Detecting quantum coherence Observing quantum coherence is a tricky business. Even before we fire up the femtosecond laser systems and start our search, we need to ask ourselves some basic questions: What is coherence? How does coherence manifest in measurements? What methods can we use to detect and measure coherence? Only then, can we begin to interpret data to search for coherence and to try to make sense of the observed signals. In this section, I will discuss detecting quantum coherence both in theory and in practice. The goal of this section is to present a unified view of experimental approaches in broad strokes and to provide useful references to guide further exploration. What is ‘quantum coherence’? Firstly, the precise meaning of ‘quantum coherence’ must be pinned down. I define quantum coherences to be off-diagonal elements of the density matrix representing the ensemble. (I am explicitly setting aside questions of ‘quantum’ versus ‘classical’ coherences; let us simply assume that the system in question is best described quantum mechanically and presume that the coherences in such a system are also quantum in nature. The simple fact is that we don't yet have the tools to answer this debate definitively.) This definition, however, is still insufficient. The density matrix and the magnitudes of its off-diagonal elements in particular depend on the basis set used to write down the matrix. For the purposes of this chapter, I will consider the density matrix only in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis.
Detecting quantum coherence Observing quantum coherence is a tricky business. Even before we fire up the femtosecond laser systems and start our search, we need to ask ourselves some basic questions: What is coherence? How does coherence manifest in measurements? What methods can we use to detect and measure coherence? Only then, can we begin to interpret data to search for coherence and to try to make sense of the observed signals. In this section, I will discuss detecting quantum coherence both in theory and in practice. The goal of this section is to present a unified view of experimental approaches in broad strokes and to provide useful references to guide further exploration. What is ‘quantum coherence’? Firstly, the precise meaning of ‘quantum coherence’ must be pinned down. I define quantum coherences to be off-diagonal elements of the density matrix representing the ensemble. (I am explicitly setting aside questions of ‘quantum’ versus ‘classical’ coherences; let us simply assume that the system in question is best described quantum mechanically and presume that the coherences in such a system are also quantum in nature. The simple fact is that we don't yet have the tools to answer this debate definitively.) This definition, however, is still insufficient. The density matrix and the magnitudes of its off-diagonal elements in particular depend on the basis set used to write down the matrix. For the purposes of this chapter, I will consider the density matrix only in the Hamiltonian eigenbasis.
In this work our aim is to study several aspects related to quantum coherence as understood to correspond with the non-classical behaviour that can be observed for certain particular states of a physical system. In particular we are interested in the possible mechanisms that result in dynamically induced transitions between quantum and classical regimes. The thesis is organized as follows: The first chapter dubs as an introduction and serves to set out the basic philosophy underlying the questions addressed in this thesis. It also presents some elementary properties of states and state spaces in Quantum Theory including what we have chosen to define as classical and quantum behaviour. In chapter 2 we study some of the aspects related to observing quantum behaviour and of the properties of our main definition of classicality (and quantumness). Here we also study some of the restrictions imposed on measurements by the existence of globally conserved quantities (Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem) and their relationship to weak measurements coupled to postselection. In the following chapter we review some of the basic tools used in the description of open quantum system dynamics that will be applied in other chapters. In chapter 4 we review the basics of decoherence and analyse the importance of the choice of initial conditions when trying to study the dynamical emergence of classical behaviour within Quantum Theory. Next we study the other direction of the transition and focus on how to obtain pure quantum states from states that originally were classically mixed. Along the same lines, in chapter 6 we cover some topics related to the production of pure quantum states from measurements. We pay special attention to a model of the non-selective continuous monitoring of a system coupled to another unmonitored system. Lastly we explore some of the possible similarities between the theory of phase transitions and the quantum-classical transition. We must emphasize that all the work done in this thesis assumes that Quantum Theory is generally valid (at least within a broad enough range of energies). Thus, when we say that a state is “classical” we will mainly be referring to one of all the possible states contained in Quantum Theory, but that is susceptible to being interpreted as corresponding to “classical” behaviour. Similarly when we speak of creating a “quantum”, or “quantum coherent”, state we mean that the