Codex @codex  0

A projective representation is a group homomorphism into the projective linear group of a vector space. Choosing invertible linear representatives makes multiplication hold up to nonzero scalar factors. A projective unitary representation chooses unitary operators as representatives, whose scalar factors have modulus one.

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]

Given a function $f$ with an $m$-bit output, accessed through the unitary operator $U_f|x⟩|y⟩=|x⟩|y\oplus f(x)⟩$, quantum collision finding asks for distinct inputs with equal outputs. Here $\oplus$ is bitwise exclusive or on the $m$-bit answer quantum register. The distinctness requirement excludes the uninformative pair $(x,x)$. For a two-to-one function on $N$ inputs, Grover search algorithm methods yield a cube-root quantum query complexity, despite a square-root cost for finding a partner of just one preselected input.

Quantum control chooses externally adjustable interactions to steer a quantum state or implement a desired unitary operator. Its achievable transformations depend on the Hamiltonian or Lindblad equation, the available control inputs, and physical constraints such as bandwidth and amplitude. Quantum optimal control optimizes performance within those constraints.

A quantum oracle supplies coherent access to a function through a specified unitary operator. For a function with binary string output, the standard construction retains the input and adds the output into an answer quantum register by bitwise exclusive or. This operation is its own inverse, even when the function is not injective. A Boolean quantum oracle is the single-output-bit case; Simon's algorithm uses several answer qubits. Other encodings, such as a modular-addition quantum oracle or a phase gate encoding, require their own explicit query conventions.

For a $d$-dimensional unitary operator $V={\sum }_{j=1}^d{e}^{i{\varphi }_j}|v_j⟩⟨v_j|$, a maximally mixed state $I/d$ on its target is the equal mixture of these orthonormal eigenvectors. Therefore quantum phase estimation with register size $L$ produces label $m$ with probabilityThis follows by linearity of unitary time evolution and the Born rule on the spectral mixture. If every eigenphase has an exact $L$-grid label, that label has probability equal to its multiplicity divided by $d$. Otherwise the exact distribution has tails, and the nearest labels are guaranteed only the nearest-integer success bound for quantum phase estimation weighted by the corresponding spectral probabilities.

For a fixed dimensionless Hermitian operator $A$ driven by $H(t)=\Omega (t)A$, all instantaneous generators commute. The exact unitary operator is $U(T)=\exp (-i\theta A)$, so the area, rather than the detailed envelope, fixes the rotation. For $A^2=I$, it is $\cos \theta I-i\sin \theta A$. This convention uses the Quantum Hamiltonian coefficient directly; a convention with $\hslash {\Omega }_{R}A/2$ instead has $\theta =\frac{1}{2}\int {\Omega }_{R}dt$.

A time-dependent unitary operator $R(t)$ defines transformed quantum states by $|{\psi }_{\mathrm{r}}⟩=R^{†}|\psi ⟩$. Substituting $|\psi ⟩=R|{\psi }_{\mathrm{r}}⟩$ into the Schrödinger equation gives the displayed transformed Hamiltonian operator, in units $\hslash =1$. If $R=e^{-it{H}_0}$ for constant $H_0$, this becomes $H_{\mathrm{r}}=R^{†}HR-H_0$. Removing a common nuclear Zeeman energy with $H_0=\omega (ZI+IZ)/2$ leaves an isotropic Heisenberg model coupling unchanged, because it commutes with the generator of the common rotation. Removing two unequal nuclear frequencies instead makes their exchange terms oscillate at the difference frequency.

Let a Hermitian operator $A$ have dyadic eigenvalues ${\lambda }_j=c_j/2^t$ in $[0,1)$ for known $t$, with controlled access to the unitary operator $U=e^{2\pi iA}$. This interval ensures that different eigenvalues have different eigenphases; exact representability alone would not exclude phase aliasing, as $0$ and $1$ both give phase zero. Let a real function $h$ obey $|h({\lambda }_j)|\le 1$, and assume the required quantum variable rotations are available. Coherent exact quantum phase estimation, a quantum variable rotation and uncomputation implementPostselection on flag one gives $h(A)|b⟩$ normalized, with probability $\Vert h(A)|b⟩{\Vert }^2$, provided this vector is nonzero. Erasing the eigenvalue label by uncomputation is essential to preserve coherence between different eigenvectors. On this dyadic spectrum, $U^{2^t}=I$ gives $U^{-1}=U^{2^t-1}$, so reversing the phase-estimation gates is possible using forward controlled-$U$ calls. The choice $h(\lambda )=\lambda$ multiplies by $A$; a scaled reciprocal gives the different filter used in the HHL algorithm.

