Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Preserving Information in Quantum Systems via Coherent Driving

Eliza Cornell

Published Jan 1, 2026• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Among the fundamental phenomena that characterize a quantum system is coherent superposition between states, which we can write for a two-level system as: |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + e^(iφ) β|1⟩ A superposition is characterized by a phase φ which can be difficult to conceptualize with our physical intuition, trained only by experience in a classical world. Perhaps we can best approach it by considering the phase of classical waves, which we can concretely visualize, and which lead to some analogous phenomena like interference. In effect there is additional information in the system beyond the probability that it is measured in one state vs. the other. This phase is both a resource and a vulnerability of quantum systems. On one hand, it gives the system another degree of freedom which we can control. On the other hand, it can be easily lost, since the phase of a superposition tends to be very sensitive to fluctuations in the system's surrounding environment. The length of time that the phase remains known in a system (or equivalently, that the system maintains its information) is called the coherence time. In this thesis I will discuss two examples in which a coherent superposition of states is used to preserve information in a quantum system. In both cases the key laboratory tool used to access the quantum system is an AC field of classical amplitude which coherently drives the states, and in both cases we will see the beneficial properties of the stationary solutions of the combined system plus field, which are superposition states (in the basis that does not include the field). Chapter 1 will deal with an example of a coherent field extending the coherence time of a two-level system. I will show experimental data demonstrating this effect in the electron spin of the silicon vacancy in diamond, where the coherent driving field is a strain field in the carbon lattice. Chapter 2 will explain how the decay channels of a single atomic system can be controlled using superpositions of states, a phenomena which could be used to increase the fidelity of a state measurement. These results are computational rather than experimental, but I will suggest a real quantum system in which this phenomena could be demonstrated and calculate expected results.

Related papers

Classical vs. Quantum Decoherence

Julius Helm

Based on the superposition principle, any two states of a quantum system may be coherently superposed to yield a novel state. Such a simple construction is at the heart of genuinely quantum phenomena such as interference of massive particles or quantum entanglement. Yet, these superpositions are susceptible to environmental influences, eventually leading to a complete disappearance of the system's quantum character. In principle, two distinct mechanisms responsible for this process of decoherence may be identified. In a classical decoherence setting, on the one hand, stochastic fluctuations of classical, ambient fields are the relevant source. This approach leads to a formulation in terms of stochastic Hamiltonians; the dynamics is unitary, yet stochastic. In a quantum decoherence scenario, on the other hand, the system is described in the language of open quantum systems. Here, the environmental degrees of freedom are to be treated quantum mechanically, too. The loss of coherence is then a direct consequence of growing correlations between system and environment. The purpose of the present thesis is to clarify the distinction between classical and quantum decoherence. It is known that there exist decoherence processes that are not reconcilable with the classical approach. We deem it desirable to have a simple, feasible model at hand of which it is known that it cannot be understood in terms of fluctuating fields. Indeed, we find such an example of true quantum decoherence. The calculation of the norm distance to the convex set of classical dynamics allows for a quantitative assessment of the results. In order to incorporate genuine irreversibility, we extend the original toy model by an additional bath. Here, the fragility of the true quantum nature of the dynamics under increasing coupling strength is evident. The geometric character of our findings offers remarkable insights into the geometry of the set of non-classical decoherence maps. We give a very intuitive geometrical measure---a volume---for the quantumness of dynamics. This enables us to identify the decoherence process of maximum quantumness, that is, having maximal distance to the convex set of dynamics consistent with the stochastic, classical approach. In addition, we observe a distinct correlation between the decoherence potential of a given dynamics and its achievable quantumness. In a last step, we study the notion of quantum decoherence in the context of a bipartite system which couples locally to the subsystems' respective environments. A simple argument shows that in the case of a separable environment the resulting dynamics is of classical nature. Based on a realistic experiment, we analyze the impact of entanglement between the local environments on the nature of the dynamics. Interestingly, despite the variety of entangled environmental states scrutinized, no single instance of true quantum decoherence is encountered. In part, the identification of the classical nature relies on numerical schemes. However, for a large class of dynamics, we are able to exclude analytically the true quantum nature.

