I Quantum Computing "Not" Operation - Mathematics Steps For Deriving It

Sparky_
Messages
227
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Math steps in deriving Quantum Computing Not Operation MIT 8.04
Hello,

I was watching a video lecture from MIT 8.04 (Allan Adams)– lecture #24 (around the 38 minute mark give or take)

The topic is quantum computing, Dr. Adams is deriving / explaining how to get various computing operations. For the “NOT” operation he explains that the operator

$$ U_{Not} = \begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix} \\
$$
Performs the not operation

Next (and to my question)

He states, “I can write this as
$$ U_{Not} = \begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix} \\ = -ie^{i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}
}
$$
... I mean you can't stop me"

Next, he says, "expanding this out with the exponential we get 1 plus the thing and then all the other terms"

He writes:
$$ = -i(cos(\frac{\pi}{2}) \mathbb1 + isin(\frac{\pi}{2})
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix})
$$

His point is to get this where one can see Schrodinger evolution with a magnetic field..

My question is I cannot fill in the steps to go from the expansion of the exponential to his result

Is there a little hand-waving?

Just straight series expansion:
$$
-ie^{i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}} = -i\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}^n
} {n!} = -i(1 +
i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix} + higher terms)
$$

He says this equals
$$
= -i(cos(\frac{\pi}{2}) \mathbb1 + isin(\frac{\pi}{2})
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix})
$$

Notes: The bold "1" is the unitary matrix - he wrote the result with the unit matrix and the other matrix outside of the cos and sin terms

Can you help clarify the step or steps I'm missing?

Is he simply throwing in a "0" for and a "1" with the cos and sin terms? If so, I don't quite see what he is showing?

Thanks
-Sparky_
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sparky_ said:
Just straight series expansion:
$$
-ie^{i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}} = -i\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}^n
} {n!} = -i(1 +
i\frac{\pi}{2}
\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix} + higher terms)
$$

In order to see the patterns, you have to calculate a few more terms. What is
$$\begin{pmatrix}

0& 1 \\

1 &0 \end{pmatrix}^n$$
for ##n=2,3,4##?
 
  • Like
Likes Sparky_
Thank you so much!

Yep - I (now) see it after writing out a few more terms (and looking up the expansion for sin and cos), and squaring the matrix gives the unit matrix - so some terms have the original matrix while the others have the unit matrix

I see that "half" of the series gives sin and the other "half" gives the cos

I was expecting (assuming) a different path, meaning something like the higher terms not relevant and / or the Euler equation present itself .. (idiot)

Again - thank you for the help
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
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
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top