How to merge beams with POVMs?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter naima
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beams
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on merging beams in the context of Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVMs) using three output channels: F1, F2, and F3. It establishes that when merging beams, the approach depends on whether the process is coherent or incoherent. In coherent processes, amplitudes are added, while in incoherent processes, probabilities are summed. The conversation references the work of Man'ko and a specific equation related to the composition law for density matrices, emphasizing the theoretical implications of different experimental setups.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVMs)
  • Familiarity with density matrices and their composition laws
  • Knowledge of quantum mechanics principles, particularly beam splitting and merging
  • Basic grasp of decoherence effects in quantum systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the composition law for density matrices as outlined in Man'ko's research
  • Explore the mathematical framework of Positive Operator-Valued Measures (POVMs)
  • Investigate the implications of decoherence in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about coherent versus incoherent processes in quantum state manipulation
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, researchers in quantum information theory, and anyone studying the behavior of quantum beams and POVMs will benefit from this discussion.

naima
Gold Member
Messages
936
Reaction score
54
When in a stern-gerlach electrons are not detected the two beams can merge behind. We just have to add the amplitudes.
this is easy because up> and down> are orthogonal.
Suppose that we have a POVM setup with 3 output channels: F1 F2 and F3 as operators. They sum to Id but have not to be orthogonal.
there are three detectors which click with probabilities P1 P2 and P3 (##Pi = Tr(\rho Fi)##)
Suppose now that we replace detectors 1 and 2 by a merger Have we to add F1 and F2? (add probabilities).
With ##F1 = M1^\dagger M1## and ##F2 = M2^\dagger M2## we would get
##M1^\dagger M1 + M2^\dagger M2## and not ##(M1+M)^\dagger(M+M)##
This is not the same. so what is the rule when we merge beams?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
In theory, it depends on the experimental setup. If you just split the beam and remerge it, you have a coherent process and add amplitudes. If you prepare two different ensembles ρ1 and ρ2 and mix them, you have an incoherent process and add probabilities.

In practice, I don't think it makes much difference how you model the situation. Decoherence in the first process makes the outcome look identical to the second.
 
Man'ko gave https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222549915_Inner_composition_law_of_pure_states_as_a_purification_of_impure_states .
There is a composition law for density matrices.
look at (eq 17)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K