Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
UFR Mathmatiques
Quantum mechanics
Mathematical foundations
and applications
Lecture notes
Dimitri Petritis
Rennes
Preliminary draft of August 2014
Contents
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
11
17
19
21
22
27
28
29
35
i
CONTENTS
3.1 Scalar products and Hilbert spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
39
3.3 Duality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
42
44
44
3.5.2 Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
46
46
50
51
53
55
57
57
59
63
63
67
ii
68
CONTENTS
5.2 The classical cryptologic scheme RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
71
71
74
75
75
77
77
80
80
81
82
83
85
85
89
91
91
92
96
96
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq.tex
iii
CONTENTS
8.3.2 The phase gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
96
97
97
99
101
103
105
115
iv
CONTENTS
12.2 The spectrum of an operator acting on a Banach space . . . . . . . 117
12.3 The spectrum of an element of a Banach algebra . . . . . . . . . . 119
12.4 Relation between diagonalisability and the spectrum . . . . . . . . 122
12.5 Spectral measures and functional calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
12.6 Some basic notions on unbounded operators . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
149
157
CONTENTS
15.3 General quantum transformations, complete positivity, Kraus theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
16 Two illustrating examples
159
171
174
Index
180
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq.tex
vi
CONTENTS
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq.tex
vii
Part I
Introduction to the physical
problem and the mathematical
formalism
1
Physics, mathematics, and
mathematical physics
Physics relies ultimately on experiment. Observation of many different experiments of similar type establishes a phenomenology revealing relations between the experimentally measured physical observables. A phenomenology,
even relying on false hypotheses, can still be useful if it predicts correctly quantitative relationships occurring in yet unrealised experiments1 . The experimental nature of Physics implies the statistical character of its crude experimental
results; nevertheless, sound results can be obtained thanks to the statistical re1
For instance the phenomenology prevailing in the Anticythera mechanism had useful predictive power although the underlying hypothesis of a geocentric solar system was false.
Chapter 1
producibility of the physical experiments.
The next step is inductive: physical models are proposed satisfying the phenomenological relations. Then, new phenomenology is predicted, new experiments designed to verify it, and new models are proposed. When sufficient data
are available, a physical theory is proposed verifying all the models that have
been developed so far and all the phenomenological relations that have been
established. The theory can deductively predict the outcome for yet unrealised
experiments. If it is technically possible, the experiment is performed. Either
the subsequent phenomenology contradicts the theoretical predictions and
the theory must be rejected or it is in accordance with them and this precise experiment serves as an additional validity check of the theory.2 Therefore,
physical theories have not a definite status: they are accepted as long as no
experiment contradicts them!
Experiment
Phenomenology
Theory
Model
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-intro.tex
By the end of 19th century, the success of Physics to describe the known
world was such that that most physicists acquired the certainty that all physical
phenomena could be explained by the 19th Physics. It turned out that this false
certainty was one of the created fallacies in the history of sciences since almost
all branches of physics have been revolutionised in the early 20th century. A
general physical theory must describe all physical phenomena in the universe,
extending from elementary particles to cosmological phenomena. Numerical
values of the fundamental physical quantities, i.e. mass, length, and time span
vast ranges: 1031 kg M 1051 kg, 1015 m L 1027 m, 1023 s T 1017 s.
Units used in measuring fundamental quantities, i.e. kilogramme (kg), metre
(m), and second (s) respectively, were introduced after the French Revolution
so that everyday life quantities are expressed with reasonable numerical values
(roughly in the range 103 103 .) The general theory believed to describe the
universe3 is called quantum field theory; it contains two fundamental quantities, the speed of light in the vacuum, c = 2.99792458 108 m/s, and the Planks
constant = 1.05457 1034 Js. These constants have extraordinarily atypical
numerical values. Everyday velocities are negligible compared to c, everyday
actions are overwhelmingly greater than . Therefore, everyday phenomena
can be thought as the c and 0 limits of quantum field theory; the
corresponding theory is called classical mechanics.
It turns out that considering solely the c limit of quantum field theory
gives rise to another physical theory called quantum mechanics; it describes
phenomena for which the action is comparable with . These phenomena are
important when dealing with atoms and molecules.
The other partial limit, 0, is physically important as well; it describes
phenomena involving velocities comparable with c. These phenomena lead to
another physical theory called special relativity.
