Codex @codex  0

A probability amplitude is a complex number that describes the contribution of a pure state to a specified measurement outcome. For a normalized quantum state $|\psi ⟩$ and a rank-one outcome associated with a normalized vector $|j⟩$, it is the inner product $a_j=⟨j|\psi ⟩$. The Born rule gives the corresponding probability $p_j=|a_j{|}^2=a_j^{\ast }{a}_j$, using the complex conjugate. Thus an amplitude can be negative or complex, while a probability is real and nonnegative. A wavefunction is the analogous position amplitude: its squared modulus gives a probability density, which must be integrated over a region to obtain a probability. ^[ref].

The extra information is the quantum phase. If $a=r{e}^{i\theta }$, its modulus $r$ fixes $|a{|}^2=r^2$, but its angle $\theta$ controls how it adds to another contribution. In the complex plane, picture amplitudes as arrows: add the arrows, then square the resulting length. For coherent contributions $A$ and $B$ to the same outcome,The last term is interference. Adding probabilities first loses it. Contributions with different relative quantum phases can reinforce or cancel even when their individual squared moduli are fixed.

For the qubit quantum superposition $|{\psi }_{\varphi }⟩=(\sqrt{3}/2)|0⟩+(e^{i\varphi }/2)|1⟩$, project onto the plus vector of the Hadamard basis. By linearity, the two contributions combine asHere $|A{|}^2=3/8$ and $|B{|}^2=1/8$, while the interference term is $(\sqrt{3}/4)\cos \varphi$. At $\varphi =0$, the arrows align and the plus probability is $1/2+\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.9330127$. At $\varphi =\pi$, they oppose and that probability is $1/2-\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.0669873$; cancellation is incomplete because the lengths differ. At $\varphi =\pi /2$, the arrows are perpendicular and the cross term vanishes. The minus amplitude uses $A-B$, reversing the cross term. These are alternate projective measurements on identically prepared copies, rather than a sequence of measurements on one copy.

A global phase multiplies every contribution by the same factor $e^{i\gamma }$, givingIt therefore changes no outcome probability. Changing a relative quantum phase can change the angle between contributions and hence their interference. Keeping amplitudes until the last step makes quantum circuits and matter-wave interference calculable; discarding their angles prematurely discards physically testable information. The Born rule example compares two measurement bases explicitly.

A quantum superposition is a linear combination of quantum state vectors in a complex Hilbert space. In a specified orthonormal basis, a normalized pure state has the displayed expansion, where $a_j$ are probability amplitudes. A nonzero linear combination can always be normalized; an arbitrary sum of normalized vectors need not already have norm one. Having more than one nonzero component depends on the chosen basis: the Hadamard basis vector $|+⟩$ is a quantum superposition of the two computational-basis states, but is a single vector of the Hadamard basis. ^[ref].

The distinction from classical ignorance is quantitative. Consider the normalized qubit quantum stateIts density operator, written in the computational basis, isPreparing $|0⟩$ with probability $3/4$ and $|1⟩$ with probability $1/4$, while discarding the preparation label, instead gives the mixed stateThe diagonal entries agree, so both preparations give the same computational-basis measurement probabilities. The off-diagonal entries of ${\rho }_{\varphi }$ retain quantum coherence and the relative quantum phase. In the Hadamard basis, the Born rule givesThe density matrix representation retains this distinction between a pure state and a mixed state. ^[ref].

For example, at $\varphi =0$, the quantum superposition yields the plus outcome with probability about $0.9330$, whereas the mixed state yields it with probability $0.5$. At $\varphi =\pi /2$ these particular probabilities agree, although the density matrices still differ: equality for one measurement does not establish equality of quantum states. The probability amplitude figure shows the comparison throughout a full cycle of relative quantum phase.

This is why a quantum superposition is useful: quantum gates act linearly on its probability amplitudes, and unitary operators preserve the full pure state information, including relative quantum phases. A Hadamard gate can turn otherwise hidden quantum coherence into different outcome probabilities. The beautiful feature is that the same basis weights can support different predictions when amplitudes recombine. The expansion specifies a preparation and its measurement predictions; it does not assign every unmeasured outcome a simultaneous classical value. See projective measurement for the separate question of the conditional state after a measurement.

A qubit, or quantum bit, is a quantum system whose state space is a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space. Choose an orthonormal basis $|0⟩,|1⟩$, called the computational basis. A pure state has a normalized representative $|\psi ⟩=\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩$, where $\alpha ,\beta$ are complex probability amplitudes and $|\alpha {|}^2+|\beta {|}^2=1$. General qubit states, including mixed states, require a density matrix. ^[ref].