•Oct 25, 2011•0 citations

Decoherence in nonlinear quantum systems

Gehad Sadiek

Decoherence represents one of the most fundamental problems in quantum mechanics since its birth. Interest in decoherence has been primarily academic until recently when the advances in experimental techniques in different fields of physics such as superconducting quantum interferometers; quantum optics and neutron interferometry sparked the practical interest in this quantum mechanical phenomenon. One particular field where decoherence is of crucial role is quantum computing, where decoherence stands as one of the main obstacles toward realizing practical progress in the field. On the other hand, the ability to manipulate linear superpositions of quantum states is expected to lead to considerable advances in that field. The purpose of this dissertation is to present a study of decoherence in nonlinear quantum systems. We started by studying the coherent superposition of distinct basis states in a single-degree-of-freedom model of SQUID with a variable potential barrier between the basis flux states. We numerically integrated Schrödinger equation of the system. We found that linear superpositions of the basis states, with relatively little residual excitation, can be formed by pulsed modulation of the potential barrier, provided the pulse duration exceeds the period of small oscillations of the flux. Two pulses applied in sequence exhibit strong interference effects, which we propose to use for an experimental determination of the decoherence time in SQUIDS. In addition, we developed, using quantum field theory techniques, a general formalism to study decoherence in a quantum system due to coupling to a non-linear environment. This formalism can be used to investigate decoherence in many of the existing two state quantum systems proposed for quantum computing and reveals important information about them such as decoherence time. Moreover, we used this formalism to compare decoherence induced in a simple two-state quantum system (qubit) for two different initial states of the environment: canonical (fixed temperature) and microcanonical (fixed energy), for the general case of a fully interacting oscillator environment. We found that even a relatively compact oscillator bath (with effective number of degrees of freedom as low as 10), initially in a microcanonical state, will typically cause decoherence almost indistinguishable from that caused by a macroscopic, thermal environment, except possibly at singularities of the environment's specific heat (critical points). In the latter case the precise magnitude of the difference between the canonical and microcanonical results depends on the critical behavior of the dissipative coefficient, characterizing the interaction of the two-state quantum system with the environment.

•Jan 1, 2002•0 citations

Controlling dynamics of open quantum systems

Henri Lyyra

Quantum mechanics has both deepened our understanding of the physical reality and allowed development of quantum technologies beating their classical counterparts in efficiency, security, and sensitivity. As a major downside, the quantum properties behind these technologies are very sensitive to the effects the system’s interaction with its environment. The theory of open quantum systems describes how such interaction influences the system, and as a consequence, how the quantum features are lost, controlled, and possibly returned by manipulating the environment. This thesis begins with a short description of the most relevant features and results of the open quantum system theory. We continue by presenting some commonly used measures to quantify the information encoded in quantum systems and the correlations between spatially or temporally separated parties. The literature review ends with discussion of non-Markovianity and memory effects which combine the fields of open quantum systems and quantum information in a natural way. The rest of the thesis presents the main results of Publications I – VII. We study the memory effects and physicality conditions of open system dynamics described by the vast family of phase-covariant master equations. We show how the open quantum system picture can be exploited to design probing protocols to extract information without knowing how the probe and system interact. Such protocols are considered also from the point-of view of efficiently obtaining the information required in the probing, both in theory and by experimental implementation. The experiment serves also as evidence for applicability of recently developed geometric tools to design informationally incomplete measurements for solving so-called membership problems. We present and experimentally realize a protocol where control over intial correlations between polarization and frequency gives full freedom to implement any dephasing dynamics in the open system polarization, thus dictating how its information content changes in time. We study the two-qubit memory effects of dephasing dynamics and compare them to the effect of such noise in the transmission efficiency in superdense coding. Optimal noise configurations in different situations are found. Finally, we characterize the families of initial states for which the decay of quantum correlations depends or does not depend on the noise location.

•Oct 5, 2019•0 citations

How to control decoherence and entanglement in quantum complex systems?