Special relativity
Quantum mechanics
c
Classical mechanics
Strictly speaking, there remain unsolved theoretical difficulties in order to succesfully include gravitational phenomena.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-intro.tex
Chapter 1
Although quantum field theory is still mathematically incomplete, the theories obtained by the limiting processes described above, namely quantum mechanics, special relativity, and classical mechanics are mathematically closed,
i.e. they can be formulated in a purely axiomatic fashion and all the experimental observations made so far (within the range of validity of these theories) are
compatible with the derived theorems.
Among those three theories, quantum mechanics has a very particular status. It can be formulated in a totally axiomatic way; all its predictions have
been verified with unprecedented accuracy; not a single experiment has ever
put the theory in difficulty; quantum phenomena play a prominent role in the
global econ omy (a very conservative estimate is that 35% of the global wealth
relies on exploiting quantum phenomena). Quantum mechanics intervenes in
a decisive manner in the explanation of vast classes of phenomena in other fundamental sciences and in technology. Without being exhaustive, here are some
examples of such quantum phenomena:
atomic and molecular physics (e.g. stability of matter, physical properties
of matter), quantum optics (e.g. lasers),
on which rely chemistry (e.g. valence theory) and biology (e.g. photosynthesis, structure of DNA),
solid state physics (e.g. physics of semiconductors, transistors),
tunnel effect (e.g. atomic force microscope) and nanotechnology,
supraconductivity (e.g. used in magnetic levitation for ultra-fast trains)
and superfluidity
...
In spite of this tremendous success in the predictive/explanatory power of
quantum mechanics and its mathematically closed form, its axiomatic setting
is not very satisfactory; the theory looks as if a conceptual building block were
missing in the description of the theory.
There is however another major technological breakthrough that is foreseen
with a tremendous socio-economical impact: if the integration of electronic
components continues at the present pace (see figure 1.3), within 1015 years,
only some tenths of silicium atoms will be required to store a single bit of information. Classical (Boolean) logics does not apply any longer to describe atomic
logical gates, quantum (orthocomplemented lattice) logics is needed instead.
Theoretical exploration of this new type of informatics has started and it
is proven [46] that some algorithmically complex problems, like the integer
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-intro.tex
prime factoring problem for which the best known algorithm [29] requires
a time is superpolynomial in the number of digits can be achieved in polynomial time using quantum logic. The present time technology does not yet
allow the prime factoring of large integers but it demonstrates that there is no
fundamental physical obstruction to its achievement for the rapidly improving computer technology. Should such a breakthrough occur, all our electronic
transmissions, protected by classical cryptologic methods could become vulnerable. The table 1.1 gives a very rough estimate of the time needed to factor
an n = 1000 digits numbers, assuming an operation per nanosecond for various
hypotheses of algorithmic complexity.
On the other hand, present day technology allows to securely and unbreakably cipher messages using quantum cryptologic protocols.
The purpose of this course is twofold. Firstly, the mathematical foundations
of quantum mechanics are presented in the simplest finite-dimensional case
and proceed with the presentation of the applications applications of quantum
mechanics into the rapidly developing field of quantum information, com/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-intro.tex
Chapter 1
O (exp(n))
10417 yr
O (n 3 )
1s
Table 1.1: A very rough estimate of the order of magnitude of the time needed
to factor an n-digit number, under the assumption of execution of the algorithm on a hypothetical computer performing an operation per nanosecond, as
a function of the time complexity of the used algorithm. When the cryptologic
protocol RSA has been proposed [38] in 1978, the best factoring algorithm had
a time complexity in O (exp(n)) (for comparison: age of the universe 1.5 1010
yr). The best known algorithm (the general number field sieve algorithm) reported in [30] requires time O (exp(n 1/3 log2 n)) to factor a n-digit number. The
Shors quantum factoring algorithm [46] requires a time of O (n 3 ).
puting, communication, and cryptology. In a second part, the mathematical
foundations are then revisited in the general infinite-dimensional case. Algebra, analysis, probability, and statistics are necessary to describe and interpret
this theory. Its predictions are often totally counter-intuitive. Hence it is interesting to study this theory that provides a useful application of the mathematical tools, a source of inspiration4 for new developments for the underlying
branches of mathematics, and a description of unusual physical phenomena.
Recall that entire branches of mathematics have been developed on purpose, to give precise mathematical meaning to initially ill-defined mathematical objects introduced by
physicists to formulate and handle quantum theory. To mention but the few most prominent
examples of such mathematical theories: von Neumann algebras, spectral theory of operators,
theory of distributions, non-commutative probabilities.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-intro.tex
2
Phase space, observables,
measurements, and yes-no
experiments
2.1 Introduction
As is the case in all experimental sciences, information on a physical system
is obtained through observation (also called measurement) of the values
within a prescribed set that can take the physical observables. There exists
an abstract set O of observables; every observable X O has possible outcomes
in a given set X := X X . The acquisition procedure of the information must be
described operationally in terms of
macroscopic instruments, and
prescriptions on their application on the observables of an objectified
physical system.
