* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Quantum Dynamics as Generalized Conditional Probabilities
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Quantum decoherence wikipedia , lookup
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Orchestrated objective reduction wikipedia , lookup
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Measurement in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Many-worlds interpretation wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Quantum Dynamics as Generalized Conditional Probabilities M. S. Leifer QS2006, Malta (13th July 2006) Quantum Theory as a Meta-theory The analogy is based on quantum measurement theory.... Classical Deterministic Theory apply probability theory Probabilistic Theory quantize Quantum Theory ...but QT is not as abstract as PT. Quantization cannot be applied to an arbitrary theory. Causal structure is present in QT, but absent from PT. Classical Probability vs. Quantum Theory Classical Quantum Probability distribution: P (X) Joint distribution: Transition matrix: Conditional Prob.: P (X, Y ) ΓY |X P (Y |X) Quantum State: ρA Joint State: ρAB TPCP map: EB|A ? Why quantum conditional probability? Conditional probabilities allow all types of correlation to be treated on an equal footing, whether timelike, spacelike or completely abstract. Causal relations are not primitive in probability theory. Some classical probabilistic structures are defined in terms of conditional probability. Markov Chains Bayesian Net works Some Bayesians take conditional probability to be the most fundamental notion. See textbook by D. V. Lindley Outline 1. Introduction i. The Many faces of conditional probability ii. Suggestions for a quantum analog of conditional probability 2. Stochastic Dynamics as Conditional Probabilities 3. Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism 4. A New Isomorphism 5. Operational Interpretation 6. Application: Cloning, broadcasting & monogamy of entanglement 7. Future Directions 1. Introduction (A) Reconstructing a joint distribution from a marginal P (X, Y ) = P (Y |X)P (X) (B) Bayesian Updating P (D|H)P (H) P (H|D) = P (D) (C) Stochastic Dynamics P (Y = i) = !" j ΓY |X # ij P (X = j) (D) Conditional Shannon Entropy ! H(Y |X) = − P (X, Y ) log2 P (Y |X) X,Y (E) Reduction of complexity via conditional independence P (Y |X, Z) = P (Y |Z) ⇔ P (X, Y, Z) = P (X|Z)P (Y |Z)P (Z) 1. Introduction (A) Reconstruction of a joint state ρAB from a marginal ρA . (B) Updating quantum states after a measurement ρ|M E M (ρ) = Tr (M ρ) (C) TPCP dynamics ρB = EB|A (ρA ) (D) Conditional von Neumann Entropy ! S(B|A) = −Tr ρAB log2 ρB|A " (E) Reduction of complexity via conditional independence 1. Introduction Cerf & Adami (‘97-’99): = ρB|A = 2log2 ρAB −log2 ρA ⊗IB " ! 1 1 n n lim ρAB (ρA ⊗ IB ) n n→∞ (A) Reconstruction: ρAB = 2log2 ρA ⊗IB +log2 ρB|A (C) Entropy: ! S(B|A) = S(A, B) − S(A) = −Tr ρAB log2 ρB|A " (E) Complexity Reduction: If log2 ρB|AC = IA ⊗ log2 ρB|C ρABC = 2 IAB ⊗log2 ρC +log2 ρA|C ⊗IB +IA ⊗log2 ρB|C 1. Introduction (B) Updating: M = {M }, M > 0, POVM: ρ|M Update CP-map: E (ρ) = M =I M P (M ) = Tr (M ρ) Probability Rule: M ! ! j E M (ρ) = Tr (M ρ) M† M Aj ρAj ! M† M Aj Aj =M j M depends on details of system-measuring device interaction. E 1. Introduction Is there one update rule that is more “Bayes’ rule like” than the rest? Traditionally (see Bub ’77 for projective measurements): √ √ Mρ M = Tr (M ρ) ρ|M According to Fuchs (’01, ’02): ρ|M √ √ ρM ρ = Tr (M ρ) Both reduce to Bayes’ rule when the M are projection operators and [M , ρ] = 0 2. Dynamics as conditional probability (a) (b) Y (c) Y ΓY |X ΓX|Y X P (Y ) = Y ΓX|Z X ! X ΓY |Z Z ΓY |X P (X) P (X, Y ) G. 1: Distinct ways in which a general joint probability distribution P (X, Y ) may arise. (a) X is the cause of Y . X ! neration of Y must be in the temporal future of the generation of X. For example, Y may be the result of sending X thro Y )be in the temp Pchannel (X, Ydescribed ) = Γby P (X) matrix ΓY |X . (b) Y is the cause ofPX.