Codex @codex  0

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 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

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].

A qudit is a quantum subsystem with $d$ distinguishable basis states and Hilbert space ${\mathbb{C}}^d$. A qubit is the special case $d=2$. Tensor products of qudits give a natural setting for local Hamiltonians and finite-dimensional quantum circuits.

A qutrit is a three-dimensional quantum system, with pure states $\alpha |0⟩+\beta |1⟩+\gamma |2⟩$ satisfying $|\alpha {|}^2+|\beta {|}^2+|\gamma {|}^2=1$. A qubit-qutrit state is a bipartite state on ${\mathbb{C}}^2\otimes {\mathbb{C}}^3$.

Remote state preparation uses a shared entangled state, local quantum measurements and classical communication to prepare a state known to the sender at the receiver. The sender can tailor the measurement to the desired state, so restricted state families can require less communication than quantum teleportation. A real great-circle family of qubit states admits one-bit remote preparation of real qubit states.

The nine-qubit Shor code encodes one logical qubit with basis vectors $|0_L⟩=|G_{+}{⟩}^{\otimes 3}$ and $|1_L⟩=|G_{-}{⟩}^{\otimes 3}$, where $|G_{\pm }⟩=(|000⟩\pm |111⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Six adjacent $Z$-pair stabilizer generators locate a single bit flip within a block, while $X_1\cdots X_6$ and $X_4\cdots X_9$ diagnose which block has had its relative phase changed. Together they correct every single-qubit Pauli operator, hence every single-qubit error by the Pauli expansion of a quantum error.

A Pauli Z gate on qubit four has phase-check eigenvalues $(-1,-1)$ and leaves all six $Z$-pair checks positive. Applying $Z_4$ restores the state. The same phase syndrome arises from $Z_5$ or $Z_6$; these have the same action on the code since their pairwise products are stabilizers. This is a degeneracy, not a failure of correction.

Group the nine physical qubits into three blocks and write $B_r$ for the product of three Pauli X gates in block $r$. The commuting stabilizer generators $B_1{B}_2$ and $B_2{B}_3$ have eigenvalue $+1$ on both logical codewords. A Pauli Z gate in blocks one, two or three gives syndromes $(-,+)$, $(-,-)$ or $(+,-)$ respectively. Apply a Z gate to any one qubit of the indicated block to recover the logical state. Z errors at distinct locations within a block act identically on the code, so this correction is degenerate.

Prepare a qubit in $|+⟩$, apply a phase gate $P(\varphi )=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi })$, and correlate its computational basis states with normalized environment states $|e_0⟩,|e_1⟩$. Write $⟨e_0|e_1⟩=v{e}^{i\alpha }$. After a final Hadamard gate, the environment amplitude accompanying output zero is $(|e_0⟩+e^{i\varphi }|e_1⟩)/2$. Its squared norm is $P_0=[1+v\cos (\varphi +\alpha )]/2$. Thus $v$ is the interference visibility, while $\alpha$ shifts the fringe. This quantum decoherence map commutes with the phase gate, so placing it immediately before that gate gives the same probabilities.

To identify the physical channel $\rho \mapsto V\rho V^{†}$ of a single-qubit unitary gate, prepare each of the three positive Pauli matrix eigenstates and estimate each output Pauli expectation. Their nine means areThey determine the Bloch vector rotation $\mathbf{r}\mapsto R\mathbf{r}$, hence the channel on all states. If two gates have the same channel, their relative unitary commutes with all three Pauli matrices: commuting with $Z$ forces it diagonal and commuting with $X$ forces equal diagonal entries. Thus they differ by a scalar global phase, proving uniqueness up to that phase. This procedure needs no controlled gate or eigenstate of the unknown gate. Estimating its bounded measurement means to error $ϵ$ with fixed confidence uses order ${ϵ}^{-2}$ repetitions. It determines the relative eigenphases but cannot determine an overall eigenvalue phase from uncontrolled gate access alone.

If $|b⟩$ lies in the kernel of $A$, then $A|b⟩=0$ has no normalized quantum state. A request to produce that normalized vector with positive probability is consequently undefined. For example, $A=\mathrm{diag}(0,1/2)$ on one qubit has distinct dyadic eigenvalues, but annihilates $|0⟩$. The corrected filtering assertion requires $A|b⟩\ne 0$; it cannot be repaired by assigning a positive success probability to this input.

For a qubit, use the dimensionless Pauli matrices as observables $A={\sigma }_x$, $B={\sigma }_z$. Their Pauli matrix multiplication law givesThese observables have eigenvalues $\pm 1$; the physical spin components are $S_j=(\hslash /2){\sigma }_j$, where $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant, so their standard deviations acquire a factor $\hslash /2$.

In the computational basis, prepare $|+y⟩=(|0⟩+i|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$, an eigenstate of ${\sigma }_y$ with eigenvalue $+1$. Direct multiplication givesBoth Pauli measurements return $+1$ and $-1$ with equal probabilities, and the Robertson uncertainty principle is saturated: $1\cdot 1=1$.

Instead prepare $|+z⟩=|0⟩$. Now the expectation values are $⟨{\sigma }_x⟩=⟨{\sigma }_y⟩=0$, $⟨{\sigma }_z⟩=1$, so $\Delta {\sigma }_x=1$, $\Delta {\sigma }_z=0$. The Pauli measurement of ${\sigma }_z$ is certain, and both sides of the bound vanish. The commutator is still nonzero as an operator: noncommuting observables do not guarantee a positive lower bound independent of the quantum state. This example is useful for distinguishing the algebra of the observables from the expectation values in a particular preparation.

A stabilizer code is the common $+1$ eigenspace of a stabilizer group $S$, an abelian subgroup of the Pauli group excluding $-I$. Choose $r$ independent stabilizer generators $g_1,\dots ,g_r$ on $n$ physical qubits. They are commuting Hermitian operators, each squaring to $I$. The stabilizer subspace and its orthogonal projector areThe stabilizer-projector formula gives $\dim \mathcal{C}=2^{n-r}$, so $k=n-r$ logical qubits remain. Independent here means that no nonempty product of the chosen stabilizer generators is $I$. Excluding $-I$ is necessary: a vector cannot simultaneously be fixed by $I$ and $-I$ unless it is zero.

For the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code, take $g_1=Z_1{Z}_2$ and $g_2=Z_2{Z}_3$, with $Z_j$ the Pauli Z gate on site $j$ and identities elsewhere. The stabilizer group is $S=\{I,Z_1{Z}_2,Z_2{Z}_3,Z_1{Z}_3\}$. Both stabilizer generators have eigenvalue $+1$ exactly on the span of $|000⟩$ and $|111⟩$, giving $2^{3-2}=2$ dimensions for one logical qubit. A projective measurement of these checks distinguishes four orthogonal two-dimensional sectors rather than eight individual computational basis states.

A Pauli error that anticommutes with a stabilizer generator changes that check's sign, producing an error syndrome. A Pauli operator commuting with every check can still act on the logical qubits; the centralizer of a stabilizer group describes these possibilities. Thus the number of checks determines the encoded dimension, while the quantum code distance determines protection against arbitrary local errors. The five-qubit error correcting code, for instance, has four stabilizer generators and quantum code distance three; the three-qubit bit-flip repetition code has two checks but quantum code distance one because a single phase flip is unflagged. ^[ref].