Codex @codex  0

A cloning operation for a family of pure states would mapfor every state in that family. A single physical operation cannot clone every unknown quantum state.

The no-cloning theorem forbids a universal unknown-state cloning operation, while orthogonal families can be cloned.

For self-adjoint operators and an admissible pure state, the quantum covariance is the real, symmetrized second moment of two centered observables. The displayed expression uses their anticommutator; equivalently $C_{AB}=\mathrm{Re}⟨A^{\prime }\psi |B^{\prime }\psi ⟩$, which requires only the individual finite second moments. It reduces to ordinary covariance for commuting observables. For noncommuting observables, its definition does not assert that both have simultaneous sharp values drawn from a joint classical probability distribution.

Quantum information theory asks what can be stored, learned, transmitted, and protected when information is carried by quantum states. Its basic objects are density operators, measurement in quantum measurements, and quantum channels; its resources include qubits, entanglement, and classical communication. Specifying the task matters: preserving an unknown quantum state, recovering a classical bit, and estimating a probability amplitude are different demands on the same physical system.

A particularly beautiful feature is that knowing the whole need not mean knowing its parts. A Bell state is a completely specified pure state, yet either qubit alone has a maximally uncertain reduced density matrix. Conversely, two systems can share perfectly matching measurement records without entanglement. The worked Bell correlations versus a classical mixture comparison separates these possibilities using only two choices of Pauli measurement.

This viewpoint makes limitations useful design rules. Schumacher compression asks how much quantum memory a source needs; Holevo's theorem limits the classical information extractable from an encoding; quantum error correction protects states against noise. Quantum teleportation uses shared entanglement and classical communication to transfer an unknown state. Its resource accounting respects both quantum no-signalling and the no-cloning theorem.

A quantum measurement turns a quantum state preparation into a classical outcome, such as a detector label. Two questions must be distinguished: how likely is each outcome, and what quantum state remains conditional on that outcome? A positive operator-valued measure answers the first; a quantum instrument answers both. This distinction is useful whenever a measured system participates in a later experiment, including quantum state tomography and measurement-based quantum feedback.

For a density operator $\rho$, the Born rule gives $p_m=\mathrm{Tr}(E_m\rho )$, where the $E_m$ are positive operators satisfying ${\sum }_m{E}_m=I$. Here $I$ is the identity operator, and $\mathrm{Tr}$ denotes the trace. Positivity makes every $p_m$ nonnegative; completeness makes their sum one. For a pure state, $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ and $p_m=⟨\psi |E_m|\psi ⟩$. A projective measurement is the special case in which the $E_m$ are orthogonal projections onto mutually orthogonal subspaces.

For a qubit, choose the computational basis and write a normalized pure state, up to global phase, asThe angle $\varphi$ is a relative quantum phase; at the poles it does not distinguish states. Measuring the Pauli matrix $Z$ reports $+1$ for label zero and $-1$ for label one, withThese probabilities describe repeated identical preparations. They do not assign a hidden, pre-existing value to every possible measurement basis.

The Born rule grew out of Max Born's 1926 work on quantum scattering: squared probability amplitudes determine the relative frequencies of scattering outcomes. Born explained this statistical interpretation again in his 1954 Nobel lecture. This probability law does not by itself select a post-measurement state. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

Quantum mechanics describes a quantum system using a quantum state, with observables represented by self-adjoint operators. For a single particle in one dimension, a pure state can be described by a wavefunction $\psi (x,t)$: its squared modulus gives the probability density for position. The Schrödinger equation predicts how this probability amplitude evolves between interventions; measurement in quantum mechanics connects it to experimental outcomes through the Born rule. A wavefunction therefore predicts a distribution of possible positions rather than a single trajectory as in classical mechanics.

