quantum algorithms:
In quantum physics decoherence refers to the disappearance of quantum entanglement and superposition in the limit where small quantum mechanical systems are coupled to large thermal baths?.
This has been argued to resolve (and has been argued not to resolve) the problem with the interpretation of quantum measurement.
The crux of dynamical quantum decoherence is that fundamentally the (time-)evolution of any quantum system $\mathscr{H}$ may be assumed unitary (say via a Schrödinger equation) when taking the whole evolution of its environment $\mathscr{B}$ (the “bath”, ultimately the whole observable universe) into account, too, in that the evolution of the total system $\mathscr{H} \otimes \mathscr{B}$ is given by a unitary operator
after understanding the mixed states $\rho \,\colon\, \mathscr{H} \otimes \mathscr{H}^\ast$ (density matrices) of the given quantum system as coupled to any given mixed state $env \,\colon\, \mathscr{B} \otimes \mathscr{B}^\ast$ of the bath (via tensor product)
…the only catch being that one cannot — and in any case does not (want or need to) — keep track of the precise quantum state of the environment/bath, instead only of its average effect on the given quantum system, which by the rule of quantum probability is the mixed state that remains after the partial trace over the environment:
In summary this means for practical purposes that the probabilistic evolution of quantum systems $\mathscr{H}$ is always of the composite form
This composite turns out to be a “quantum channel”
The realization of a quantum channel in the form (2) is also called an environmental representation (eg. Życzkowski & Bengtsson 2004 (3.5)).
In fact all quantum channels on a fixed Hilbert space have such an evironmental representation:
(environmental representation of quantum channels)
Every quantum channel
may be written as
a unitary quantum channel, induced by a unitary operator $U_{tot} \,\colon\, \mathscr{H} \otimes \mathscr{B} \to \mathscr{H} \otimes \mathscr{B}$
on a compound system with some $\mathscr{B}$ (the “bath”), yielding a total system Hilbert space $\mathscr{H} \otimes \mathscr{B}$ (tensor product),
and acting on the given mixed state $\rho$ coupled (tensored) with any pure state of the bath system,
followed by partial trace (averaging) over $\mathscr{B}$ (leading to decoherence in the remaining state)
in that
Conversely, every operation of the form (2) is a quantum channel.
This is originally due to Lindblad 1975 (see top of p. 149 and inside the proof of Lem. 5). For exposition and review see: Nielsen & Chuang 2000 §8.2.2-8.2.3. An account of the infinite-dimensional case is in Attal, Thm. 6.5 & 6.7. These authors focus on the case that the environment is in a pure state, the (parital) generalization to mixed environment states is discussed in Bengtsson & Życzkowski 2006 pp. 258.
We spell out the proof assuming finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. (The general case follows the same idea, supplemented by arguments that the following sums converge.)
Now given a completely positive map:
then by operator-sum decomposition there exists a set (finite, under our assumptions) inhabited by at least one element
and an $S$-indexed set of linear operators
such that
Now take
with its canonical Hermitian inner product-structure with orthonormal linear basis $\big(\left\vert s \right\rangle\big)_{s \colon S}$ and consider the linear map
Observe that this is a linear isometry
This implies that $V$ is injective so that we have a direct sum-decomposition of its codomain into its image and its cokernel orthogonal complement, which is unitarily isomorphic to $dim(\mathscr{B})-1$ summands of $\mathscr{H}$ that we may identify as follows:
In total this yields a unitary operator
and we claim that this has the desired action on couplings of the $\mathscr{H}$-system to the pure bath state $\left\vert s_{ini} \right\rangle$:
This concludes the construction of an environmental representation where the environment is in a pure state.
The above theorem is often phrased as “… and the environment can be assumed to be in a pure state”. But in fact the proof crucially uses the assumption that the environment is in a pure state. It is not clear that there is a proof that works more generally.
In fact, if the environment is taken to be in the maximally mixed state, then the resulting quantum channels are called noisy operations or unistochastic quantum channels and are not expected to exhaust all quantum channels.
Precursor discussion:
John von Neumann, §VI.3 of:
Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (German) (1932, 1971) [doi:10.1007/978-3-642-96048-2]
Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Princeton University Press (1955) [doi:10.1515/9781400889921, Wikipedia entry]
Original discusssion identifying quantum decoherence as interaction with an averaged environment (“bath”):
H. Dieter Zeh, On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, Found Phys 1 (1970) 69–76 [doi:10.1007/BF00708656]
Wojciech Zurek, Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1516-1525 [doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24.1516]
Wojciech Zurek, Environment-induced superselection rules, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 1862-1880 [doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.26.1862]
Erich Joos, H. Dieter Zeh, The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment, Z. Physik B – Condensed Matter 59 (1985) 223–243 [doi:10.1007/BF01725541]
Wojciech Zurek, Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 715-775 [quant-ph/0105127, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715]
With regards to the measurement problem and interpretations of quantum mechanics:
Roland Omnès, §7 of: The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press (1994) [ISBN:9780691036694]
Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2004) 1267-1305 [arXiv;quant-ph/0312059, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1267]
Guido Bacciagaluppi, The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics, Stanf. Enc. of Phil. (2020) [web]
Textbook accounts:
Heinz-Peter Breuer, Francesco Petruccione, Decoherence, Chapter 4 in: The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford University Press (2007) [book:doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001, chapter:.003.04]
Maximilian Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-To-Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection, Springer (2007) [doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9]
Further review:
Claus Kiefer, Erich Joos, Decoherence: Concepts and Examples, in: Quantum Future From Volta and Como to the Present and Beyond, Lecture Notes in Physics 517* (1999) [arXiv:quant-ph/9803052, doi:10.1007/BFb0105342]
Maximilian Schlosshauer, Quantum Decoherence, Phys. Rep. 831 (2019) 1-57 [arXiv:1911.06282, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001]
See also:
Chris Nagele, Oliver Janssen, Matthew Kleban, Decoherence: A Numerical Study [arXiv:2010.04803]
Wikipedia, Quantum decoherence
A proposal for mathematical quantification of coherence:
which was rediscovered and then became famous with:
See also:
R. Chandrashekar, P. Manikandan, J. Segar, Tim Byrnes, Distribution of quantum coherence in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 150504 (2016) [arXiv:1602.00286, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150504]
Md. Manirul Ali, Po-Wen Chen, R. Chandrashekar, Detecting quantum phase localization using Arnold tongue, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 633 (2024) 129436 [doi:10.1016/j.physa.2023.129436]
Last revised on February 12, 2024 at 11:23:39. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.