V. M. Akulin, Gershon Kurizki, Daniel A. Lidar

Theory and experiment have not fully resolved the apparent dichotomy , which has agonized physics for the past eighty years: on the one hand, the description of microsystems by quantum mechanics and, on the other, the description of macrosystems by classical dynamics or statistical mechanics. Derivations of the time-irreversible Liouville equation for an open quantum system, based on projecting out its environment, have narrowed the gap between the quantum and classical descriptions. Yet our `classical' intuition continues to be confronted by quantum-mechanical results like the Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen paradox that challenges the classical notion of locality, or the quantum Zeno effect which suggests that the isolation of a system is not the only way to preserve its quantum state. There are two key concepts in any discussion of such issues. The first, which is responsible for the most salient nonclassical properties, is entanglement , that is partial or complete correlation or, more generally, inseparability of the elements comprising a quantum ensemble . Even after their interaction has ceased, this inseparability, originating from their past interaction, can affect the state of one element when another element is subject to a nonunitary action, such as its measurement, tracing- out, or thermalization. The second key concept is decoherence of open quantum systems, which is the consequence of their entanglement with their environment, a `meter' or a thermal `reservoir', followed by the tracing-out of the latter. Despite new insights into entanglement and decoherence, there are still no complete, unequivocal answers to the fundamental questions of the transition from quantal to classical behaviour: how do irreversibility and classicality emerge from unitarity as systems and their environments become increasingly complex ? At what stage does system--meter entanglement give rise to a classical readout of the meter? Is there an upper limit on the size or complexity of systems displaying entanglement? Major developments have opened new vistas into controlled entanglement , which is the resource of quantum information processing. However, these developments have mainly focused on ensembles of simple two- and three-level systems that are thoroughly isolated from their environments. Treatments of coherence in quantum computing have mostly assumed that only a single or a few the elements of the quantum ensemble may simultaneously undergo an uncontrolled intervention---a quantum error. Decoherence-control protocols for more general types of errors are still incomplete. In order to resolve the outstanding issues of the quantum--classical transition, and study the control of entanglement and decoherence without the foregoing restrictions, we must venture into the domain of Quantum Complex Systems (QUACS), either consisting of a large number of inseparable elements or having many coupled degrees of freedom. Our conviction is that fundamental understanding and manipulation of entanglement within QUACS or their entanglement with the environment or a meter, call for the creation of a new conceptual framework or paradigm, that would encompass phenomena common to cold atoms in laser fields, large molecules, Josephson junctions, quantum gases and solids, with the view of employing these systems for quantum information processing and computing. Progress within this paradigm should allow us to answer the questions: does entanglement play an essential role in the evolution of large collections of complex systems? What are the size and complexity limits of systems and ensembles still controllable by an external intervention? What are the most appropriate decoherence protection schemes and control algorithms? This special issue addresses the challenge of understanding in depth and manipulating the basic quantum properties of optical, atomic, molecular and condensed-matter QUACS, and large ensembles thereof. In view of the interdisciplinary character of this issue, we find it expedient to look at the presented articles not only according to the physical objects they describe, but also from a unifying standpoint. Several unifying themes may be discerned: memory effects in dephasing and relaxation; protection of quantum information by its distribution throughout the ensemble; control of decoherence and entanglement by time-dependent interventions or measurements; manifestations of entanglement in scattering off statistical ensembles; measurment-induced dynamics. The concerted discussion of the topics outlined above should help us advance the new paradigm that addresses our abilities to diagnose and manipulate the entangled states of complex quantum objects and their robustness against decoherence. These abilities are required for quantum information (QI) applications in matter--wave interferometry in molecular, semiconducting or superconducting systems. On the fundamental level, this book may help establish the notion of dynamical information exchange between quantum systems and chart in detail the route from unitarity to classicality. Further developments within the outlined paradigm should yield novel, advantageous QI processing schemes and high-sensitivity interferometers, owing to decoherence suppression and effective control of many degrees of freedom. In the long run, these strategies may prove to be the first step towards the (hitherto unattempted) use of entanglement in nanotechnology, metrology and chemistry, with potentially remarkable novel applications.