(X) oisy a stochastic The = generationPof(X, X must Y |X ure of the generation of Y . For example, X may be the result of sending Y through a noisy channel described by a stoch Y trix ΓX|Y . (c) X and Y are the result of some common cause, described by a random variable Z. They may be observe r acelike separation from one another, provided the points where this happens are both in the forward lightcone of the p Y |X ere Z was generated. P (Y |X) = Γ P (X, Y ) P (Y |X) = P (X) r a density operator ρA at t1 and then subjecting the system In the quantum case, this is analogous to preparing (P (X), Γ |Xto ) obtain ⇔ aPdensity (X, Yoperator ) Isomorphism: dynamical evolution according to a TPCP map EYB|A ρB = EB|A (ρA ) at t2 . Classically, there is no reason not to consider the two-time joint probability distribution P (X, Y ) that results f 2. Dynamics as conditional probability (a) (b) B (c) A B B EA|B EB|A A Source: τAB A ρB = EB|A (ρA ) τAB τA = TrB (τAB ) ρAB =? r ρB|A , EB|A ,? τB|A =? ! r ρ , E Isomorphism: A B|A " ⇔ τAB ? 3. Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism For bipartite pure states and operators: RB|A = ! jk αjk |j!B "k|A ⇔ |Ψ!AB = ! jk αjk |k!A ⊗ |j!B For mixed states and CP-maps: EB|A (ρA ) = ! µ (µ) (µ)† RB|A ρA RB|A ⇒ τAB # ! "" (µ) = "Ψ µ AB $ " (µ) " Ψ " AB 3. Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism # ! +" 1 |j"A ⊗ |j"A! Let !Φ AA! = √ dA j Then τAB !" + # $ +" % = IA ⊗ EB|A! "Φ AA! Φ "AA! EB|A (ρA ) = 2 dA ! Φ " +" AA " +# " ! ! ρA ⊗ τ A B Φ AA! Operational interpretation: Noisy gate teleportation. 3. Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism Remarks: Isomorphism is basis dependent. ! +" A basis must be chosen to define !Φ If we restrict attention to Trace Preser ving CP-maps then 1 τA = TrB (τAB ) = IA dA This is a special case of the isomorphism we want to construct ! where r ρA , EB|A 1 ρA = IA . dA " ⇔ τAB AA! . 4. A New Isomorphism ! r ρA , EB|A " → τAB direction: ! +" 1 # +$ ! " ! T 2 Instead of Φ use |Φ! ! #Φ ⊗ I = ρ ! ! A AA A AA AA! r Then τAB = IA ⊗ EB|A! (|Φ"AA! #Φ|AA! ) ! " r τAB → ρA , EB|A direction: T Set ρA = τA , − 21 Let σB|A = τA σB|A τA = TrB (τAB ) ⊗ − 21 IB τAB τA is a density operator, satisfying It is uniquely associated to a TPCP map ⊗ IB ! " 1 TrB σB|A = r PA dA r EB|A : L (PA HA ) → L (HB ) via the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism. 4. A New Isomorphism 7 (b) (c) B (a) B τA A B r EB|A τAB Source: τAB A τA A T ρ A = τA n these diagrams, time flows up the page. Starting from (a), the space and time axes are interchanged and the diagram hed out” to arrive at (b). This does not describe a possible experiment, since we cannot send system A backwards in 5. Operational Interpretation Reminder about measurements: M = {M }, M > 0, POVM: ρ|M Update CP-map: E (ρ) = M =I M P (M ) = Tr (M ρ) Probability Rule: M ! ! j E M (ρ) = Tr (M ρ) M† M Aj ρAj ! M† M Aj Aj =M j M depends on details of system-measuring device interaction. E 5. Operational Interpretation Lemma: ρ = ! M P (M )ρ|M is an ensemble decomposition of a density matrix ρ iff there is a POVM M = {M } s.t. P (M ) = Tr (M ρ) Proof sketch: M = P (M )ρ ρ|M − 12 √ √ ρM ρ = Tr (M ρ) ρ|M ρ − 12 5. Operational Interpretation M M -measurement of ρ Input: ρ Measurement probabilities: ρ Updated state: ρ|M ρ P (M ) = Tr (M ρ) √ √ Mρ M = Tr (M ρ) M -preparation of ρ Input: Generate a classical r.v. with p.d.f M P (M ) = Tr (M ρ) Prepare the corresponding state: ρ|M √ √ ρM ρ = Tr (M ρ) 5. Operational Interpretation 9 (b) N -measurement (c) N -measurement (a) M A M -measurement N -measurement N N B B N B τA r EB|A τAB τAB P (M, N ) is the same in (a) and (c) for any POVMs M and N . A τA A T ρA = τA M M M -measurement M T -preparation of the isomorphism are useful for the applications that follow. Firstly, t l trace for tripartite states. To describe this, it is useful to introduce the 6. Application: Broadcasting & Monogamy r a linear map EBC|A : L(HA ) → L(HB ⊗ HC ). The reduced map EB|A For any TPCP map EBC|A : L (HA ) → L (HB ⊗ HC ) the e map with the partial reduced mapstrace, are: i.e. EB|A = TrC ◦ EB|A . r r (ρA , EBC|A ), the isomorphism can be used to arrive at a tripartite stat EB|A reduced = TrC ◦ state EBC|Aτ . EC|A = isTrthe B ◦E BC|A bipartite state gives the bipartite This same AB r ism to the pair (ρA , EB|A ). This is summarized in the following diagram: The following commutativity properties hold: ρABC TrC * ρAB r (ρA , EBC|A ) Tr * C r (ρA , EB|A ). ρAB , ρAC incompatible with being the Therefore, 2 states r tativity property concerns M -measurements. Starting with a pair (ρ , E A B reduced states of a global state ρABC . at a bipartite state τAB , and then an M -measurement can be applied t √ r r EB|Anormalization , EC|A incompatible reduced maps with being the admitted. reduced ⊗IB τAB M A2⊗I , where the factor has been Thi B r √ T maps of a global Tmap EBC|A . by first performing an M -measurement on ρA to obtain the pair ( M A 6. Application: Broadcasting & Monogamy A TPCP-map EA! A!! |A : L (HA ) → L (HA! ⊗ HA!! ) is broadcasting for a state ρA if EA! |A (ρA ) = ρA! EA!! |A (ρA ) = ρA!! A TPCP-map EA! A!! |A : L (HA ) → L (HA! ⊗ HA!! ) is cloning for a state ρA if EA! A!! |A (ρA ) = ρA! ⊗ ρA!! Note: For pure states cloning = broadcasting. A TPCP-map is universal broadcasting if it is broadcasting for every state. 6. Application: Broadcasting & Monogamy No cloning theorem (Dieks ’82, Wootters & Zurek ‘82): There is no map that is cloning for t wo nonorthogonal and nonidentical pure states. No broadcasting theorem (Barnum et. al. ‘96): There is no map that is broadcasting for t wo noncommuting density operators. Clearly, this implies no universal broadcasting as well. Note that the maps EA! |A , EA!! |A are valid individually, but they cannot be the reduced maps of a global map EA! A!! |A . 6. Application: Broadcasting & Monogamy The maps EA! |A , EA!! |A must be related to incompatible states τAA! , τAA!! Theorem: If EA! A!! |A is universal broadcasting, then both τAA! , τAA!! must be pure and maximally entangled. Ensemble broadcasting {(p, ρ1 ), ((1 − p), ρ2 )} s.t. [ρ1 , ρ2 ] != 0 ! " r pρ1 + (1 − p)ρ2 , EA ⇔ τAA! A!! ! A!! |A Theorem: There is a local operation on A that transforms both τAA! and τAA!! into pure, entangled states with nonzero probability of success. 7. Future Directions Quantitative relations bet ween approximate ensemble broadcasting and monogamy inequalities for entanglement. More generally, useful in analyzing any qinfo protocol involving the action of a TPCP-map on a particular ensemble rather than the whole Hilbert space. Can the various analogs of conditional probability be unified? Can quantum theory be developed using an analog of conditional probability as the fundamental notion? Can we eliminate background causal structures entirely from the formalism of quantum theory?