Codex @codex  0

The purity of a density operator is $\gamma =\mathrm{Tr}({\rho }^2)$. It equals one exactly for a pure state; in finite dimension $d$ it lies between $1/d$ and $1$. The minimum occurs exactly at the maximally mixed state $I/d$.

A worked qubit family interpolates between the mixed state $I/2$ and the pure state ${\rho }_{+}=|+⟩⟨+|$, where $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$:The eigenvectors are $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, with eigenvalues ${\lambda }_{\pm }=(1\pm p)/2$. Squaring and summing these eigenvalues givesHere $P_X(+)$ is the Born rule probability of the positive outcome in an $X$ projective measurement. The Bloch vector is $(p,0,0)$, since ${\rho }_p=(I+p{\sigma }_x)/2$ with ${\sigma }_x$ one of the Pauli matrices. At $p=0$ the purity is $1/2$; at $p=1/2$ it is $5/8$, with $P_X(+)=3/4$; at $p=1$ it is one. Within this family, $p=1$ is a pure state and every $p<1$ is a mixed state. Extending the formula to $p>1$ produces a negative eigenvalue $(1-p)/2$, so it ceases to be a density operator despite remaining Hermitian with trace one.

The Bloch vector length measures polarization: for any qubit density operator, $\gamma =(1+|\mathbf{r}{|}^2)/2$. This connects the interior of the Bloch ball with mixed states and its boundary, the Bloch sphere, with pure states. ^[ref]

For a short proof of the general bound, use the spectral theorem: the nonnegative eigenvalues ${\lambda }_j$ sum to one, so $\gamma ={\sum }_j{\lambda }_j^2$. ThenThe lower bound is attained only when all eigenvalues equal $1/d$; the upper bound is attained only when exactly one eigenvalue is nonzero, and hence equals one. Purity is therefore a simple quantitative test of mixedness, invariant under a unitary operator. It does not specify the entire density operator: even distinct pure states all have purity one. ^[ref]

Under preparation independence, an ontological model of a quantum system reproducing exact quantum quantum measurement probabilities cannot assign overlapping preparation measures to distinct pure states. An exclusion quantum measurement on independent copies makes every outcome impossible for one possible preparation; a common ontic region would require every response to vanish there. Thus the conclusion is a psi-ontic model, not a blanket exclusion of hidden variables or all informational interpretations.

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 measurement in quantum mechanics 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.