟩? Is my calculation correct?
 
Last edited:
  • #19
deepalakshmi said:
I have a state |0>|alpha>.
What is ##\ket{\alpha}##? Without that information we know nothing at all useful about whatever problem it is you are trying to solve.
 
  • #20
deepalakshmi said:
what is <0|α⟩?
How is anyone supposed to know that if we don't know what ##\ket{\alpha}## is?
 
  • #21
PeterDonis said:
How is anyone supposed to know that if we don't know what ##\ket{\alpha}## is?
##\ket{\alpha}## is coherent state
 
  • #22
deepalakshmi said:
##\ket{\alpha}## is coherent state
That narrows it down, but there is more than one possible "coherent state". Can you be more specific?
 
  • #23
##e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n>##
 
  • #24
deepalakshmi said:
##e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n>##
You have just answered the question of what ##\braket{0 \vert \alpha}## is; just plug ##n = 0## into the above formula.
 
  • #25
PeterDonis said:
You have just answered the question of what ##\braket{0 \vert \alpha}## is; just plug ##n = 0## into the above formula.
can't understand. How can I just replace n with 0?
 
  • #26
deepalakshmi said:
I have evolved the state and the final state is $|\alpha isin\theta>$ |\alpha cos\theta>$.
As you write it, this state doesn't make sense; these don't look like meaningful kets. What Hamiltonian are you using?
 
  • #27
##H=(\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b}+\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{a})##
 
  • #28
deepalakshmi said:
can't understand. How can I just replace n with 0?
You have a formula for ##\ket{\alpha}## in terms of the number operator eigenstates ##\ket{n}##. The number operator eigenstate for ##n = 0## is ##\ket{0}##. Since number operator eigenstates are orthogonal, when you evaluate ##\braket{0 \vert \alpha}##, the only term in ##\alpha## that matters is the ##\ket{0}## term, whose coefficient is given by your formula with ##n = 0##.
 
  • #29
deepalakshmi said:
##H=(\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b}+\hat{b}^\dagger \hat{a})##
The ##\hat{a}## operator and its counterpart make sense here (as the ladder operators for the number operator eigenstates ##\ket{n}##, but what do the ##\hat{b}## operators act on?
 
  • #30
@deepalakshmi it might help if you would give more context about the problem you are trying to solve. Where did this initial state and the Hamiltonian come from? What physical situation are you modeling?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
802
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K