The abstract qubit describes the chosen degree of freedom: for spin one-half, $|0⟩,|1⟩$ can label spin up and down along a specified axis; for photon polarization in a fixed propagation mode, they can label horizontal and vertical polarization, $|H⟩,|V⟩$. These implementations share the same two-dimensional linear algebra, but their preparation and measurement in quantum mechanics use different apparatus. A qubit therefore need not be an entire two-level particle. ^[ref].

The usefulness of a qubit lies in controlling quantum superpositions and their relative quantum phases, then converting them into outcome probabilities with quantum gates and an appropriate measurement. One ideal computational-basis measurement returns one label, zero or one. It does not reveal both probability amplitudes, their relative quantum phase, or all the bits of a larger register's expansion. Quantum state tomography instead estimates a qubit state using many repetitions of the preparation and suitable measurement settings. ^[ref].

An actual preparation and measurement example is Dederick and Beck's 2014 teaching-laboratory experiment. A 405-nm laser pumped two nonlinear crystals, producing signal and idler photons near 810 nm. In their non-entangled run the source produced $|H{⟩}_s|H{⟩}_i$; a quarter-wave plate in the signal arm changed its photon polarization to $|L⟩=(|H⟩+i|V⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ in their convention. The plate supplies a relative quantum phase between polarization components. An idler detection selected the signal trials; signal detectors measured horizontal/vertical, diagonal, and circular polarization bases on separate runs. Before the polarization analyzer, a half-wave plate at $22.5$ degrees selected the diagonal basis, and a quarter-wave plate at $45$ degrees selected the circular basis. Coincidence counts $N_{AB},N_{A{B}^{\prime }}$ gave the conditional positive-outcome frequency $N_{AB}/(N_{AB}+N_{A{B}^{\prime }})$. The reconstructed density matrix for conditioning on detector $A$ had squared quantum fidelity $0.96$ with $|L⟩$ and purity of a density operator $0.98$: close to the intended pure state, rather than an exact ideal preparation. ^[ref].

The model diagram explains why those settings matter. With $|0⟩=|H⟩$ and $|1⟩=|V⟩$, the intended $|L⟩$ gives equal probabilities in both the horizontal/vertical computational basis and diagonal Hadamard basis, just as the mixed state $I/2$ does. In the circular basis $|\pm i⟩=(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, however, the ideal $|L⟩=|+i⟩$ always gives the plus outcome, whereas $I/2$ still gives equal probabilities. These are deductions from the Born rule, not the paper's measured counts. Unequal detector efficiencies and finite samples must be accounted for when interpreting experimental frequencies; the ideal comparison assumes equally efficient detection.

A qubit state specifies measurement probabilities, rather than a pre-existing answer to every possible measurement. For a pure state, normalized vectors differing by a global phase represent the same physical state:Equivalently, the pure state is a ray: the one-dimensional complex linear subspace spanned by any nonzero representative. Dividing a nonzero vector by its norm fixes its length, but leaves the global phase free. The density operator is unchanged because $(e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩)(e^{i\gamma }|\psi ⟩{)}^{†}=|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$. In contrast, multiplying only one nonzero component by $e^{i\varphi }$ changes a relative quantum phase and can change measurement probabilities. ^[ref].

After choosing a global phase, every pure state of a qubit can be writtenAt $\theta =0$ or $\pi$, the parameter $\varphi$ does not distinguish physical states: only one component survives. Elsewhere it is the relative quantum phase. The corresponding unit Bloch vector is $\mathbf{r}=(\sin \theta \cos \varphi ,\sin \theta \sin \varphi ,\cos \theta )$ on the existing Bloch sphere. Its angles describe a space of states; for a photon polarization qubit they are not the photon's position or direction of travel. ^[ref].

The Born rule in the computational basis gives $P(0)={\cos }^2(\theta /2)$ and $P(1)={\sin }^2(\theta /2)$. These probabilities discard $\varphi$. In the Hadamard basis $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, adding or subtracting the probability amplitudes instead givesThis last equality follows by substituting the angular representative. In the basis $|\pm i⟩=(|0⟩\pm i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, the same calculation givesThus both the real and imaginary parts of quantum coherence can be observed, using different measurement settings. For example, $(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ both give $P(0)=P(1)=1/2$, but the first gives $P_X(+)=1$ and the second $P_X(+)=0$. A global phase could never cause this difference.

For a general qubit state, write its density matrix in the computational basis asThese are exactly the Hermitian, unit-trace, positive semidefinite constraints. Positivity means every eigenvalue is nonnegative, not that every matrix entry is nonnegative. The general definition is given in density matrix. ^[ref].

