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.

  • #31
I will attach my work here
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
deepalakshmi said:
I will attach my work here
This is not allowed. You need to post your work directly, including equations (use the PF LaTeX feature for that--a LaTeX Guide link is at the bottom left of the post window).
 
  • #33
My calculation is big. I will summarize it down. I evolved the state using binomial distribution. After evolving I was asked to find the fidelity between initial and final state
 
  • #34
Here initial state is given as## |\alpha> |0>##. I evolved it with time evolution operator.
 
  • #35
##|\psi(t)>= time evolution operator(|\alpha>|0>)##
##=time evolution operator e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n>|0>##
since time evolution operator is a unitary operator inserting uudagger
B adagger B = adagger cos theta+ib dagger sin theta
from this equation I got sin and cos terms
 
  • #36
deepalakshmi said:
I evolved it with time evolution operator.
That still doesn't answer the question I asked in post #29 about the Hamiltonian.
 
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
That still doesn't answer the question I asked in post #29 about the Hamiltonian.
a, b are annihilation operator. b is similar to a. just change in variable
 
  • #38
deepalakshmi said:
b is similar to a. just change in variable
I don't understand. You only have one set of number operator states ##\ket{n}##. That means you have only one annihilation operator and one creation operator. "Change in variable" makes no sense here.
 
  • #39
Is there any other way to share my work. Calculation is 3 pages
 
  • #40
deepalakshmi said:
Is there any other way to share my work.
Not here.

deepalakshmi said:
Calculation is 3 pages
Then you will need to decide how much of it to post here. First, however, you might try answering post #38, and also post #30.
 
  • #41
PeterDonis said:
I don't understand. You only have one set of number operator states ##\ket{n}##. That means you have only one annihilation operator and one creation operator. "Change in variable" makes no sense here.
I wrote the number terms in terms of creation operator. Then I inserted UUdagger which is basically time evolution operator. Later I applied BadaggerBdagger formula( baker campbell formula). I got a dagger cos theta+ ib dagger sin theta. I substituted this in place of creation operator. Later I used binomial expression and simplified
 
  • #42
PeterDonis said:
Not here.Then you will need to decide how much of it to post here. First, however, you might try answering post #38, and also post #30.
As I said earlier, the initial state and hamiltonian is given to me by my guide.
 
  • #43
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231004410_Generation_of_two-mode_entangled_coherent_states_via_a_cavity_QED_system .You can see this paper equation 8. It is similar
 
  • #44
deepalakshmi said:
##e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n>##

It seems you are studying something close to quantum optics or QED.

Anyway, you did not write it correctly. The coherent state should be ##\sum_{n=0} ^{\infty}e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n> ##. Also, in quantum optics, ##\left < n \right . \left | m \right >=\delta_{nm} ## where ## \left | n \right >## are eigenmodes of quantum electric fields.

Therefore ##\left <0 \right . \left | \alpha \right >=e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^0}{\sqrt{0!}}=e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
  • #45
Yeah I am studying quantum optics.
This is my final calculation:
## F=(\langle\psi|\chi\rangle|^2 )##
##=\langle\psi|\chi\rangle|=|(\langle\alpha|\langle 0|)(|\alpha\rangle |\alpha\rangle)|^2##
##=|(\langle\alpha|\alpha\rangle)(\langle 0|\alpha\rangle)|^2##
##=|e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}|^2##
##=|e^{-|\alpha|^2}|##
Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Looks fine to me.
 
  • #47
deepalakshmi said:
##e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{(\alpha)^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n>##
You forgot the sum over ##n##.
 
  • #48
Demystifier said:
You forgot the sum over ##n##.
Yeah I forgot
 
  • #49
actually the fidelity is always between 0 to 1 right? But I got exponential terms with alpha
 
  • #50
deepalakshmi said:
actually the fidelity is always between 0 to 1 right? But I got exponential terms with alpha
Think harder. It poses no contradiction.
 
  • #51
Haorong Wu said:
Think harder. It poses no contradiction.
Ok. I understood. Since there is a exponential power minus, value always lies between 0 to 1. I also took an example and the value always lies between 0 to 1. Thankyou
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Haorong Wu
  • #52
deepalakshmi said:
I wrote the number terms in terms of creation operator.
You are still not answering my question. Your formula for the Hamiltonian has two sets of ladder operations, the a's and the b's. But you only have one set of number eigenstates ##\ket{n}##, so you should only have one set of ladder operators. Why are there two?

deepalakshmi said:
the initial state and hamiltonian is given to me by my guide.
Who is your "guide"?
 
  • #53
PeterDonis said:
You are still not answering my question. Your formula for the Hamiltonian has two sets of ladder operations, the a's and the b's. But you only have one set of number eigenstates ##\ket{n}##, so you should only have one set of ladder operators. Why are there two?

Who is your "guide"?
Guide - teacher
 
  • #54
Are you saying my question is wrong?
 
  • #55
For example take beam splitter with input state as coherent and vacuum state. There also you have two sets of operator in Hamiltonian
 
  • #56
Another thing is that ket n is called fock state in coherent state
 
  • #57
deepalakshmi said:
Are you saying my question is wrong?
I'm saying I don't understand why there are two sets of ladder operators in your Hamiltonian since you only have one set of number eigenstates. If you don't understand that either, perhaps you should ask your teacher.

deepalakshmi said:
take beam splitter with input state as coherent and vacuum state. There also you have two sets of operator in Hamiltonian
What do the two sets of operators operate on?
 
  • #58
PeterDonis said:
you only have one set of number eigenstates
Note: I've said this several times now, but you should think carefully about whether you agree with it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: deepalakshmi
  • #59
PeterDonis said:
Note: I've said this several times now, but you should think carefully about whether you agree with it.
Ok. I will ask my teacher about it.
 
  • #60
PeterDonis said:
I'm saying I don't understand why there are two sets of ladder operators in your Hamiltonian since you only have one set of number eigenstates. If you don't understand that either, perhaps you should ask your teacher.What do the two sets of operators operate on?
There those two set of operator will act on two states. One is coherent state which I will write in terms of vacuum state and other is vacuum state. So basically the two operator will act on two vacuum state
 

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
750
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K