Quantum Computing for the Curious(quantum.country) |
Quantum Computing for the Curious(quantum.country) |
A random question along those lines: why represent states as 2d complex vectors instead of quarterions? Aren't they the same thing? As soon as I read that I spent the rest of the article wondering if everything it would make even more sense cast that way.
Only in the sense that they are both require four real coefficients. The quaternions have a particular multiplicative structure that just doesn't apply to quantum states, so it doesn't make sense to use them.
That being said, the space of single-qubit operations is very much analogous to rotations in 3d and so is well described by quaternions. In fact, the Pauli matrices times i (iX,iY,iZ) are isomorphic to the quaternions (i,j,k). For example, iX * iY * iZ = -I.
If you have had more exposure to maths and computer science, it will be easier for you than someone with a "pure" physics background.
As for quarternions, yes they are isomorphic, but generally for useful applications, people consider quantum computers with n qubits. So your state is an element of C^(2^n). Apart from the measurement step, you can idealise any quantum computation as a unitary transformation, so an element of the unitary group U(2^n), acting on this complex vector.
An element of U(2^n) is representable as a 2^n x 2^n matrix U, with complex entries, st U.U^{\dagger} = I. Here dagger represents conjugate transpose, and I is the 2^n x 2^n identity matrix. Sometimes people add the extra constraint, det(U) = 1, then this gives you the special unitary group SU(2^n).
This is not to discourage anyone, but underselling it as requiring elementary linear algebra is not very helpful (the pop-sci articles have already been overselling it as "magical"/"mind-blowing" etc.).
For two qubits, the simplest entangled states are the Bell States[0] (generated from a CNOT and Hadamard gate). The article gives an example of one of them.
I say if you understand gates as unitary matrix multiplication, representing multiple qbits with the tensor product, entanglement, and projective measurement, you basically understand quantum computing. Throw in an algorithm or two to convince yourself of the benefits.
2. Again valid, but IMHO measurements (and PoVMs) can lead to deep rabbit holes, and I found myself digging in much deeper.
Probably I should read easier expositions to see how effectively they teach. (I come from a EE+physics background, so I do gravitate to math-heavy rigorous explanations)
A mixed state is that which is a linear combination of pure states e.g. a|0> + b|1>
What determines an entangled state is that qubit values will correlate exactly with each other. |00> + |11> would be an example of an entangled state as measuring one qubit determines the value of the other with certainty. If you measure |0> for the first qubit, the second will definitely be |0> and vice versa.
They are also not mutually exclusive as mixed entangled states exist.
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit#Mixed_state it says that 'Mixed states can be represented by points inside the Bloch sphere'. However, points ON the sphere correspond to linear combinations of the pure states. How to reconcile this?
I've gotten pure states mixed up with |0>, |1>
I believe what it's saying is that with a mixed state |a|^2 + |b|^2 does not need to equal 1.
So pure states are a|0> + b|1> where |a|^2 + |b|^2 = 1