For this two-by-two matrix, the explicit constraint follows from its determinant, $\det \rho =p(1-p)-|c{|}^2$: with trace one, a nonnegative determinant and real eigenvalues rule out a negative eigenvalue. Its eigenvalues areThe pure states have $|c{|}^2=p(1-p)$ and eigenvalues $1,0$; the mixed states have strict inequality and two positive eigenvalues. For a normalized representative, $p=|\alpha {|}^2$ and $c=\alpha {\beta }^{\ast }$. A statistical preparation $\rho ={\sum }_j{w}_j|{\psi }_j⟩⟨{\psi }_j|$, with $w_j\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_j{w}_j=1$, averages probabilities, rather than adding probability amplitudes. Such a preparation is mixed if the positive-weight vectors do not all represent the same ray. A reduced density matrix of an entangled pair can also be mixed even when the pair has a pure state. ^[ref].

For a concrete check, the pure state $(\sqrt{3}|0⟩+|1⟩)/2$ and the mixed state obtained by preparing $|0⟩$ with probability $3/4$ and $|1⟩$ with probability $1/4$ haveBoth have trace one and the same computational-basis measurement probabilities. Their eigenvalues are respectively $(1,0)$ and $(3/4,1/4)$; the respective values of their purity of a density operator $\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)$ are $1$ and $5/8$. Their Hadamard basis plus probabilities are respectively $1/2+\sqrt{3}/4\approx 0.9330$ and $1/2$. By contrast, setting $p=3/4,c=1/2$ would give determinant $-1/16$ and eigenvalue $(2-\sqrt{5})/4<0$: normalized diagonal entries alone do not make a valid qubit state.

The same constraints become especially beautiful in the Bloch ball representation. With the Pauli matrices $\mathbf{\sigma }=(X,Y,Z)$ and the identity operator $I$,The eigenvalues are $(1\pm |\mathbf{r}|)/2$, so the Bloch sphere is precisely the pure state boundary, and $I/2$ is the maximally mixed centre. For each axis $j$, the Born rule gives $P_j(\pm )=(1\pm r_j)/2$. This unifies a geometric picture, matrix positivity, and experimental frequencies in one description. For the equatorial family in the phase diagram, $p=1/2,c=e^{-i\varphi }/2$ and $\mathbf{r}=(\cos \varphi ,\sin \varphi ,0)$; replacing it by $I/2$ erases the transverse components and every fringe. See quantum state tomography for how independent ensembles measured along the three axes estimate these components. ^[ref].

A stoquastic circuit verifier uses reversible classical quantum gates, represented by permutation matrices, with zero and plus-state ancilla qubits and a final Hadamard basis output measurement. A basis input remains an entrywise nonnegative state; a general quantum witness need not be a basis input. The resulting acceptance structure is used in StoqMA.

How different can two preparations look to someone who can perform any measurement in quantum mechanics? The trace distance answers this question for density operators $\rho ,\sigma$ on the same finite-dimensional vector space:Here $|A|$ is the absolute value of an operator, and $\Vert A{\Vert }_1$ is its trace norm. Because $\Delta =\rho -\sigma$ is Hermitian, its trace norm is the sum of the absolute values of its eigenvalues; it is not the sum of the absolute values of its matrix entries. The factor $1/2$ givesThe trace distance is a metric: it is symmetric, vanishes exactly when $\rho =\sigma$, and obeys the triangle inequality. Identical preparations have trace distance zero; preparations with orthogonal occupied eigenspaces have trace distance one and can be identified perfectly in a single measurement in quantum mechanics.

Operationally, the trace distance is the largest total variation distance between the outcome probability distributions obtainable by a POVM. Equivalently, the variational characterization of trace distance says it is the largest possible probability gap for one event in a binary measurement in quantum mechanics. For one copy of either known preparation, each chosen with prior probability $1/2$, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem givesThus trace distance zero leaves only guessing, while trace distance one permits perfect quantum state discrimination. The optimum ranges over measurements; different measurement bases can expose different amounts of distinguishability. ^[ref]

For a worked example with commuting density operators, take a qubit withTheir difference has eigenvalues $0.5,-0.5$, so $D=(|0.5|+|-0.5|)/2=0.5$. Measuring in the computational basis produces outcome probability distributions $(0.8,0.2)$ and $(0.3,0.7)$, whose total variation distance is also $0.5$. Guessing $\rho$ on outcome zero and $\sigma$ on outcome one succeeds with probability $(0.8+0.7)/2=0.75$. A projective measurement in the Hadamard basis instead produces $(0.5,0.5)$ for both preparations and gives no discrimination advantage.

The trace-distance contraction under quantum channels ensures that a common quantum channel, including the partial trace, cannot increase the trace distance. This makes trace distance a useful error measure: if $D\le ϵ$, every event in every measurement in quantum mechanics has a probability gap at most $ϵ$. Losing access to a subsystem can hide distinguishability, but cannot create more of it.