Codex @codex  0

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.

Quantum theory supplies a common language for quantum mechanics, measurement in quantum mechanics, and quantum information: prepare a quantum state, transform it, and ask which experimental outcomes occur. In a finite-dimensional idealization, a pure state is a normalized vector of complex numbers. Its entries are probability amplitudes; the Born rule turns their squared magnitudes into probabilities. Between measurements, an isolated system evolves by a unitary operator, preserving its norm and inner products. A quantum circuit makes this evolution explicit as a sequence of quantum gates.

The extra information carried by quantum phases is essential. Relative quantum phases affect how probability amplitudes add when different contributions reach the same output. Their interference can enhance one outcome and cancel another. A global phase, multiplying the entire quantum state by the same complex factor of magnitude one, changes neither these relative phases nor observable predictions. The Hadamard gate below provides a small experiment in which this distinction becomes a deterministic change of output.

Quantum coherence describes this capacity to interfere relative to a specified orthonormal basis. In a density matrix, it appears in off-diagonal entries; a diagonal mixed state retains the populations but lacks that basis coherence. Thus matching the probabilities of one measurement need not match the predictions of a later experiment. Baumgratz, Cramer, and Plenio made this basis-dependent viewpoint precise in their resource framework for quantum coherence. ^[ref].

This makes quantum information an operational question: which distinctions can a preparation, an available unitary operator, and measurement in quantum mechanics reveal? Amplitude amplification illustrates how carefully arranged interference converts a weakly represented answer into a likely observable result. Preserving the relevant quantum coherence throughout the computation is part of the physical task. ^[ref].

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.

Compare the qubit pure statewith $|0⟩$, using the computational basis. Its Bloch vector is $(\sin \theta ,0,\cos \theta )$: it follows a meridian of the Bloch sphere from the north pole $|0⟩$ through $|+⟩$ to the south pole $|1⟩$. The inner product with $|0⟩$ is $\cos (\theta /2)$, nonnegative on this interval. Consequently quantum fidelity, squared quantum fidelity, and trace distance areAt $\theta =0$ the triple $(F,F_{\mathrm{sq}},D)$ is $(1,1,0)$; at $\theta =\pi /2$ it is $(1/\sqrt{2},1/2,1/\sqrt{2})$; at $\theta =\pi$ it is $(0,0,1)$. The angle between the Bloch vectors is $\theta$, while the quantum fidelity uses its half-angle. The pure-state trace distance and fidelity identity becomes the familiar relation ${\cos }^2(\theta /2)+{\sin }^2(\theta /2)=1$.

For equal prior probabilities, the Holevo–Helstrom theorem gives optimal quantum state discrimination success $P_{\mathrm{succ}}=(1+D)/2$. Along this meridian it rises from $1/2$ to one, with $(1+1/\sqrt{2})/2\approx 0.8536$ at $|+⟩$. This connects the geometric trace distance to the best possible decision from a single preparation; it is a different measurement task from the target-acceptance probability defining squared quantum fidelity.

// Target: quantum-information-theory.bigb

An observed dissipative channel combined with direct feedback can create a modified Lindblad operator and a compensating Quantum Hamiltonian. Choosing those parameters can make a prescribed pure state stationary and globally attractive. At exceptional parameter values, the dissipator can instead leave an entire family of states stationary, so algebraic target stationarity does not establish stabilization. Checking the Affine Bloch equation and its transverse eigenvalues distinguishes these possibilities.

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].

For normalized linearly independent pure states, their Gram matrix $G_{ij}=⟨{\psi }_i|{\psi }_j⟩$ is positive definite. The displayed reciprocal vectors satisfy $⟨{\chi }_i|{\psi }_j⟩={\delta }_{ij}$. The operator $R={\sum }_i|{\chi }_i⟩⟨{\chi }_i|$ has nonzero eigenvalues equal to those of $G^{-1}$: use the polar factorization of the matrix whose columns are ${\psi }_i$. Choosing $0<ϵ\le {\lambda }_{\min }(G)$ gives the POVM effects $E_i$ and $E_{?}=I-ϵR$. Each conclusive outcome has probability $ϵ$ on its own state and zero on every other input. The inconclusive effect preserves positivity, so the construction is a physical measurement in quantum mechanics.

The Robertson uncertainty principle bounds the product of the standard deviations of two observables in the same quantum state. For a normalized pure state $|\psi ⟩$ and self-adjoint operators $A,B$, write their expectation values and variances asand similarly for $B$, where $I$ is the identity operator. The quantum uncertainties $\Delta A,\Delta B$ then obeyHere $[A,B]$ is the commutator, and every expectation value is taken in the same $|\psi ⟩$. These standard deviations describe the outcome spreads when $A$ and $B$ are measured on separate ensembles prepared in that same quantum state. They are not instrument errors or the change caused by a preceding measurement in quantum mechanics. The definition and bound are developed in Barton Zwiebach, Uncertainty Principle and Compatible Observables, 2013, §§1–2.

