Unitary transformation of pure states to other pure states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of a unitary transformation that can map one arbitrary pure state to another within the same Hilbert space. Participants explore this concept through various perspectives, including geometric arguments, mathematical proofs, and references to related literature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a unitary matrix can always transform one arbitrary pure state to another, particularly in the context of both single and multi-qubit systems.
  • Another participant challenges the proposition by suggesting that one should define terms and demonstrate transformations without assuming unitarity.
  • A participant provides references to articles on reachability in quantum systems, suggesting these may relate to the original question.
  • One participant outlines a method involving Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization to construct a unitary operator that maps one state to another, claiming this approach is convincing.
  • Another participant discusses the properties of isometric operators and their relationship to unitary operators, emphasizing the conditions under which an operator can be considered unitary.
  • A later reply reiterates the original question about the existence of a unitary transformation and suggests that proving it may be sufficient in the two-dimensional case, relating it to linear algebra.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and proof of unitary transformations between arbitrary pure states. While some provide methods and reasoning supporting the existence of such transformations, others question the assumptions and seek alternative approaches. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion may depend on specific definitions and assumptions regarding unitary operators and the dimensionality of the Hilbert space involved. There are unresolved mathematical steps in the proofs and arguments presented.

m~ray
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Is it true that there always exist a unitary matrix that can take a state vector of an arbitrary pure state to another arbitrary pure state ? (of course assuming same hilbert space). If true, how do we prove it ? it look like it is true via geometrical arguments but i have not been able to convince myself completely. I am sure in the case of 1 qubit system; what about multiqubit system ? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Conversely, can you find an example where the proposition is not true?

You would start your proof by defining your terms, then showing what a transformation between states would look like without assuming that the transformation is unitary. Enjoy.
 
Not exactly what you are asking, but related, I think. Probably the article on reachability is the closes to what you are asking about.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010031
Complete controllability of quantum systems
S. G. Schirmer, H. Fu, A. I. Solomon

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0102017
Complete controllability of finite-level quantum systems
H. Fu, S. G. Schirmer, A. I. Solomon

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110171
Criteria for reachability of quantum states
S. G. Schirmer, A. I. Solomon, J. V. Leahy
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Let's say you have ##\psi, \phi \in \mathcal H## with ##\lVert\psi\rVert = \lVert\phi\rVert = 1## and you want ##U\psi = \phi##. Let ##(v_\alpha)_\alpha## be an basis for ##\mathcal H##. Apply Gram-Schmidt to ##(\psi,(v_\alpha)_\alpha)## to get an ONB ##(x_\alpha)_\alpha## with ##x_0=\psi## and repeat the procedure to get an ONB ##(y_\alpha)_\alpha## with ##y_0 = \phi##. Now define ##U\sum_\alpha c_\alpha x_\alpha = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha y_\alpha##. This is clearly a surjective (for ##\sum_\alpha c_\alpha y_\alpha## in ##\mathcal H##, choose ##\sum_\alpha c_\alpha x_\alpha##) linear operator with ##U\psi = \phi## and it is also unitary because ##\left<U\sum_\alpha c_\alpha x_\alpha,U\sum_\beta d_\beta x_\beta\right> = \left<\sum_\alpha c_\alpha y_\alpha,\sum_\beta d_\beta y_\beta\right> = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha d_\alpha = \left<\sum_\alpha c_\alpha x_\alpha,\sum_\beta d_\beta x_\beta\right>## by orthogonality.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
... etc. But m~ray has to do it in order for it to be properly convincing.
 
Simon Bridge said:
... etc. But m~ray has to do it in order for it to be properly convincing.

Well, of course it would have been better if he had done it himself, but he said that he was unable to do it. I think my proof sketch is pretty clear, so it should be convincing. (If not, don't hesitate to ask, m~ray.)
 
An isometric operator defined on all vectors in a Hilbert space is called a unitary operator. An isometric operator has unit (strong) norm and reverse. Hence if a,b arbitrary vectors of unit norm and U is an endomorphism of H taking a into b, then ||U|| = max ||Ua|| = max ||b|| = 1. , forall ||a|| = 1. If U is unit norm, it's isometric. If it's isometric and maximal on H, it's unitary.
 
m~ray said:
Is it true that there always exist a unitary matrix that can take a state vector of an arbitrary pure state to another arbitrary pure state ?
Two pure states define a 2-dim. subspace

[tex]V_{a,a^\prime} = \text{span}\{|a\rangle, |a^\prime\rangle\}[/tex]

of the full Hilbert space ##H##. So for the existence of a unitary operator ##U## with

[tex]U\,|a\rangle = |a^\prime\rangle[/tex]

it's sufficient that ##U## acts as a rotation operator on ##V_{a,a^\prime}## and as the identity on the orthogonal complement ##V_\perp## of ##V_{a,a^\prime}##.

[tex]U = u_{V_{a,a^\prime}} \otimes \text{id}_{V_\perp}[/tex]

m~ray said:
If true, how do we prove it ?
From what I said above it should become clear that it's sufficient to proof this for the 2-dim. case, i.e. for ##u_{V_{a,a^\prime}}##. And this is just linear algebra
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K