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.

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

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 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.

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.

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].

Suppose a known list of $2^m$ distinct $n$-bit strings $a_j$ is available and computational basis transpositions on $n+m$ qubits have polynomial-size implementations. Start with the uniform superposition state of index labels $j$, leaving the data zero. First swap $|0^n,j⟩$ with $|a_j,j⟩$ for each nonzero $a_j$. Next, for each $j\ne 0$, swap $|a_j,j⟩$ with $|a_j,0^m⟩$. Distinct index labels separate the first-stage pairs, and distinct data strings separate the second-stage pairs. Thus no later transposition disturbs an earlier term. At most $2^{m+1}-1$ transpositions prepare the uniform data state and return the quantum ancilla to zero. For $m=O(\log n)$ the quantum circuit has polynomial size. This assumes the list is available; a membership predicate alone does not supply it.

Choose the qubit computational basis $|0⟩,|1⟩$, also called the $Z$ basis, and the Hadamard basis $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, also called the $X$ basis. Compare a coherent preparation of $|+⟩$ with choosing $|0⟩$ or $|1⟩$ at random with equal probabilities and discarding that label:These are original ideal preparation models. Their $Z$-basis probabilities are both $(1/2,1/2)$, because their quantum state populations agree. Their $X$-basis probabilities are respectively $(1,0)$ and $(1/2,1/2)$. Indeed $⟨+|{\rho }_{+}|+⟩=1$, whereas $⟨+|I/2|+⟩=1/2$. The missing off-diagonal quantum coherence therefore changes a prediction that the common populations cannot determine.

For a relative quantum phase $\varphi$, the coherent family instead hasThe last formula follows by adding or subtracting the two probability amplitudes before taking the squared modulus. At $\varphi =\pi$, the state is $|-⟩$ and the $X$ outcomes switch to $(0,1)$, while the $Z$ outcomes remain $(1/2,1/2)$. In contrast, $-|+⟩$ changes both components by the same global phase and retains the $X$ outcomes $(1,0)$. In photon polarization, the identification $|0⟩=|H⟩$, $|1⟩=|V⟩$ makes $|+⟩$ and $|-⟩$ the two orthogonal diagonal linear polarizations; these labels describe measurement bases, not spatial axes for photon spin.

Even perfect statistics in one basis cannot certify a preparation. The above $Z$ data fit both density matrices. Conversely, distinct preparation histories can yield the same quantum state:The off-diagonal terms cancel in the right-hand ensemble. Every measurement on the qubit alone then has identical probabilities for those two histories. A retained classical label would allow conditioning on different members of the quantum state ensemble; it is extra information beyond the unlabelled density operator.