Journal of Physics B Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics•Apr 18, 2007•2 citations

Demolishing quantum nondemolition

Christopher R. Monroe

Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Dec 30, 2010•12 citations

Measurement and entanglement

Jonathan A. Jones, Dieter Jaksch

We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 19, 2012•0 citations
Among the fundamental phenomena that characterize a quantum system is coherent superposition between states, which we can write for a two-level system as: |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + e^(iφ) β|1⟩ A superposition is characterized by a phase φ which can be difficult to conceptualize with our physical intuition, trained only by experience in a classical world. Perhaps we can best approach it by considering the phase of classical waves, which we can concretely visualize, and which lead to some analogous phenomena like interference. In effect there is additional information in the system beyond the probability that it is measured in one state vs. the other. This phase is both a resource and a vulnerability of quantum systems. On one hand, it gives the system another degree of freedom which we can control. On the other hand, it can be easily lost, since the phase of a superposition tends to be very sensitive to fluctuations in the system's surrounding environment. The length of time that the phase remains known in a system (or equivalently, that the system maintains its information) is called the coherence time. In this thesis I will discuss two examples in which a coherent superposition of states is used to preserve information in a quantum system. In both cases the key laboratory tool used to access the quantum system is an AC field of classical amplitude which coherently drives the states, and in both cases we will see the beneficial properties of the stationary solutions of the combined system plus field, which are superposition states (in the basis that does not include the field). Chapter 1 will deal with an example of a coherent field extending the coherence time of a two-level system. I will show experimental data demonstrating this effect in the electron spin of the silicon vacancy in diamond, where the coherent driving field is a strain field in the carbon lattice. Chapter 2 will explain how the decay channels of a single atomic system can be controlled using superpositions of states, a phenomena which could be used to increase the fidelity of a state measurement. These results are computational rather than experimental, but I will suggest a real quantum system in which this phenomena could be demonstrated and calculate expected results.
Based on the superposition principle, any two states of a quantum system may be coherently superposed to yield a novel state. Such a simple construction is at the heart of genuinely quantum phenomena such as interference of massive particles or quantum entanglement. Yet, these superpositions are susceptible to environmental influences, eventually leading to a complete disappearance of the system's quantum character. In principle, two distinct mechanisms responsible for this process of decoherence may be identified. In a classical decoherence setting, on the one hand, stochastic fluctuations of classical, ambient fields are the relevant source. This approach leads to a formulation in terms of stochastic Hamiltonians; the dynamics is unitary, yet stochastic. In a quantum decoherence scenario, on the other hand, the system is described in the language of open quantum systems. Here, the environmental degrees of freedom are to be treated quantum mechanically, too. The loss of coherence is then a direct consequence of growing correlations between system and environment. The purpose of the present thesis is to clarify the distinction between classical and quantum decoherence. It is known that there exist decoherence processes that are not reconcilable with the classical approach. We deem it desirable to have a simple, feasible model at hand of which it is known that it cannot be understood in terms of fluctuating fields. Indeed, we find such an example of true quantum decoherence. The calculation of the norm distance to the convex set of classical dynamics allows for a quantitative assessment of the results. In order to incorporate genuine irreversibility, we extend the original toy model by an additional bath. Here, the fragility of the true quantum nature of the dynamics under increasing coupling strength is evident. The geometric character of our findings offers remarkable insights into the geometry of the set of non-classical decoherence maps. We give a very intuitive geometrical measure---a volume---for the quantumness of dynamics. This enables us to identify the decoherence process of maximum quantumness, that is, having maximal distance to the convex set of dynamics consistent with the stochastic, classical approach. In addition, we observe a distinct correlation between the decoherence potential of a given dynamics and its achievable quantumness. In a last step, we study the notion of quantum decoherence in the context of a bipartite system which couples locally to the subsystems' respective environments. A simple argument shows that in the case of a separable environment the resulting dynamics is of classical nature. Based on a realistic experiment, we analyze the impact of entanglement between the local environments on the nature of the dynamics. Interestingly, despite the variety of entangled environmental states scrutinized, no single instance of true quantum decoherence is encountered. In part, the identification of the classical nature relies on numerical schemes. However, for a large class of dynamics, we are able to exclude analytically the true quantum nature.
