A How Do Quantum Measurements Impact System Coherence?

Danny Boy
Messages
48
Reaction score
3
The following, regarding quantum measurement, is stated in the paper "Limitation on the amount of accessible information in a quantum channel" :

"Our discussion of measurement will be based on a specific physical model of measurement, to which we now turn. Suppose we have a quantum system ##Q## with an initial state ##\rho^{(Q)}##. The measurement process will involve two additional quantum systems an apparatus system ##A## and an environment system ##E##. The systems ##A## and ##E## are initially in a joint state ##\rho_{0}^{(AE)}##, so that the overall initial state of everything is ##\rho^{(AEQ)} = \rho_{0}^{(AE)} \otimes \rho^{(Q)} ##.

The measurement process proceeds in two successive stages :

1. A dynamical evolution including interactions among ##A, E## and ##Q## represented by a unitary operator ##U##:

$$\rho^{(AEQ) } \rightarrow \hat{\rho}^{(AEQ) } = U\rho^{(AEQ) } U^{\dagger} $$

2. Discarding of the environment, represented by a partial trace over the system ##E##:

$$\hat{\rho}^{(AEQ)} \rightarrow \hat{\rho}^{(AQ)} = \text{Tr} _{E}\hat{\rho}^{(AEQ)}$$

For the process to constitute a measurement, we require that after these two stages, the state ##\hat{\rho}^{(AQ)}## be of the following form:

$$\hat{\rho}^{(AQ) } = \sum_a P(a) |\phi_{a}^{(A) } \rangle \langle \phi_{a}^{(A) }| \otimes w_{a}^{(Q) }~~~~~~~~~~~~(*) $$

Where the states ##|\phi_{a}^{(A) }## are a fixed orthogonal set of apparatus states, independent of the input state ##\rho^{(Q) }##.

Questions:

1. Why does the system have to be in state ##(*)## for the process to constitute a measurement? I

2. It is further stated "Coherences between different measurement outcomes do not remain in the joint state of systems ##A## and ##Q##. Any such coherences have leaked away into the environment during the dynamical evolution." How would you define/interpret the word "coherence" in this context?

Thanks for any assistance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Danny Boy said:
The following, regarding quantum measurement, is stated in the paper "Limitation on the amount of accessible information in a quantum channel"
This link doesn't work for me.

Danny Boy said:
1. Why does the system have to be in state ##(*)## for the process to constitute a measurement?
I have only skimmed the passage but what about turning this around: modify the state in different ways and think about the consequences. For example, introduce more indices.

Danny Boy said:
2. It is further stated "Coherences between different measurement outcomes do not remain in the joint state of systems ##A## and ##Q##. Any such coherences have leaked away into the environment during the dynamical evolution." How would you define/interpret the word "coherence" in this context?
In open quantum dynamics, the term "coherences" often refers to the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix. (The on-diagonal elements are called "populations".)

In your example, it refers to the fact that only one index appears in each term of the sum.
 
  • Like
Likes Danny Boy
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
Back
Top