system has evolved to this state from one of the “classical” ones, but all of these still correspond to valid states within Quantum Theory. In the opinion of the author the main original contributions that can be found in this thesis are the following: - The recognition of the relationship between the Wigner-Araki-Yanase theorem and weak measurements coupled to postselection (sections 2.2 and 2.4); - A mathematical proof of the possible ambiguities arising when two observers try to decide if a state corresponds to quantum or classical behaviour (section 2.6); - The implications of initial correlations in decoherence models. In particular how the choice of certain (correlated) initial conditions can result in residual coherence and the production of pure quantum states in a model that otherwise results in ideal decoherence when (locally equivalent) uncorrelated initial conditions are used (section 4.2); - Various results related to the production of quantum states from initially classical states (sections 5.2 to 5.4); - The analysis of the inverse of a generalized depolarizing channel (section 5.7); - The study of a model of the non-selective continuous monitoring, in the quantum Zeno limit, of a subsystem A interacting with an unmonitored subsystem B. In particular the absence of the purification of B, which has been previously predicted in the selective case, but the possibility of coherent dynamics for B (section 6.4); - The identification of the loose equivalent of a broken symmetry and order parameter in the quantum-classical transition (section 7.2).
This chapter is concerned with the measure of quantum states . This requires one to introduce the subtle notion of quantum measurement , an operation that has no counterpart in the classical domain. To this effect, we first need to develop some new tools, starting with Dirac notation , a formalism that is not only very elegant but is relatively simple to handle. The introduction of Dirac notation makes it possible to become familiar with the inner product for quantum states, as well as different properties for operators and states concerning projection , change of basis , unitary transformations , matrix elements , similarity transformations , eigenvalues and eigenstates , spectral decomposition and diagonal representation , matrix trace and density operator or matrix . The concept of density matrix makes it possible to provide a very first and brief hint of the analog of Shannon's entropy in the quantum world, referred to as von Neumann's entropy , to be further developed in Chapter 21. Once we have all the required tools, we can focus on quantum measurement and analyze three different types referred to as basis-state measurements , projection or von Neumann measurements , and POVM measurements. In particular, POVM measurements are shown to possess a remarkable property of unambiguous quantum state discrimination (UQSD), after which it is possible to derive “absolutely certain” information from unknown system states. The more complex case of quantum measurements in composite systems described by joint or tensor states is then considered.
From this chapter we start our exposition of quantum mechanics. First, we lay down the typical setting of a quantum mechanical problem. The fundamental feature of quantum indeterminism and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics is emphasized. We proceed by constructing, from the single notion of measurement, all the essential conceptual ingredients of quantum mechanics (i.e., the concepts of observable, state and system). Then we formulate the target questions that quantum mechanics aims to solve. Next, we proceed to state the specific laws that constitute the logical premise of the subject. Finally, we demonstrate how the laws, most dominantly, the superposition principle (the fact that quantum probabilities interfere) provides an improved recipe for obtaining the answers to the target questions of quantum mechanics. This also leads to a more refined definition of the quantum state. In order to be able to quickly introduce the basic framework of quantum mechanics, we restrict the discussion to a simple scenario of “instantaneously subsequent measurements” (where there is no time evolution), and where states can be prepared by a single measurement (in the standard jargon, this would be called, “quantum mechanics without degeneracy”; these are descriptions involving CSCOs comprising just one observable).
Abstract Quantum coherence is a fundamental property of quantum systems, separating quantum from classical physics. Recently, there has been significant interest in the characterization of quantum coherence as a resource, investigating how coherence can be extracted and used for quantum technological applications. In this work, the progress of this research is reviewed, focusing in particular on recent experimental efforts. After a brief review of the underlying theory, the main platforms for realizing the experiments are discussed: linear optics, nuclear magnetic resonance, and superconducting systems. Experimental detection and quantification of coherence, experimental state conversion and coherence distillation, and experiments investigating the dynamics of quantum coherence are then considered. Experiments exploring the connections between coherence and uncertainty relations, path information, and coherence of operations and measurements are also reviewed. Experimental efforts on multipartite and multilevel coherence are also discussed.