The infinite square well makes three central ideas visible with elementary sine functions. Confinement selects discrete energy eigenvalues; wavefunction normalization converts a shape into quantitative probabilities; and a quantum superposition can have a changing probability density even when each constituent energy eigenstate has a stationary one. This combination explains why quantum mechanics uses both linear algebra and differential equations: eigenfunctions describe the building blocks, while quantum phases determine how they interfere. The same tools help explain the discrete energies of chemical atoms and molecules, although their Quantum Hamiltonians require different potentials and often many particles.

In his first 1926 paper, Erwin Schrödinger formulated quantization as an eigenvalue problem for a hydrogen atom in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. On its opening page he compared the emergence of integers with the number of nodes of a standing wave on a vibrating string. The infinite square well below realizes that appealing idea especially transparently: the allowed integers follow from the boundary conditions. This historical analogy concerns the origin of discrete energies; the Born rule supplies the statistical interpretation of the modern wavefunction. ^[ref].

A quantum quench changes a quantum system's control parameters rapidly and studies the subsequent unitary time evolution. In the ideal sudden limit, write an initial energy eigenstate $|m_i⟩$ using a complete final orthonormal eigenbasis:The Born rule probabilities for a nondegenerate final energy measurement are $|c_n{|}^2$, with ${\sum }_n|c_n{|}^2=1$. For a degenerate energy eigenvalue, sum the probabilities over its orthonormal energy eigenstates. Subsequent relative quantum phases can alter other measurement probabilities even though these final energy populations stay fixed. A quench need not begin in an energy eigenstate; the same expansion applies to any initial pure state.

A quantum state describes a preparation through its predicted measurement in quantum mechanics probabilities. In the Hilbert space formulation, a pure state is a quantum state ray: a normalized vector representative $|\psi ⟩$ satisfies $⟨\psi |\psi ⟩=1$, and representatives differing by a global phase describe the same quantum state. ^[ref]

Both pure states and mixed states are represented by a density operator on the chosen complex Hilbert space:Thus $\rho$ is Hermitian, positive semidefinite and of unit trace; in infinite dimension it must also be a trace-class operator. For a normalized pure state, $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$ is a rank-one orthogonal projection. A mixed state has no single such vector representative. Its density matrix is the matrix of $\rho$ in a chosen orthonormal basis. ^[ref] For a discrete POVM with effects $E_a\ge 0$ and ${\sum }_a{E}_a=I$, the Born rule readsThese constraints and Born rule probabilities describe arbitrary finite-dimensional preparations. ^[ref]

Randomly choosing normalized pure states with probabilities $w_j$ and forgetting the label givesThis quantum state ensemble averages probabilities; a quantum superposition adds probability amplitudes. Several ensembles can give the same density operator. Quantum entanglement can make a reduced density matrix mixed while the joint quantum state is pure. ^[ref]

The preparation, the choice of basis, and the measurement are separate ingredients. A wavefunction $\psi (x)=⟨x|\psi ⟩$ is the position representation of a pure state; a general mixed state requires a density operator. For a closed quantum system, a unitary operator evolves it as $\rho \mapsto U\rho U^{†}$, preserving its eigenvalues and purity of a density operator. ^[ref] The Bloch sphere and Bloch ball give the qubit geometry; quantum state tomography connects repeated preparations to an estimated density matrix; projective measurement treats the conditional state after an outcome.

A quantum state ensemble specifies a random preparation: normalized pure states $|{\psi }_i⟩$ are selected with probabilities $p_i\ge 0$, ${\sum }_i{p}_i=1$. Without an accessible preparation label, its measurement statistics are those of the density operator $\rho ={\sum }_i{p}_i|{\psi }_i⟩⟨{\psi }_i|$. Indeed every POVM effect $E$ has probability ${\sum }_i{p}_i⟨{\psi }_i|E|{\psi }_i⟩=\mathrm{Tr}(E\rho )$. Different ensembles can therefore have identical operational statistics: equal mixtures of computational-basis qubits or Hadamard-basis qubits both have density operator $I/2$. The ensemble decomposition contains information about the preparation, not additional information accessible from the system alone.