The biggest the set of observables whose values are known, the finest is
the knowledge about the physical system. Since crude physical observables
9
2.1. Introduction
(e.g. number of particles, energy, velocity, etc.) can take values in various sets
(N, R+ , R3 , etc.), to have a unified treatment for general systems, we reduce any
physical experiment into a series of measurements of a special class of observables, called yes-no experiments. This is very reminiscent of the approximation of any integrable random variable by a sequence of step functions. Therefore, ultimately, we can focus on observables taking values in the set {0, 1}.
To become quantifiable and theoretically exploitable, experimental observations must be performed under very precise conditions, known as the experimental protocol. Firstly, the objectified system must be carefully prepared in
an initial condition known as the state of the system. Mathematically, the state
incorporates all the a priori information we have on the system, it belongs to
some abstract space of states S. Secondly, the system enters in contact with a
measuring apparatus, specifically designed to measure the outcomes of a given
observable X O, returning the experimental data with values in some space
of outcomes (X, X ); this is precisely the measurement process. The whole
physics relies on the postulate of statistical reproducibility of experiments:
if the same measurement is performed a very large number of times on a system prepared in the same given state, the experimentally observed data for a
given observable are scattered around some mean value in X with some fluctuations around the mean value. However, when the number of repetitions tends
to infinity, the empirical distribution of the observed data tends to some probability distribution on (X, X ). Thus, abstractly, a measurement can be thought
as a black box assigning to a pair (X , ) (O, S) a probability measure on (X, X ).
Mathematically, it will be shown that the measurement corresponds to a transformation kernel.
Dealing with transformation kernels, the natural question that arises is: what
is the appropriate (abstract) probability space, if any, on which random variables entering a given problem can be defined? For sequences of classical random variables, the answer is well known: such an abstract probability space
exists, provided that the sequence verifies the Kolmogorovs compatibility conditions; in that case, there exists a canonical (minimal) realisation of the abstract probability space on which the whole sequence is defined. Elements of
this probability space are called trajectories of the sequence. The physical analogue of the minimal realisation of the abstract probability space is called phase
space. Elements of the phase space are called (pure) phases. The physical analogue of a random variable is called observable.
It turns out that physical observables for classical systems are just random
variables while states are probability measures so that the phase space for such
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
systems is a genuine probability space, while for quantum systems, observables are (generally non-commuting) Hermitean operators acting on an abstract Hilbert space.
X () =
0 if [0, 1/2[
1 if [1/2, 1].
Technically, both spaces are measurable spaces, i.e. F and X are -algebras of events. We
require the space X to be a Polish space (i.e. a metrisable, complete, and separable space). We
shall only consider the case X R, in this course.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
We use this special notation to remind constantly to the reader that E [A] is still a function
a random variable actually that must be evaluated at a given point to give the number
E [A]() {0, 1}.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
E X [d x]x, and P X = PK X =
P(d ) X () .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
1
1 0 0
0
0 1 0
1
0 0 1
X = and K =
.
1
1 0 0
0
0 1 0
1
0 0 1
The significance of the matrix K can be better understood by a glimpse on the
figure 2.1.
X ()
1
0
1
1
Figure 2.1: The non-zero elements of the matrix K are depicted as coloured
dots. The answer to the question E [{1}] (i.e. does the random variable X take
the value 1?) is the yes-no-valued random variable 1F , with F = X 1 ({1}) =
{1, 4}. Obviously,
the collection (E [{x}])xX provides with a partition of unity
R
P
because X E [d x] := xX E [{x}] = E [X] = 1 = I .
Now each column of the matrix representing K is a {0, 1}-valued random
variable, i.e. K (, {x}) = E [{x}]() and we have, as in remark 2.2.5, that
X
X=
E [{x}]x.
xX
Aj
F j(1)
F j(2)
F j(3)
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
X E [d x]x
established
Stochastic processes
The canonical construction of the minimal probability space carrying an infinite family of random variables is also possible.
Definition 2.2.8. (Consistency) Let T R be an infinite set (countable or uncountable) and for each t T denote by Rt a copy of the real line, indexed by t .