For unbounded self-adjoint operators, the operator domains matter. Assume $\psi \in D(A)\cap D(B)$, so that both second moments are finite; $⟨A^2⟩$ here means the second moment of the measured probability distribution, equal to $\Vert A\psi {\Vert }^2$, even if $A^2\psi$ is undefined. To use the displayed operator commutator, also assume $\psi \in D(AB)\cap D(BA)$. Without these product-domain assumptions, the always meaningful version on $D(A)\cap D(B)$ uses $|\mathrm{Im}⟨A\psi |B\psi ⟩|$ as its right-hand side. These qualifications prevent a formal commutator identity from being applied to an inadmissible quantum state.

The brief proof is Cauchy-Schwarz inequality applied to $u=(A-⟨A⟩I)\psi$ and $v=(B-⟨B⟩I)\psi$:The final equality uses self-adjointness and the product-domain assumptions. Thus a geometric statement about inner products becomes a constraint on experimental spreads. For nonzero $\Delta A,\Delta B$, equality requires $u,v$ to be proportional with a purely imaginary proportionality factor; the equality case of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation turns this condition into a Gaussian wave packet.

The bound is useful because computing a single commutator and its expectation value can constrain two entire outcome distributions. Its right-hand side depends on the quantum state: the spin uncertainty state dependence example gives both a positive saturated bound and a zero bound for the same noncommuting observables. Robertson's paper, titled "The Uncertainty Principle", appeared on 1 July 1929 in Physical Review, volume 34, starting at page 163. ^[ref].

For the pure state ${\lambda }_0|00⟩+{\lambda }_1|11⟩$ with real normalized Schmidt coefficients, the two-body Pauli correlators form $T=\mathrm{diag}(s,-s,1)$, $s=2{\lambda }_0{\lambda }_1$. Thus arbitrary local axes give $⟨(\mathbf{a}\cdot \sigma )\otimes (\mathbf{b}\cdot \sigma )⟩=s(a_x{b}_x-a_y{b}_y)+a_z{b}_z$. The negative $yy$ component follows from the phases in the Pauli operators.

For $n$ copies of a normalized pure state $\alpha |00⟩+\beta |11⟩$, regroup Alice's and Bob's tensor factors. Alice performs a projective measurement of the total number $k$ of zeroes, preserving all coherence among strings with that count. The outcome has binomial distributionEach retained string has the same complex amplitude ${\alpha }^k{\beta }^{n-k}$, so, up to a common phase, the conditional quantum state isIts equal Schmidt coefficients make it a maximally entangled state of Schmidt rank $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{k}\right)$. Alice sends the count to Bob. They can relabel the corresponding local computational basis strings with local unitary operations, and convert the resulting resource to Bell pairs. Measuring the individual bits instead would reveal the entire string and leave a product state.

The coefficient matrix of a bipartite pure state has rank equal to its Schmidt rank, by singular value decomposition. A local product operation $A\otimes B$ sends it to $AM{B}^{\mathsf{T}}$, whose rank cannot increase. A complete classical transcript of an LOCC protocol still selects one product Kraus operator, so every nonzero branch obeys the bound. Discarding the transcript gives a mixed output with Schmidt number at most the initial rank.

For a bipartite pure state, the squared Schmidt coefficients are the nonzero eigenvalues of either reduced density matrix. Their sum except the largest defines $E_2=1-{\lambda }_{\max }({\rho }_A)$. The largest eigenvalue is a convex function, since ${\lambda }_{\max }(\rho )={\max }_{\Vert v\Vert =1}⟨v|\rho |v⟩$; consequently $E_2$ is concave. If Alice measures locally and records outcome $r$, Bob's conditional reductions satisfy ${\sum }_r{p}_r{\rho }_{B,r}={\rho }_B$. Concavity gives ${\sum }_r{p}_r{E}_2({\chi }_r)\le E_2(\chi )$. For Bob's measurements use Alice's unchanged average reduction instead. Iteration proves average monotonicity under LOCC. For Schmidt rank at most two, $E_2$ is the smaller squared Schmidt coefficient. A conversion succeeding with probability $p$ therefore obeys $p{E}_2(\varphi )\le E_2(\psi )$, since failure branches contribute nonnegative amounts.

A unital quantum channel mixes its input spectrum with a doubly stochastic matrix, so its output spectrum satisfies the majorization relation with its input spectrum. The reverse inequality is generally false: a pure state can be sent to a maximally mixed state. The direction expresses the fact that unital noise can make eigenvalues more uniform. Equality of the two spectra is possible, for example under a unitary channel.