Decoherence represents one of the most fundamental problems in quantum mechanics since its birth. Interest in decoherence has been primarily academic until recently when the advances in experimental techniques in different fields of physics such as superconducting quantum interferometers; quantum optics and neutron interferometry sparked the practical interest in this quantum mechanical phenomenon. One particular field where decoherence is of crucial role is quantum computing, where decoherence stands as one of the main obstacles toward realizing practical progress in the field. On the other hand, the ability to manipulate linear superpositions of quantum states is expected to lead to considerable advances in that field. The purpose of this dissertation is to present a study of decoherence in nonlinear quantum systems. We started by studying the coherent superposition of distinct basis states in a single-degree-of-freedom model of SQUID with a variable potential barrier between the basis flux states. We numerically integrated Schrödinger equation of the system. We found that linear superpositions of the basis states, with relatively little residual excitation, can be formed by pulsed modulation of the potential barrier, provided the pulse duration exceeds the period of small oscillations of the flux. Two pulses applied in sequence exhibit strong interference effects, which we propose to use for an experimental determination of the decoherence time in SQUIDS. In addition, we developed, using quantum field theory techniques, a general formalism to study decoherence in a quantum system due to coupling to a non-linear environment. This formalism can be used to investigate decoherence in many of the existing two state quantum systems proposed for quantum computing and reveals important information about them such as decoherence time. Moreover, we used this formalism to compare decoherence induced in a simple two-state quantum system (qubit) for two different initial states of the environment: canonical (fixed temperature) and microcanonical (fixed energy), for the general case of a fully interacting oscillator environment. We found that even a relatively compact oscillator bath (with effective number of degrees of freedom as low as 10), initially in a microcanonical state, will typically cause decoherence almost indistinguishable from that caused by a macroscopic, thermal environment, except possibly at singularities of the environment's specific heat (critical points). In the latter case the precise magnitude of the difference between the canonical and microcanonical results depends on the critical behavior of the dissipative coefficient, characterizing the interaction of the two-state quantum system with the environment.
Quantum mechanics has both deepened our understanding of the physical reality and allowed development of quantum technologies beating their classical counterparts in efficiency, security, and sensitivity. As a major downside, the quantum properties behind these technologies are very sensitive to the effects the system’s interaction with its environment. The theory of open quantum systems describes how such interaction influences the system, and as a consequence, how the quantum features are lost, controlled, and possibly returned by manipulating the environment. This thesis begins with a short description of the most relevant features and results of the open quantum system theory. We continue by presenting some commonly used measures to quantify the information encoded in quantum systems and the correlations between spatially or temporally separated parties. The literature review ends with discussion of non-Markovianity and memory effects which combine the fields of open quantum systems and quantum information in a natural way. The rest of the thesis presents the main results of Publications I – VII. We study the memory effects and physicality conditions of open system dynamics described by the vast family of phase-covariant master equations. We show how the open quantum system picture can be exploited to design probing protocols to extract information without knowing how the probe and system interact. Such protocols are considered also from the point-of view of efficiently obtaining the information required in the probing, both in theory and by experimental implementation. The experiment serves also as evidence for applicability of recently developed geometric tools to design informationally incomplete measurements for solving so-called membership problems. We present and experimentally realize a protocol where control over intial correlations between polarization and frequency gives full freedom to implement any dephasing dynamics in the open system polarization, thus dictating how its information content changes in time. We study the two-qubit memory effects of dephasing dynamics and compare them to the effect of such noise in the transmission efficiency in superdense coding. Optimal noise configurations in different situations are found. Finally, we characterize the families of initial states for which the decay of quantum correlations depends or does not depend on the noise location.
