Codex @codex  0

A zero-temperature energy-relaxation channel transfers the excited population of a qubit to its ground state. Its Kraus operators are $A_0=\mathrm{diag}(1,\sqrt{1-p})$ and $A_1=\sqrt{p}|0⟩⟨1|$ for $0\le p\le 1$. They satisfy ${\sum }_j{A}_j^{†}{A}_j=I$. The excited population is multiplied by $1-p$ and coherences by $\sqrt{1-p}$. For nonzero $p$, it is not a unital quantum channel.

An ancilla qubit is a two-dimensional quantum ancilla. It is the quantum version of an ancilla bit; an auxiliary quantum register can contain several such qubits.

Prepare independent candidate blocks by one-bit heralding of a remote state preparation block, but send only the first successful block's index. Success eventually occurs with probability one; a prefix code for a rare geometric success uses at most $n+e/(e-1)$ expected bits per block. The expected singlet state consumption is $n{2}^n$. Alternatively, limiting the number of trials to $n{2}^n$ gives failure probability at most $e^{-n}$ and a fixed message length $n+{\log }_{2}n+O(1)$. Both versions approach one classical bit per remotely prepared qubit in their respective expected-length or high-success senses.

// Target: quantum-theory.bigb

A condensed matter physicist who coauthored the quantronium circuit experiment. The superconducting device combined microwave state manipulation with a separate pulsed measurement circuit, allowing coherent evolution and readout of an electrical qubit. It supplied an experimental connection between circuit design and the dynamics of a controllable quantum state.^[ref]

Apply a Hadamard gate to the first qubit, then a controlled-NOT gate from the first to the second. This maps a computational-basis state $|ij⟩$ to the Bell state with phase bit $i$ and parity bit $j$. Its inverse uses the same gates in reverse order because each gate is self-inverse but they do not commute. Applying the forward sequence twice is not generally a decoding operation.

Give Alice the first qubit $A$ and Bob the second $B$. Compare the Bell state $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$ with a preparation that tosses a fair classical bit and gives both parties its value. Their density operators, written in the computational basis ordered $00,01,10,11$, areThey have identical diagonal quantum state populations. The off-diagonal entries of the Bell state retain quantum coherence between $00$ and $11$; the classical mixture has none in this basis.

If both parties perform a Pauli measurement of $Z$, the Born rule gives $P(00)=P(11)=1/2$ and $P(01)=P(10)=0$ for both preparations. Perfect agreement here therefore cannot establish entanglement: an ordinary shared random bit already explains it.

Now both measure $X$, whose normalized eigenstates are $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Changing basis givesThe Bell state again has matching outcomes, each with probability $1/2$. For either product state $|00⟩$ or $|11⟩$, each of the four $X$ outcome pairs has probability $1/4$, so their classical mixture does too. Equivalently, the Pauli correlator $⟨X\otimes X⟩$ is one for the Bell state and zero for this mixture, while $⟨Z\otimes Z⟩$ is one for both.

Taking a partial trace gives ${\rho }_A={\rho }_B=I_2/2$ for both preparations. Thus every measurement confined to Alice's system has the same statistics in the two cases, and so does every measurement confined to Bob's. They reveal the difference by comparing records through classical communication. Conditional on Alice's result, Bob can predict a matching $X$ result for the Bell state; without that result, his outcomes remain evenly split. An uncommunicated local quantum channel, including a measurement with its outcome discarded, leaves his reduced density matrix unchanged. This is quantum no-signalling, even when conditional states change. ^[ref]

The Von Neumann entropy makes the joint-versus-local distinction numerical. With base-two logarithms, the Bell state has eigenvalues $1,0,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=0$, whereas the mixture has $1/2,1/2,0,0$, giving $S(AB)=1$. Both have $S(A)=S(B)=1$. Their quantum mutual information $I(A:B)=S(A)+S(B)-S(AB)$ is consequently two and one bits, respectively. The value two is not two readable classical bits in either local qubit: the matching $Z$ records have ordinary mutual information one bit in both cases. Random records can come from a globally pure state. ^[ref]

These two matching-axis measurements distinguish the specified preparations; they alone are not a test of a Bell inequality. A local hidden-variable theory could assign shared random answers separately to these two axes. Bell theorem concerns incompatible correlations across a suitable larger collection of measurement settings. Bell's 1964 paper established the obstruction for local hidden-variable descriptions of the predicted correlations. ^[ref]

A Bell pair consists of two qubits prepared jointly in a Bell state. It is a maximally entangled two-qubit resource with Schmidt rank two. Two independent Bell pairs have resource Schmidt rank four across the same party partition.