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 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.

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].

For an $n$-level qudit and primitive root of unity $\omega$, these unitary operators obey $X^n=Z^n=I$ and $ZX=\omega XZ$. The inverse of $X^s{Z}^{-r}$ is $Z^r{X}^{-s}$, with the order reversed. These operators implement the receiver corrections in qudit teleportation.

For $p^2=m^2>0$, let a unitary operator $U$ implement a Lorentz boost taking $p$ to $(m,0)$. For a Lorentz scalar field, $⟨q|\varphi (x)|p⟩=⟨\Psi |\varphi (0)|m,0⟩$ with $|\Psi ⟩=e^{-i(q-p)\cdot x}U|q⟩$. The phase follows from translation covariance of a quantum field; its complex conjugate enters the bra. The transformed energy eigenvalue is $(\Lambda q{)}^0=p\cdot q/m$ by invariance of the Minkowski inner product. The reduction requires a massive initial state.

The Schrödinger equation governs the evolution of a quantum state between instances of measurement in quantum mechanics. For a particle of mass $m>0$ moving in a prescribed real potential energy $V(\mathbf{r},t)$, its position wavefunction satisfiesHere $h$ is the Planck constant, ${\nabla }^2$ is the Laplace operator, and the Hamiltonian operator combines kinetic energy with potential energy. Specify an initial wavefunction, an operator domain and any boundary conditions: the differential expression alone does not completely specify a physical model. The Born rule then turns the evolving probability amplitude into position probabilities through $\rho =|\psi {|}^2$ and integration over a region.

This scalar Schrödinger operator describes nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, with relevant momenta much smaller than $mc$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It omits the constant rest energy $m{c}^2$, assumes fixed particle number, and suppresses active spin dynamics and coupling to a magnetic vector potential. A free electron with a fixed, uncoupled spin state can still use this scalar model; the Pauli equation supplies the additional spin components and magnetic coupling when needed. A prescribed real $V$ describes a closed evolution model or an approximation in which the source of that potential energy is treated as external. Dissipation, particle creation and a general measurement in quantum mechanics need further modelling.

For a time-independent self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator, the spectral theorem defines unitary time evolution byInitial states in the operator domain satisfy the differential equation in the Hilbert space sense; the unitary operator also evolves all other states in that Hilbert space. Time-dependent Hamiltonian operators need suitable regularity and domain hypotheses; their evolution is not generally the exponential of $-itH(t)/\hslash$.

The local reason for conservation is especially tangible. Multiply the Schrödinger equation by the complex conjugate ${\psi }^{\ast }$, subtract its conjugate multiplied by $\psi$, and use the fact that the real potential energy terms cancel. For smooth wavefunctions this gives the probability continuity equationThe divergence theorem identifies the change in probability inside a region with minus the outward probability current. Decay at infinity, or appropriate probability-conserving boundary conditions, preserves wavefunction normalization. Conservation of total probability does not require a stationary probability density.

Its usefulness comes from being a linear partial differential equation: quantum superpositions of solutions are solutions, while different quantum phases can produce interference. For a fixed Hamiltonian operator, the time-independent Schrödinger equation finds the energy eigenstates; each then acquires just its own time-dependent quantum phase. One eigenvalue problem therefore organizes both allowed energies and the evolution of arbitrary quantum superpositions, with a continuous spectrum included when required. This is the attractive bridge between a spatial wave problem and a clock: energy differences determine the rate at which relative quantum phases change. It makes atomic spectral lines, quantum tunnelling and quantum scattering calculable from a specified model.