Theory and experiment have not fully resolved the apparent dichotomy , which has agonized physics for the past eighty years: on the one hand, the description of microsystems by quantum mechanics and, on the other, the description of macrosystems by classical dynamics or statistical mechanics. Derivations of the time-irreversible Liouville equation for an open quantum system, based on projecting out its environment, have narrowed the gap between the quantum and classical descriptions. Yet our `classical' intuition continues to be confronted by quantum-mechanical results like the Einstein--Podolsky--Rosen paradox that challenges the classical notion of locality, or the quantum Zeno effect which suggests that the isolation of a system is not the only way to preserve its quantum state. There are two key concepts in any discussion of such issues. The first, which is responsible for the most salient nonclassical properties, is entanglement , that is partial or complete correlation or, more generally, inseparability of the elements comprising a quantum ensemble . Even after their interaction has ceased, this inseparability, originating from their past interaction, can affect the state of one element when another element is subject to a nonunitary action, such as its measurement, tracing- out, or thermalization. The second key concept is decoherence of open quantum systems, which is the consequence of their entanglement with their environment, a `meter' or a thermal `reservoir', followed by the tracing-out of the latter. Despite new insights into entanglement and decoherence, there are still no complete, unequivocal answers to the fundamental questions of the transition from quantal to classical behaviour: how do irreversibility and classicality emerge from unitarity as systems and their environments become increasingly complex ? At what stage does system--meter entanglement give rise to a classical readout of the meter? Is there an upper limit on the size or complexity of systems displaying entanglement? Major developments have opened new vistas into controlled entanglement , which is the resource of quantum information processing. However, these developments have mainly focused on ensembles of simple two- and three-level systems that are thoroughly isolated from their environments. Treatments of coherence in quantum computing have mostly assumed that only a single or a few the elements of the quantum ensemble may simultaneously undergo an uncontrolled intervention---a quantum error. Decoherence-control protocols for more general types of errors are still incomplete. In order to resolve the outstanding issues of the quantum--classical transition, and study the control of entanglement and decoherence without the foregoing restrictions, we must venture into the domain of Quantum Complex Systems (QUACS), either consisting of a large number of inseparable elements or having many coupled degrees of freedom. Our conviction is that fundamental understanding and manipulation of entanglement within QUACS or their entanglement with the environment or a meter, call for the creation of a new conceptual framework or paradigm, that would encompass phenomena common to cold atoms in laser fields, large molecules, Josephson junctions, quantum gases and solids, with the view of employing these systems for quantum information processing and computing. Progress within this paradigm should allow us to answer the questions: does entanglement play an essential role in the evolution of large collections of complex systems? What are the size and complexity limits of systems and ensembles still controllable by an external intervention? What are the most appropriate decoherence protection schemes and control algorithms? This special issue addresses the challenge of understanding in depth and manipulating the basic quantum properties of optical, atomic, molecular and condensed-matter QUACS, and large ensembles thereof. In view of the interdisciplinary character of this issue, we find it expedient to look at the presented articles not only according to the physical objects they describe, but also from a unifying standpoint. Several unifying themes may be discerned: memory effects in dephasing and relaxation; protection of quantum information by its distribution throughout the ensemble; control of decoherence and entanglement by time-dependent interventions or measurements; manifestations of entanglement in scattering off statistical ensembles; measurment-induced dynamics. The concerted discussion of the topics outlined above should help us advance the new paradigm that addresses our abilities to diagnose and manipulate the entangled states of complex quantum objects and their robustness against decoherence. These abilities are required for quantum information (QI) applications in matter--wave interferometry in molecular, semiconducting or superconducting systems. On the fundamental level, this book may help establish the notion of dynamical information exchange between quantum systems and chart in detail the route from unitarity to classicality. Further developments within the outlined paradigm should yield novel, advantageous QI processing schemes and high-sensitivity interferometers, owing to decoherence suppression and effective control of many degrees of freedom. In the long run, these strategies may prove to be the first step towards the (hitherto unattempted) use of entanglement in nanotechnology, metrology and chemistry, with potentially remarkable novel applications.
Most physicists are taught that quantum physics has two parts: coherent wave mechanics, in which quantum states evolve according to the reversible Schrödinger wave equation, and the measurement process, in which quantum states irreversibly collapse into a particular state given by the details of the measurement. So when a quantum superposition state such as a|0〉 + b|1〉 is measured with a device that discriminates perfectly between |0〉 and |1〉, the system evolves to the definite state |0〉 or |1〉 with respective probabilities |a|2 and |b|2. Of course, when such an ideal measurement is repeated on the surviving state, the same definite state will appear again and again. Many of us, starting with Albert Einstein, do not like the apparent disconnect between those two rules and may not even subscribe to that conventional “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics. It is