Quantum physics consists of a formal core that is universally agreed upon (basically being a piece of mathematics with suggestive names for concepts matching related concepts of experimental culture) and an interpretational halo (trying to make this relation more precise) that remains highly disputed even after more than 90 years of modern quantum physics. The latter is the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics (see Part II), where many interpretations coexist and compete for the attention of those interested in what quantum physics really means. In this chapter, an axiomatic introduction to the undisputed formal core of quantum physics is given. The axioms described present nonrelativistic quantum statistical mechanics in the Schrödinger picture. The relativistic case is outside the scope of these axioms, as it must be treated by quantum field theory; see Chapter 7. As in any axiomatic setting (necessary for a formal discipline), there are a number of different but equivalent sets of axioms or postulates that can be used to define formal quantum physics. Since they are equivalent, their choice is a matter of convenience. The choice presented here is a formulation featuring three aspects: It emphasises the similarity of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics, gives most direct access to statistical mechanics, and is free from allusions to measurement. The reason for the first is that this similarity serves as a guide to meaning. From the axiomatic setting for quantum mechanics presented below, classical mechanics (in the Koopman setting discussed in Section 7.10) is obtained by simply restricting the operators to be diagonal, so that all operations happen pointwise on the diagonal elements. Thus, multiplication is commutative, and one can identify operators and functions. In particular, the density operator degenerates into a probability density. Therefore, the quantum case appears as a generalization of the classical case allowing for noncommutativity, so that both q-observables and the density operator are (usually infinite-dimensional) operators. The reason for the second is that statistical mechanics is the main tool for applications of quantum physics to the macroscopic systems we are familiar with. The reason for the third is that realistic measurements constitute a complex process involving macroscopic detectors, hence should be explained by quantum statistical mechanics rather than be part of the axiomatic foundations themselves. (This is in marked contrast to other foundations, and distinguishes the present system of axioms.)
The concept of a quantum state represents one of the most fundamental pillars of the paradigm of quantum theory.'3 Contrary to its mathematical elegance and convenience in calculations, the physical interpretation of a quantum state is not so transparent. The problem is that the quantum state (described either by a state vector, or density operator or a phase-space probability density distribution) does not have a well defined objective status, i.e. a state vector is not an objective property of a particle. According to Peres (see,1 p. 374): "There is no physical evidence whatsoever that every physical system has at every instant a well defined state. .. In strict interpretation of quantum theory these mathematical symbols [i.e., state vectorsi represent statistical information enabling us to compute the probabilities of occurrence of specific events." Once this point of view is adopted then it becomes clear that any "measurement" or a reconstruction of a density operator (or its mathematical equivalent) can be understood exclusively as an expression of our knowledge about the quantum mechanical state based on a certain set of measured data. To be more specific, any quantum-mechanical reconstruction scheme is nothing more than an a posteriori estimation of the density operator of a quantum-mechanical (microscopic) system based on data obtained with the help of a macroscopic measurement apparatus.3 The quality of the reconstruction depends on the "quality" of the measured data and the efficiency of the reconstruction procedure with the help of which the data analysis is performed. In particular, we can specify three different situations. Firstly, when all system observables are precisely measured. In this case the complete reconstruction of an initially unknown state can be performed (we will call this the reconstruction on the complete observation level) . Secondly, when just part of the system observables is precisely measured then one cannot perform a complete reconstruction of the measured state. Nevertheless, the reconstructed density operator still uniquely determines mean values of the measured observables (we will denote this scheme as reconstruction on incomplete observation levels) . Finally, when measurement does not provide us with sufficient information to specify the exact mean values (or probability distributions) but only the frequencies of appearances of eigenstates of the measured observables, then one can perform an estimation (e.g. reconstruction based on quantum Bayesian inference) which is the "best" with respect to the given measured data and the a priori knowledge about the state of the measured system.