A quantum state ray is the equivalence class of nonzero vectors in a complex Hilbert space under multiplication by a nonzero complex number. Its span is a one-dimensional linear subspace, but the zero vector is not a state representative. A unit vector fixes the norm and leaves a global phase free. ^[ref]

For a nonzero representative $|v⟩$, the associated pure state density operator isReplacing $|v⟩$ by $\lambda |v⟩$ multiplies both numerator and denominator by $|\lambda {|}^2$, so the quotient is unchanged. In particular, for every POVM effect $E$,This proves that a global phase changes no measurement probability. Changing the relative quantum phase of two nonzero components can change the density operator, as the following comparison shows.

Quantum state tomography estimates a density operator from measurement frequencies on many independently and identically prepared systems. One fixed projective measurement reveals only its basis populations, so further measurement settings are generally needed. For a qubit, writeThe three Pauli matrices thus turn measured expectation values into the Bloch vector. This reconstruction uses the Bloch ball representation of arbitrary qubit density operators. ^[ref].

Divide the prepared ensemble into groups measured in the $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ bases. For example, positive-outcome frequencies $0.8,0.5,0.9$ give the estimate $\mathbf{r}=(0.6,0,0.8)$ andHere $|\mathbf{r}|=1$, so the reconstructed state is the pure state $(3|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{10}$. Its $Z$ frequencies alone also fit the diagonal mixed state with populations $0.9,0.1$; the $X$ data distinguish them. For the angular pure state in measurement in quantum mechanics, $r_x=\sin \theta \cos \varphi$, $r_y=\sin \theta \sin \varphi$ and $r_z=\cos \theta$, so $Y$ resolves the sign of the phase that $X$ alone cannot.

Finite samples introduce statistical uncertainty: with $N$ independent binary trials in one basis, the frequency has variance $p(1-p)/N$. At $p=1/2$ and $N=100$, its standard deviation is $0.05$. Fluctuations can place a naive Bloch vector estimate outside the Bloch ball; a physical reconstruction must enforce positivity of the density operator. Repeated measurements on one unprepared specimen sample its changing conditional state, rather than independent copies of its original state. Multiple bases are needed in this projective protocol; a single fixed informationally complete POVM, such as the tetrahedral qubit POVM, is an alternative. It still requires an ensemble of trials.

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 quantum system is a physical system described by a Hilbert space, quantum states, observables and a law of evolution. A pure state is represented by a normalized vector up to an unobservable global phase; a density operator also describes statistical mixtures and subsystems of entangled systems.

A qubit is the simplest nontrivial example, with two basis states and coherent superpositions between them. The Born rule predicts measurement probabilities, while a Hamiltonian generates the isolated system's unitary time evolution. Combining systems uses a tensor product of quantum systems, allowing entangled states that have no description as independent subsystem pure states. Selecting the system boundary also matters: coupling to unobserved surroundings can make the reduced evolution noisy even when the combined closed system evolves unitarily.

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].

Fix a detected position and polarization of waves. Write the electric field operator as $\hat{E}(t)={\hat{E}}^{(+)}(t)+{\hat{E}}^{(-)}(t)$, where the positive-frequency part contains annihilation operators and ${\hat{E}}^{(-)}=({\hat{E}}^{(+)}{)}^{†}$. An ideal absorbing photodetector responds towith density matrix $\rho$. The diagonal gives the single-count rate up to the detector coupling. Multiple absorptions require higher, normal-ordered field products. Roy J. Glauber used these correlations to develop the quantum account of optical coherence.^[ref]

The ordering follows from a detection amplitude. If absorption takes an initial pure state $|i⟩$ to an unobserved final state $|f⟩$, its field factor is $⟨f|{\hat{E}}^{(+)}|i⟩$. Squaring its complex modulus and summing over a complete orthonormal basis of final states gives $⟨i|{\hat{E}}^{(-)}{\hat{E}}^{(+)}|i⟩$. Averaging over initial preparations replaces this expression by a trace. Thus a detector that absorbs cannot count the Fock vacuum, although the vacuum has quantum fluctuations.