nevertheless useful because it correctly predicts the results of all experiments performed to date, even though it gives the appearance that the observer necessarily affects the system.In the past two decades, the advent of quantum information science and the ability of experiments to control quantum systems such as single atoms have provided the happy opportunity to once again ponder the disconnect between the fundamental quantum concepts of coherent evolution and measurement. Quantum systems can now be measured with nearly perfect efficiency, meaning that the observed distribution of a measurement is given almost exactly by the probabilities of the underlying superposition, as prescribed by the conventional Copenhagen rules that we are taught.However, a new term, the quantum nondemolition, or QND, has crept into the literature these past decades. Also known as “quantum back-action-evading measurement,” it’s a needlessly confusing term that seems to highlight the mundane aspect of a perfect quantum measurement: If one already knows that the system is in a particular eigenstate of the measuring device, then, obviously, a measurement on the system will produce that eigenstate and leave the system intact. Zero information is gained from the repeated measurement. On the other hand, when the system is not in an eigenstate of the measuring device, the quantum state can be thought to collapse to one of its eigenstates. In that case, information is gained from the system, and the QND measurement most certainly demolishes the system. The concept of QND measurement adds nothing to the usual rules of quantum measurement, regardless of interpretation. But worse, the term confounds students and newcomers who may even be comfortable with the prescriptions of quantum physics.Not all measurements are perfect, of course, and some people may wish to use the QND nomenclature to distinguish the efficiency of a measuring device. However, in the spirit of quantum decoherence theory (see, for example, Wojciech Zurek’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, October 1991, page 36), we can still think of any measurement as a QND measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir that can either mask the information obtained from the system or even uncontrollably change the quantum state. The interaction with the reservoir is what can make quantum problems difficult, and it is there that we confront the conceptual difficulties with quantum mechanics and the quantum–classical divide.As a common example of an imperfect measurement, consider photodetection. When a single photon strikes a photomultiplier tube and generates a pulse of photocurrent, the photon is lost forever. Or is it? The photocurrent may interact with a macroscopic system of a bulk conductor, and we may measure the resulting voltage across the conductor. Sure, the photon has disappeared, but if our detector indicates that we had one photon, we can always create another and get the same answer again and again, exactly like a QND measurement. Even if we begin with a coherent superposition of zero and one photon, which is not an eigenstate of our measurement device, that approach works. After the first measurement collapses the state into |0〉 or |1〉, we know which one came out and we either prepare zero or one photon forever after. A real photodetector is not 100% efficient, of course, meaning that a single photon striking the detector could register nothing, or that even in the absence of photons the noisy detector fires anyway. Again we can think of this as a QND measurement in which we have lost information to the environment. In practice, we trace over the environment and then must describe the system in terms of a density matrix containing the probabilities of various outcomes.In every case, the concept of QND measurement is confusing and unnecessary. It wasn’t needed in the formative years of quantum mechanics; and now with quantum information theory, entanglement, and decoherence theory, we still do not need it. Marvelous advances in many experimental quantum systems, such as individual atoms and superconducting circuits, are allowing quantum measurements to be performed almost exactly like in textbooks, as most of us have learned. Why not demolish the term “QND”?© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
We now have all the basic tools we need to describe systems of one and two qubits. In this final chapter of Part I we look at some of the consequences of the peculiar properties of qubits when they are used to encode information. Many of these results can be traced to the properties of quantum measurement. Measuring a single qubit A key result in quantum information theory is that it is impossible to accurately characterize a single qubit. In other words, there is no experiment, or sequence of experiments, which allows us to find out the state of a single quantum bit. The reason for this problem is twofold. Firstly, we have to make some sort of decision about the basis we will use for the measurement. For example, when measuring a single qubit the most popular choice is to make a measurement in the computational basis. This is equivalent to asking the qubit whether it is in state |0⧽ or state |1⧽. If the qubit is indeed in one of the basis states the measurement process is simple, and we will get the obvious answer of 0 if it is in |0⧽ and 1 if it is in |1⧽. If, however, the qubit is in a superposition, such as α|0⧽+β|1⧽, then the situation is more difficult. Characterizing the state now means determining the values of the two complex numbers α and β, but the measurement can only return the answer 0 or 1, and for a superposition state one of these two answers will be returned at random, with probabilities |α| 2 and |β| 2 , respectively.