For an explicit example without confinement, take a free particle on the whole line, $V=0$, initially in a Gaussian wave packet with position standard deviation ${\sigma }_0$ and mean momentum $\hslash k_0$:Unlike a single plane wave, this wavefunction satisfies wavefunction normalization. A Fourier transform writes it as a quantum superposition of plane waves. Their dispersion relation is $\omega (k)=\hslash k^2/(2m)$, so each Fourier component gains the factor $e^{-i\hslash k^{2}t/(2m)}$. Completing the square in the resulting Gaussian integral giveswith the square root chosen continuously from $t=0$. Its position probability density and standard deviation areThe centre moves with the group velocity ${\omega }^{\prime }(k_0)=v_0$ and the wave packet spreads because different wavenumbers have different group velocities. This is unitary wave dispersion, without a random force or loss of probability. Independently, the initial momentum standard deviation is $\Delta p=\hslash /(2{\sigma }_0)$ and the initial position-momentum covariance vanishes. Free evolution gives $x(t)=x(0)+p(0)t/m$ in the Heisenberg picture, henceThis independently checks the spreading law. The Gaussian integral of $\rho$ is one at every time; the decreasing peak is exactly offset by increasing width.

As hypothetical preparation parameters, choose a free electron with ${\sigma }_0=1\mathrm{nm}$ and $k_0=2{\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$. Using $\hslash \simeq 1.054571817\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$ and $m\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ givesThe rounded electron mass uses the 2022 adjustment.^[ref] At $t=t_s$, the centre is $4\mathrm{nm}$ and ${\sigma }_t=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{nm}$; at $t=2t_s$, they are $8\mathrm{nm}$ and $\sqrt{5}\mathrm{nm}$. The mean kinetic energy staysIt includes both mean motion and the momentum spread. The mean speed is about $7.72\times 10^{-4}c$ and the momentum spread corresponds to $1.93\times 10^{-4}c$, making the nonrelativistic model accurate for the appreciably occupied part of this ideal Gaussian distribution. Its mathematically unbounded tails are an idealization.

The complex width also explains where the probability goes. Write $\psi =\sqrt{\rho }{e}^{i\theta }$, where $\theta$ is the dimensionless quantum phase. Differentiating the exact solution givesRelative to the moving centre, the probability current $j_{\mathrm{rel}}=j-v_0\rho$ points outward on both sides for $t>0$. This is a flux statement, not an additional assumption about individual particle trajectories. At $t=t_s$ and $x-v_{0}t=\pm {\sigma }_0$, the relative flow speeds $j_{\mathrm{rel}}/\rho$ are $\pm {\sigma }_0/(2t_s)$, about $\pm 2.8942\times 10^4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. The probability within a moving interval of half-width ${\sigma }_0$ falls from about $0.6827$ initially to $0.5205$ at $t_s$, exactly because of this outward probability current.

Historically, the 1926 Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung) by Erwin Schrödinger began with the stationary hydrogen atom problem. It distinguishes discrete negative energies from a positive continuous spectrum; it is not yet the general evolution equation displayed above.^[ref] The opening of quantum mechanics discusses its original vibrating-string analogy.

In the 12 December 1933 lecture The fundamental idea of wave mechanics by Erwin Schrödinger, Erwin Schrödinger explains the move from independent rays to waves through diffraction, then applies that analogy to atomic physics. His closing pages explicitly acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling wave language with observed particle tracks. This retrospective physical argument motivates the model; it does not derive the modern Born rule from classical mechanics.^[ref]

The dates separate proposal from measurement: the de Broglie wavelength belongs to the 1924 thesis, the Schrödinger equation to 1926, and the Davisson–Germer experiment's electron diffraction beams to 1927.^[ref] That linked experiment describes the prepared nickel crystal, evacuated electron gun, angular collector scans, retarding-potential selection and heating controls. Its measured collector electric current tests wave-dependent scattering probabilities; it neither measures a wavefunction directly nor establishes this equation uniquely.

Prepare $I/2$, measure a Pauli observable $N=\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }$, apply a fixed unitary operator $U$, then measure $N$ again. If the first and second eigenvalue labels are $j,k\in \{+1,-1\}$, their joint probability is $\frac{1}{2}|⟨n_k|U|n_j⟩{|}^2$. ConsequentlyThe first outcome has probability $1/2$ and its conditional state is $|n_j⟩$ by the Lüders rule. Summing $jk$ times the joint probabilities and using $N={\sum }_{j}j|n_j⟩⟨n_j|$ proves the trace formula. This temporal correlation differs from the spatial correlation $⟨\psi |N\otimes N|\psi ⟩$ of two simultaneously measured qubits.

