Qubits and angular momentum-like operators

lfqm
Messages
21
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, my quesion is quite simple but I think I need to give some background...
Let's suppose I have 3 qubits, so the basis of the space is:

\left\{{\left |{000}\right>,\left |{001}\right>,\left |{010}\right>,\left |{100}\right>,\left |{011}\right>,\left |{101}\right>,\left |{110}\right>,\left |{111}\right>}\right\}

i.e. the dimesion is 2^{3}=8

I define the angular momentum-like operators:

J_{z}=\left [{\frac{1}{2}\left ({\left |{1}\right>\left <{1}\right|-\left |{0}\right>\left <{0}\right|}\right)\otimes I \otimes I}\right] + \left [{I \otimes \frac{1}{2}\left ({\left |{1}\right>\left <{1}\right|-\left |{0}\right>\left <{0}\right|}\right) \otimes I}\right] + \left [{I \otimes I \otimes \frac{1}{2}\left ({\left |{1}\right>\left <{1}\right|-\left |{0}\right>\left <{0}\right|}\right)}\right]
J_{+}=\left [{|1⟩⟨0|⊗I⊗I}\right]+\left [{I⊗|1⟩⟨0|⊗I}\right]+\left [{I⊗I⊗|1⟩⟨0|}\right]
J_{-}=\left [{|0⟩⟨1|⊗I⊗I}\right]+\left [{I⊗|0⟩⟨1|⊗I}\right]+\left [{I⊗I⊗|0⟩⟨1|}\right]
J^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left ({J_{+}J_{-}+J_{-}J_{+}}\right)+J_{z}^{2}


And get the right commutation relations:

[J_{z},J_{\pm{}}]=\pm{}J_{\pm{}}
[J_{+},J_{-}]=2J_{z}
[J^{2},J_{z}]=0

So I deduce J^{2} and J_{z} share a common set of eigenvectors \left\{{\left |{j,m}\right>}\right\} where \left |{m}\right |\leq{j}\leq{\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}

But there are only 6 of this vectors:

\left\{{\left |{j=\frac{3}{2},m=\frac{3}{2}}\right>,\left |{j=\frac{3}{2},m=\frac{1}{2}}\right>,\left |{j=\frac{3}{2},m=-\frac{1}{2}}\right>,\left |{j=\frac{3}{2},m=-\frac{3}{2}}\right>,\left |{j=\frac{1}{2},m=\frac{1}{2}}\right>,\left |{j=\frac{1}{2},m=-\frac{1}{2}}\right>}\right\}

So my question is, does the sharing set of eigenvectors between two commuting observables must be complete?

Why isn't complete in this example?
What are the other 2 missing common eigenvectors?

Thanks in advance! :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Each qbit is like one spin 1/2, i.e., your 3-qbit space is the direct product of three spins 1/2.

Now you can use the angular-momentum-addition rules to reduce out the irreducible representations of the rotation group. Then you find
\frac{1}{2} \otimes \frac{1}{2} \otimes \frac{1}{2}=(0 \oplus 1) \otimes \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2} \oplus \frac{1}{2} \oplus \frac{3}{2},
i.e., except of the irreducible representation 3/2 you have two more spin-1/2 representations, which makes the correct dimension 4+2+2=8.
 
I'm not really into representation theory, but as far as I understand, the only thing that I get from there is the multiplicity of the eigenvalues... Could you explain your answer using linear algebra?

I'm looking for the other two common eigenvectors.

Thank you
 
lfqm said:
So I deduce J^{2} and J_{z} share a common set of eigenvectors \left\{{\left |{j,m}\right>}\right\} where \left |{m}\right |\leq{j}\leq{\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}

But there are only 6 of this vectors:

...

So my question is, does the sharing set of eigenvectors between two commuting observables must be complete?

Why isn't complete in this example?
What are the other 2 missing common eigenvectors?

Thanks in advance! :smile:

In order to totally determine the state, you need a maximal set of commuting operators. Your analysis has basically told you that you haven't done this yet: j and m aren't sufficient to determine the state. Vanhees was trying to send you on the right track by suggesting you consider adding the three spins pairwise. His equation is written in group theory notation, but the idea is simple: adding two spin-1/2s result in a spin-0 (1 dimensional) and a spin-1 (3 dimensional). Then, you add the last spin-1/2 to both of these results. The spin-1/2 and spin-0 give you a spin-1/2 (2-dim). The spin-1/2 and spin-1 gives you both a spin-1/2 (2-dim) and spin-3/2 (4-dim). So 8-dimensional as required.

Now think about the above procedure. Clearly, enumerating the number of final states involved required knowing what the total angular momentum of the first two spin-1/2s is. We seem to have a commuting observable!
 
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