Is the determinant of a mixed state density matrix always positive?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the determinant of a mixed state density matrix, particularly whether it is always positive. Participants explore theoretical aspects, mathematical reasoning, and implications of the conditions defining mixed states within the context of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that for a 2-dimensional Hilbert space, the density matrix can be expressed in a specific form, leading to the conclusion that the determinant is non-negative under certain conditions.
  • Another participant proposes that for a mixed state statistical operator, the condition \(\hat{\rho}^2 < \hat{\rho}\) along with the trace and self-adjoint properties imply that \(\det\hat{\rho} > 0\).
  • A different participant questions the assertion that \(\rho^2 < \rho\) for mixed states and seeks clarification on how this leads to the conclusion about the determinant being positive.
  • One participant references a source to clarify the properties that define an acceptable state operator, emphasizing that the eigenvalues must be real and non-negative, which suggests that the determinant is also non-negative.
  • Another participant expresses appreciation for the simplicity of the argument when considering finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.
  • A later post provides a mathematical representation of the density matrix in terms of its eigenstates and weights, contributing to the discussion on its properties.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions that lead to the positivity of the determinant of a mixed state density matrix. There is no consensus on whether the determinant is always positive, as some participants question the assumptions and implications presented by others.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for clarification on specific properties of mixed states and their implications for the determinant, indicating that the discussion is nuanced and dependent on the definitions used.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
Why is the determinant of a mixed state density matrix always positive?

In the specific case of a 2-dimensional Hilbert space, the density matrix (as well as any other hermitian matrix) can be expressed as

\rho=\frac 1 2 (I+\vec r\cdot\vec \sigma)

so its determinant is

\det\rho=\frac 1 4(1-\vec r^2)[/itex]<br /> <br /> We have |\vec r|=1 if and only if we&#039;re dealing with a pure state, so we seem to need the condition \det\rho\geq 0 to see that the set of mixed states is the interior of the sphere rather than the exterior.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that if you have mixed states statistical operator you have

{\hat{\rho}}^2 &lt; \hat{\rho}

and of course for statistical operator Tr\hat{\rho}=1 and \hat{\rho}^{\dagger}=\hat{\rho}

I think that from that three conditions you have det\hat{\rho}&gt;0
 
Last edited:
Thanks, but now I have two problems instead of one. I don't see why \rho^2&lt;\rho for mixed states. (Do you mean that all expectation values of \rho-\rho^2 are positive?) I also don't see why these results imply that \det\rho&gt;0.
 
The "state operators" in the original post don't necessarily qualify as such...

Summarizing from Ballentine section 2.3 (pp 50-51)...

An acceptable state operator (a) has unit trace, (b) is self-adjoint, and
(c) satisfies \langle u | \rho | u \rangle \ge 0, for all | u \rangle.

Property (b) implies that a state operator's eigenvalues \rho_n are real.

Property (c) implies that a state operator's eigenvalues must satisfy \rho_n \ge 0.

Hence the determinant is real and non-negative, being the product of the eigenvalues.

[EDIT: Removed unnecessary silly mistake herein noted by Fredrik in post #5 below.]
 
Last edited:
Thank you strangerep. That was surprisingly simple (at least when I only consider finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, but that's the case I'm interested in for the moment). [Edit: Removed comment about silly mistake in #4 :smile:]
 
Last edited:
Just to show c)

\hat{\rho}=\sum^K_{k=1}w_k|\psi_k&gt; &lt;\psi_k|=\sum^K_{k=1}w_k\hat{P}_k

and


\left\langle \psi_n\left|\hat{P}_k\right|\psi_n\right\rangle=||\hat{P}_k\psi_n||^2
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K