Simple Quantum Information Question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of measuring the first qubit of a quantum state represented as a linear combination of basis states. Participants explore how to represent the state of the system after observing a measurement outcome, specifically focusing on the need for renormalization and the use of density operators.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to represent the state after measuring the first qubit and suggests renormalizing the coefficients.
  • Another participant proposes that if the measurement is independent of the second qubit, the state can be represented as a renormalized pure state, providing a specific form for the state after measurement.
  • A different participant emphasizes that measurement involves projection and renormalization, detailing the process of projecting onto the relevant subspace and renormalizing the resulting state.
  • A later reply acknowledges a correction regarding the renormalization process, indicating ongoing adjustments in understanding.
  • One participant expresses satisfaction with the responses received, indicating that the discussion has been helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for renormalization after measurement, but there are nuances in how the measurement affects the state representation, and no consensus is reached on the specifics of the representation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the potential need for a density operator versus a pure state representation, nor does it clarify the assumptions regarding the independence of qubits during measurement.

Pbrunett
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey folks, I have a pretty simple quantum information question that I was hoping somebody could answer.

let's say I have a pure state \ket{\psi} = \alpha \ket{10} + \beta \ket{11} + \gamma \ket{01} + \theta \ket{00}.

I then perform a measurement on only the first qubit and observe a value of 1. How do I now represent the state of my system? The temptation is to just renormalize the coefficients \alpha and \beta, but it's not clear to me whether this is correct or whether I have to use a density operator. Any advice would be awesome, this is a question that popped up while I was reading N and C for self-study. Thanks for your time!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a good question. I do believe it will be in the renormalized pure state you imagine, as long as the measurement on the first qubit is independent of the second qubit (perhaps the entangled particles are physically separated, for example). The way to think of this is to write the system as a linear combination of the two more obvious cases, the first having in effect \alpha=\theta and \beta=\gamma (so the second qubit is in its own independent pure state before and after the measurement on the first qubit), and the second having in effect \alpha=\beta and \gamma=\theta (so the renormalized result we are talking about is more obviously going to be correct). Rebuilding the combination will yield a pure state, and if you work it out, my money says it will be (\alpha \ket{10} + \beta \ket{11}) / (\alpha + \beta).
 
Remember that measurement is projection and renormalization.

Alright, so |\psi\rangle=a_{00}|00\rangle+a_{01}|01\rangle + a_{10}|10\rangle + a_{11}|11\rangle. A measurement of the first qubit as 1 means that |\psi\rangle should be projected onto the subspace spanned by |10\rangle and |11\rangle. Since |00\rangle and |01\rangle are orthogonal to this subspace, the projected state is simply |\psi\rangle_{\mathit{proj}}=a_{10}|10\rangle + a_{11}|11\rangle, which, however, is not generally a unit vector. So we renormalize in the standard way, and the state after measurement is |\psi_1\rangle= (a_{10}|10\rangle + a_{11}|11\rangle)/||\psi\rangle_{\mathit{proj}}|= (a_{10}|10\rangle + a_{11}|11\rangle)/\sqrt{|a_{10}|^2 + |a_{11}|^2}.
 
Oops, that's how I meant to renormalize it! Still working on the TeX...
 
Awesome, that's what I was hoping for. Thanks for the advice folks!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K