Visually representing entangled qubits (i.e., Bell state)

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenges of visually representing entangled qubits, particularly Bell states, in a quantum computer emulator. The Majorana sphere is mentioned as a potential tool for visualizing these states, but alternative methods like state tomography and 3D bar charts are also considered. Participants note that Google's quantum playground employs a grid approach, using boxes to represent amplitude and phase. One contributor describes their own method of using circles to indicate amplitude and phase, but acknowledges the complexity that arises with more qubits. The conversation highlights the need for effective visualizations as the number of qubits increases.
Elroy
Messages
42
Reaction score
9
Hi All,

I'm in the beginning stages of writing a quantum computer emulator, primarily to get all the concepts down.

I've got an excellent Bloch sphere with a Bloch vector that I can duplicate as many times as I like. However, I'm now tackling entangled states. I'm struggling with identifying the best way to visually represent these states.

I've been studying the Majorana sphere, and it seems to have definite possibilities, with its Majorana points and Closest Product Points (possibly making disks or cones from the center of the sphere).

I'm just wondering if others have different ideas about the best way to represent these entangled states. I'd like to start with the Bell states (EPR pairs of qubits), but would eventually like to generalize my visual representations to any entangled state with any number of qubits and any level of entanglement.

Thanks in advance for the suggestions/opinions.

Elroy
 
Isn't the various ways of visually representing state tomography pretty much the standard method for this (often represented by 3D bar charts)?
 
I don't know any good ways to represent entangled states, that aren't the algebraic form like "|00> + |11>" or just a big grid of amplitude representations.

Google's quantum computing playground uses the grid approach; they have a field of boxes where height is amplitude and color is phase.

In my own stuff, like this toy circuit simulator, I also just use the grid of amplitudes. In my case I use circles with radius equal to the amplitude and a line on them pointing along the phase. Also I "fill up" the cell based on the squared amplitude, since that total is preserved by the operations. For example, if you have four qubits where A1 is entangled with B1 such that they always disagree and A2 is entangled with B2 such that they always agree then I show that as:

msvTZDs.png

Basically, entanglement ends up looking like diagonals.

Naturally this becomes a visual mess as you add more qubits. You'd need a 1024-by-1024 grid to show the state of 20 qubits this way.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
710
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K