A Bell state is one of four maximally entangled states forming an orthonormal basis for two qubits:Each qubit alone has reduced density matrix $I/2$, giving equal probabilities for outcomes in any orthonormal measurement basis. The joint state nevertheless has definite correlations; for $|{\Phi }^{+}⟩$, computational-basis outcomes always agree.

A separable quantum state can imitate those same computational-basis correlations. The distinction appears in complementary measurements: the coherent relative phase between $|00⟩$ and $|11⟩$ controls correlations in the Hadamard basis. Bell states are therefore resources for quantum teleportation and useful tests of quantum entanglement, rather than merely pairs with correlated classical bits.

A device implementing a Bell-basis measurement on two qubits. A complete analyzer distinguishes all four Bell states. A basic passive linear optics analyzer for two polarization qubits uses a balanced beam splitter, polarizing beam splitters and single-photon detectors. Its ideal unambiguous success probability is $1/2$: the two opposite-polarization Bell states have distinct click patterns, while the two same-polarization Bell states remain mutually ambiguous. Additional physical resources can change this restriction. A destructive analyzer absorbs the measured photons; it need not preserve the detected Bell state.

The Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm identifies the coefficient string of a linear Boolean function with one Boolean quantum oracle call. It contrasts with the $n$ calls required by the classical query complexity of linear Boolean function identification. Prepare the data qubits at $|0{⟩}^{\otimes n}$ and an ancilla qubit at $|1⟩$, apply a Hadamard gate to every wire, query the function oracle, and apply the Hadamard gates again. The full output is $|a⟩|1⟩$.

The mechanism is Bernstein-Vazirani phase kickback. The Pauli X gate has eigenvector $|-⟩=(|0⟩-|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ with eigenvalue $-1$. Thus the target flips become relative quantum phases on the data, givingThe final Hadamard transform maps this product to $|a⟩$, so computational-basis measurement recovers every coefficient with certainty. The ancilla preparation for the Bernstein-Vazirani algorithm ensures the required minus sign, and the Hadamard-conjugated linear oracle gives an exact quantum circuit interpretation. One query is optimal for $n\ge 1$, since without a query the output cannot depend on the unknown string.

A Berry phase is the geometric phase acquired when a nondegenerate energy eigenstate follows a closed cycle of parameters of a Hamiltonian operator in the ideal limit of the adiabatic theorem. The energy eigenstate must stay separated from other energy eigenstates by a nonzero spectral gap, and the parameters must change sufficiently slowly. Returning the Hamiltonian operator to its starting value returns the state to the same ray, but its quantum phase can remember the journey. The total quantum phase contains both the dynamical phase and the Berry phase.

The beauty of the Berry phase is that, within the adiabatic theorem's limit, it depends on the oriented path of the parameters rather than how long the journey takes. For a spin one-half qubit, the Berry phase of a Bloch-sphere latitude turns that memory into half a solid angle. Berry-phase interference with a reference path converts this geometry into a detection probability.

Michael Berry's 1984 paper formulated the geometric phase for cycles governed by the adiabatic theorem and derived the solid angle result for spin. Its bibliographic details are Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, volume 392, pages 45–57, DOI 10.1098/rspa.1984.0023. ^[ref]; ^[ref]. The wider concept of geometric phase does not require every cycle to obey the adiabatic theorem: Aharonov and Anandan formulated a geometric phase for general cyclic quantum evolution in 1987. ^[ref].

An isolated qubit that acquires only a global phase has unchanged measurement probabilities. To reveal the Berry phase, use two coherent paths of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, represented by a path qubit. In one arm the internal spin one-half qubit follows the loop; in the reference arm it stays in its starting energy eigenstate. Assume equal arm amplitudes, identical final internal states, cancelled relative dynamical phases, and calibrated fixed apparatus phases. In the model above, hold the reference Hamiltonian operator at its initial value for the same duration. Both arms then have energy eigenvalue $-\Delta /2$ and acquire the same dynamical phase $\Delta T/(2\hslash )$, so their relative dynamical phase vanishes in the ideal limit of the adiabatic theorem.

The joint quantum state before recombination then factors asThe Berry phase is now a relative quantum phase between the two paths. The calibrated plus output projects onto $|+⟩=(|\mathrm{ref}⟩+|\mathrm{loop}⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. The Born rule givesFor the Berry phase of a Bloch-sphere latitude, the plus-port probabilities at $\theta =0,60^{\circ },90^{\circ },180^{\circ }$ are respectively $1,1/2,0,1$. This ideal Mach-Zehnder interferometer measurement cannot distinguish $\gamma$ from $-\gamma$ or $\gamma +2\pi$ by itself; scanning a known reference phase can resolve the sign. An uncancelled relative dynamical phase would shift the fringe as well.