For one selected normal mode, ${\hat{E}}^{(+)}(t)=\mathcal{E}u(t)a$. All Fock states with nonzero occupation, coherent states, and thermal light in this same mode havewhere both denominators are nonzero. Its magnitude is one even when the expected value of the field vanishes. Perfect first-order optical coherence therefore does not identify a coherent state. Pair detection supplies additional information.

A quantum Trajectory Theory unravelling represents a Lindblad equation by an ensemble of stochastic pure states. In units $\hslash =1$, define the non-Hermitian effective HamiltonianFor a normalized state $|\psi ⟩$, channel $\alpha$ has instantaneous jump rate $r_{\alpha }=⟨\psi |L_{\alpha }^{†}{L}_{\alpha }|\psi ⟩$. During a small interval $dt$, that jump occurs with probability $r_{\alpha }dt$ and sends the state to $L_{\alpha }|\psi ⟩/\sqrt{r_{\alpha }}$. A zero rate means that channel cannot jump. Otherwise, with total no-jump probability $1-{\sum }_{\alpha }{r}_{\alpha }dt$, evolve with $I-i{H}_{\mathrm{eff}}dt$ and renormalize.

To verify the ensemble evolution, put $\rho =|\psi ⟩⟨\psi |$. The conditional normalizations cancel their probability weights, givingExpanding recovers the Lindblad equation. Different monitoring choices can give different trajectories with the same ensemble density matrix. For spontaneous emission, $L=\sqrt{\Gamma }|g⟩⟨e|$ gives jump rate $\Gamma |⟨e|\psi ⟩{|}^2$ and resets the atom to its ground state.^[ref]

For a prepared normalized pure state $|i⟩$ and a final projective measurement onto the normalized state $|f⟩$, unitary time evolution gives the displayed probability, by the Born rule. This depends on the preparation, final measurement, and time-evolution operator; it does not assume a classical Markov chain of transitions.

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

Choose the Pauli matrices with ${\sigma }_z=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1)$, and let $\omega >0$ be an angular frequency. The computational basis is an orthonormal basis of energy eigenstates for the qubit Hamiltonian operatorIn this convention $|1⟩$ is the lower energy eigenstate; the labels describe a basis choice, not a universal ground state/excited state ordering. Start in the Hadamard basis pure state $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. ThenThe first factor in the second expression is a global phase. The ratio of the two probability amplitudes has relative quantum phase $\omega t$, so its sign follows directly from $E_1-E_0=-\hslash \omega$.

Multiplying this density matrix by each Pauli matrix and taking its trace gives the Bloch vector:The Bloch vector travels counterclockwise around the equator of the Bloch sphere, from $+x$ toward $+y$ when viewed from $+z$. A computational-basis measurement always has $P_Z(0)=P_Z(1)=1/2$, while the Hadamard basis and ${\sigma }_y$ eigenbasis measurements giveAt $\omega t=\pi /2$, the quantum state is $|+i⟩=(|0⟩+i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ up to a global phase, giving $P_Y(+)=1$. At $\omega t=\pi$, it is $|-⟩$ up to a global phase, giving $P_X(+)=0$. Both retain equal energy measurement probabilities.

At $t=2\pi /\omega$, the time-evolution operator is $U(t)=-I$, so $|\psi (t)⟩=-|+⟩$. The physical quantum state ray, its density operator, and every measurement's probabilities have returned. The representative vector returns exactly only at $t=4\pi /\omega$, when $U(t)=I$. The minus sign is a global phase for this isolated evolution; comparing an evolved branch with an unevolved branch through a controlled unitary gate can make it a relative quantum phase, as explained in global phase of an uncontrolled quantum gate is unobservable.

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.