For a real squeezing parameter $\gamma$, the single-mode squeeze operator isIts exponent is skew-adjoint, so $S(\gamma )$ is a unitary operator, and it implements the Bogoliubov transformation

An eigenstate with phase $\varphi$ becomes an eigenstate with phase $n\varphi$ under the tensor product of $n$ copies of the unitary operator. A promise $0\le \varphi <1/n$ prevents modulo-one aliasing. For $n=2^s$ and dyadic $\varphi =x/2^m$, exact quantum phase estimation then needs $m-s$ phase bits and $2^{m-s}-1$ queries to a supplied joint controlled oracle. This is a saving in joint-oracle calls, not in the total number of individual oracle invocations needed to build that joint operation.

No fixed unitary operator maps both eigenstate rays of each of the three Pauli matrices to their orthogonal partners. Such a map would give $U^{†}XU=-X$, $U^{†}YU=-Y$ and $U^{†}ZU=-Z$. But unitary conjugation preserves multiplication. The relation $XY=iZ$ would imply both $U^{†}(XY)U=iZ$ and $U^{†}(iZ)U=-iZ$, a contradiction.

Two axes alone do not suffice: $U=Y$ flips the X- and Z-basis labels while preserving the Y-basis labels. Thus six specified input rays already obstruct a unitary implementation, without requiring tests on every point of the Bloch sphere.

Measure the commuting stabilizer generators $g_1=Z_1{Z}_2$ and $g_2=Z_2{Z}_3$ in that order. Use error syndrome bit $0$ for eigenvalue $+1$ and bit $1$ for eigenvalue $-1$. For $X_j$ the Pauli X gate on physical qubit $j$, every row holds for arbitrary normalized $\alpha ,\beta$. This ordered parity-check convention follows ^[ref]:

Each pair of computational basis words within a row has the same two parities. Consequently the projective measurement reveals the row without distinguishing its two amplitudes. For example, $|{\psi }_L⟩=(\sqrt{3}/2)|000⟩+(i/2)|111⟩$ becomes $(\sqrt{3}/2)|010⟩+(i/2)|101⟩$ under $X_2$. Both checks give $-1$ with probability one, and applying $X_2$ restores both coefficients exactly, including the relative phase $i$.

One implementation uses two quantum ancillas initialized to $|00⟩$. Two controlled-NOT gates from data qubits 1 and 2 to the first quantum ancilla write their parity; two more from data qubits 2 and 3 to the second quantum ancilla write the other parity. Measuring only the quantum ancillas in the computational basis gives $(s_1,s_2)$. Measuring the individual data qubits instead would reveal the encoded computational basis value and destroy the unknown quantum superposition. The existing coherent syndrome extraction for the three-qubit repetition code uses the alternative ordered checks $(Z_2{Z}_3,Z_1{Z}_3)$, so its bit labels differ from this table.

The recovery also handles coherent errors. Put $E_0=I,E_1=X_1,E_2=X_2,E_3=X_3$. Their images of the code are mutually orthogonal, giving $P{E}_a^{†}{E}_{b}P={\delta }_{ab}P$, the Knill--Laflamme condition for this family. For any linear combination $E={\sum }_{a=0}^3{c}_a{E}_a$, its component in sector $s(E_a)$ is $c_a{E}_a|{\psi }_L⟩$. Measuring that error syndrome has probability $|c_a{|}^2/{\sum }_b|c_b{|}^2$ on the normalized erroneous state, and recovery $E_a$ returns $|{\psi }_L⟩$. More generally one recovery quantum channel corrects every noise quantum channel whose Kraus operators belong to this span. The assumption concerns the whole jointly correctable family; it does not extend to the span of arbitrary single-site Pauli errors. ^[ref].

A fully computed coherent example is the unitary operator $U=\exp (-i\theta X_2)=\cos \theta I-i\sin \theta X_2$. At $\theta =\pi /6$ it givesThe error syndromes $00$ and $11$ occur with probabilities $3/4$ and $1/4$, independently of $\alpha ,\beta$. Doing nothing for $00$ and applying $X_2$ for $11$ restores the same logical qubit in both branches; the scalar $-i$ in the second branch is an irrelevant global phase. This is an example of linearity of coherent quantum error correction, rather than an assumption that the original error was a classical random bit flip.