Choose the computational basis $|0⟩=|{\uparrow }_z⟩$, $|1⟩=|{\downarrow }_z⟩$ for a spin one-half qubit. On the Bloch sphere, let $\mathbf{n}=(\sin \theta \cos \varphi ,\sin \theta \sin \varphi ,\cos \theta )$ and use the normalized quantum stateThis is the $+1$ eigenstate of $\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$, where $\mathbf{\sigma }$ are the Pauli matrices. To make it an instantaneous ground state, take the model Hamiltonian operator $H=-\Delta \mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }/2$ with constant $\Delta >0$. Its energy eigenvalues are $-\Delta /2$ and $+\Delta /2$, so its spectral gap is $\Delta$ everywhere. The spin points along $\mathbf{n}$; this explicit convention fixes the sign of the Berry phase.

Keep the polar angle $\theta$ fixed and increase the azimuth $\varphi$ from $0$ to $2\pi$, slowly enough for the adiabatic theorem. The state vector written above is periodic in $\varphi$. Directly differentiating givesThus the azimuthal Berry connection is $A_{\varphi }=-{\sin }^2(\theta /2)$ and its line integral isThe north polar cap has oriented solid angle $\Omega ={\int }_0^{2\pi }{\int }_0^{\theta }\sin \vartheta d\vartheta d\varphi =2\pi (1-\cos \theta )$, positive for increasing $\varphi$. Reversing the loop reverses the Berry phase. The opposite spin eigenstate has the opposite Berry phase modulo $2\pi$.

At $\theta =60^{\circ }$, the solid angle is $\pi$ and the Berry phase is $-\pi /2$. At $\theta =90^{\circ }$, the solid angle is $2\pi$ and the Berry phase is $-\pi$. At $\theta =0$, the loop collapses and $\gamma =0$. At $\theta =\pi$, the same expression gives $-2\pi \equiv 0$: the Bloch vector stays at the south pole, while this representative is $e^{i\varphi }|1⟩$. Its winding is only a choice of global phase, so the physically relevant phase factor is again one. The displayed formula is a continuous, unwrapped representative, not a unique real-valued observable.

Bi-Heng Liu helped design and implement an optical platform for quantum simulation that reproduced dephasing of a qubit coupled to a transverse-field Transverse-field Ising model, including different environmental phases.^[ref]

A physicist working on quantum information. Affiliation recorded at publication in 2018: University of Science and Technology of China, CAS Key Laboratory of Quantum Information.^[ref]

Store a Pauli group element with binary exponents $a_j,b_j$ and a phase exponent $s$ modulo four. This ordered $XZ$ convention uses $2n+2$ bits for $n$ qubits. Since $XZ=-iY$, phase factors are essential when converting to Hermitian Pauli operators and evaluating measurement probabilities.

The $m$-qubit bit-flip repetition code stores one logical qubit in $|0_L⟩=|0{⟩}^{\otimes m}$ and $|1_L⟩=|1{⟩}^{\otimes m}$. Its stabilizer generators are $Z_j{Z}_{j+1}$ for $j=1,\dots ,m-1$, and its logical operators are $\overline{X}=X_1\cdots X_m$ and $\overline{Z}=Z_1$. Interchanging the Pauli X gate and Pauli Z gate gives the phase-flip repetition code. For odd $m$, majority-vote decoding of a repetition code corrects up to $(m-1)/2$ physical Pauli X gate errors, assuming ideal operations and a noise family containing only these bit flips.

For $m=3$, prepare two quantum ancillas in $|00⟩$ and apply controlled-NOT gates from the input qubit to each of them. By linearity, encoding sendsThis does not produce $(\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩{)}^{\otimes 3}$, which would contain cross terms. For example, encoding $|+⟩=(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$ produces $(|000⟩+|111⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, whereas three independent copies would have eight equal computational basis amplitudes. The encoding creates quantum entanglement when both coefficients are nonzero and respects the no-cloning theorem.

The three-qubit bit-flip syndrome table corrects the family $\{I,X_1,X_2,X_3\}$ and its entire linear span, as specified by the Knill--Laflamme condition. It cannot correct arbitrary errors on one physical qubit: the phase flipcommutes with both checks and acts as logical $\overline{Z}$. In particular, it takes the encoded $|+⟩$ to the orthogonal encoded $|-⟩$ with error syndrome $00$. Thus its full quantum code distance is one, despite correcting one error of the restricted Pauli X gate type. The Shor code, Steane code and five-qubit error correcting code provide protection against arbitrary one-qubit errors.

The Bloch sphere is the unit sphere of Bloch vectors, corresponding to pure qubit states through $\rho =(I+\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma })/2$. A local unitary change of qubit basis induces a rotation of this sphere, with its common phase physically irrelevant. Mixed states occupy the interior of the unit ball.

Applying the amplitude damping channel to the Bloch vector form of a qubit density operator gives an affine map. Transverse components contract by $\sqrt{1-p}$; the longitudinal component contracts by $1-p$ and shifts toward the ground-state north pole. Reading the entries of the output density operator proves the map. The displacement distinguishes this channel from centered depolarization.

The Born rule connects a quantum state to measurement probabilities. Let $\{|j⟩\}$ be a complete orthonormal basis, finite or countably infinite, for a Hilbert space, and letAn ideal measurement distinguishing these basis vectors returns label $j$ with probabilityThis assignment is a physical measurement rule. Its compatibility with total probability one follows from orthonormality and normalization:The probabilities are the squared moduli, not the amplitudes themselves or the squares $a_j^2$. ^[ref].

If the basis is an eigenbasis of an observable, the reported numerical value is its eigenvalue. Several vectors can share one eigenvalue; the probability of that value is then the sum over the corresponding basis labels. More generally, a projective measurement with orthogonal projections $P_r$ assignsfor a pure state and a general density matrix $\rho$, respectively. This also covers mixed states and degenerate eigenspaces. The Born rule determines outcome statistics; the ideal conditional state change is specified separately by the Lüders rule. See projective measurement for that formulation and its assumptions. ^[ref].

For a worked example, take the normalized qubit quantum stateThe squared moduli add to $3/4+1/4=1$. A computational-basis measurement, equivalently a measurement of the $Z$ Pauli matrix, hasThese probabilities do not depend on the relative quantum phase $\varphi$. Now choose the Hadamard basiswhose vectors are eigenstates of the $X$ Pauli matrix, also used by the Pauli X gate. The new probability amplitudes and probabilities areBoth probabilities are nonnegative and their sum is one. The relative quantum phase becomes visible because the two probability amplitudes add before their squared modulus is taken:

A Hadamard gate followed by a computational-basis measurement realizes these $X$ statistics, since $H|\pm ⟩=|0⟩,|1⟩$, respectively. Compare the two bases using fresh, identically prepared copies: a preceding measurement may change the state. The quantum superposition section shows why replacing the preparation by the mixed state $\mathrm{diag}(3/4,1/4)$ keeps the $Z$ statistics but gives $p_{+}=p_{-}=1/2$ for every $\varphi$.

The usefulness of the Born rule is this conversion from linear algebra to experimental predictions: calculate overlaps in the basis actually measured, then take squared moduli. Its appealing geometry is that changing basis redistributes probability while preserving total squared norm. The same rule relates an energy eigenstate expansion to an energy measurement and a position wavefunction to a probability density.

Born's 1926 paper on quantum scattering interpreted the outgoing-wave coefficients in terms of the probabilities of collision outcomes; a corrective footnote specified proportionality to the square of the amplitude. This is a historical scattering formulation, rather than the general density matrix formula above. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

The Bose--Marletto--Vedral experiment is a family of proposals to test gravitationally induced entanglement between initially independent masses. Sougato Bose and collaborators, and independently Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral, described the idea in 2017. Each mass occupies two distinguishable spatial branches, encoding a qubit. Different branch separations give different Newtonian gravitational potential energies and hence different relative phases.^[ref]

For stationary branches at separations $r_{ab}$ held for duration $\tau$, the ideal model givesThe positive phase follows from negative Newtonian gravitational potential energy in $e^{-iV\tau /\hslash }$. A direct algebraic check separates local rephasing from genuine entanglement: the determinant of the two-by-two coefficient matrix vanishes exactly whenThus a large common phase alone is insufficient. For this ideal pure state, the concurrence is $|\sin (\Delta \varphi /2)|$, reaching one at an odd multiple of $\pi$.

The spin-based proposal uses two Stern-Gerlach interferometers: embedded spins label the spatial branches, the masses interact, and recombination transfers the branch information into measurable spin correlations. Measurements in different spin bases supply an entanglement witness. Unwanted electromagnetic interactions and quantum decoherence must be controlled for the gravitational interpretation.^[ref]

The mediator inference assumes initially unentangled systems, local coupling through a mediator, and no other entangling interaction. Under those assumptions, a mediator described only by commuting observables cannot generate the observed entanglement; at least two incompatible observables are required. This is an indirect test of nonclassical mediation, without selecting a complete high-energy theory of quantum gravity.^[ref]