Denote by RT = t T Rt and for n 1 by = (t 1 , . . . , t n ) a finite ordered set of distinct indices t i T, i = 1, . . . , n. Denote P a probability measure on (R , B(R ))
where R = Rt1 Rtn . We say that the family (P ), where runs through all
finite ordered subsets of T , is consistent, if
1. P(t1 ,...tn ) (A 1 A n ) = P(t(1) ,...t(n) (A (1) A (n) ), where is an arbitrary permutation of (1, . . . , n) and A i B(Rti ), and
2. P(t1 ,...tn ) (A 1 A n1 R) = P(t1 ,...tn1 ) (A 1 A n1 ).
Definition 2.2.9. Let T be a subset of R. A family of random variables X
(X t )t T is called a stochastic process with time domain T .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
If T = N or Z, the process is called a discrete time process or random sequence, if T = [0, 1] or R or R+ , the process is a continuous time process.
The natural question that arises is whether there exists a probability space
(, F , P) carrying the whole process. In other words, if P X denotes the distribution of the process X , what are the conditions it must fulfil so that there
exists a probability space (, F , P) such that P(B ) = P({ : X () B } for all
B B(RT )? The answer is given by the following
Theorem 2.2.10 (Kolmogorovs existence). Suppose that for n 1, the family
P(X t1 ,...,X tn ) , with t 1 < . . . t n and t i T R, for i = 1, . . . , n, is a consistent family of
probability measures. Then, there are
1. a probability space (, F , P) and
2. a stochastic process X = (X t )t T such that P(X t1 ,...,X tn ) (] , x 1 ] ]
, x n] = P({ : X t1 () x 1 , . . . , X tn () x n }.
Proof. See [45, Theorem II.2.1, p. 247], for instance.
Exercise 2.2.19. Let P S be a state on (, F ), X O a X-valued random variable (X R), and E [A] the question 1 A X for some fixed A X .
Solution: We h ave already established in example 2.2.7 that E(E [A]) = P X (A).
We compute further:
R
R
1. E(E [A]) = 1{X A} ()P(d ) = 1 A (XR ())P(d ).
2. If P = 0 for some 0 , then E(E [A]) = 1{X A} ()0 (d ) = 1 A (X (0 )) =
P X (A) {0, 1}. This result means that when measuring a sharp observable
in a pure state, any measurable set of the space of outcomes, either occurs
with certainty or almost surely does not occur. This is a far reaching result
establishing the reducibility of the classical randomness.
3. If the space
R is minimal for X , then X () = and we get respectively:
E(E [A]) = 1 A (X ())P(d ) = P(A) for arbitrary state P and E(E [A]) =
0 (A) in case of a pure state P = 0 .
Exercise 2.2.20. What is the minimal phase space for a mechanical system
composed by N point particles in dimension 3?
Albert Einstein, (Ulm) 1879 (Princeton) 1955. Developed the theory of special (1905) and
general (1913) relativity, pillars of modern theoretical physics but has been awarded the Nobel
Prize of Physics in 1921 not for this achievement but for his explanation of the photoelectric
effect. Published more than 300 scientific papers of extreme originality. Beyond his scientific contributions Einstein was a humanist worried about war; he has signed with the British
philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell the Russell-Einstein manifesto against nuclear weapons.
6
Cf. for instance his famous aphorism God does not play dice with the world (quoted, for
instance, from the conversations with Hermanns, in William Hermanns, Einstein and the Poet:
in search of the cosmic man, Branden Press, Brookline, MA (1983).
7
Boris Yakovlevich Podolsky, (naturalised) American physicist 1896 1966.
8
Nathan Rosen, American physicsist1909 1995.
9
Literally: thought experiment. A very powerful epistemological method developed by
Einstein of questioning the validity of the theoretical predictions.
10
See the Analyse item at http://bibnum.education.fr/physique/physique-quantique/leparadoxe-epr for the unconventional beginnings and fate of the EPR paper.
11
David Joseph Bohm, 1997 1992. American physicist who introduced the hidden variables
formalism in the quest of restoring realism of quantum mechanics.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
John Stewart Bell, 1928 1990. A Northern-Irish physicist with a major contribution known
as Bells theorem, establishing the experimental consequences that should have hidden variables in quantum mechanics.
13
Readers so inclined to philosophical meditation are invited to consider the ravages
fashion-led or project-oriented research can cause to the advancement of science.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
Pierre Gasendi, French philosopher, priest, scientist, and mathematician 1592 1655.
Sir Isaac Newton, English physicist and mathematician, 1642 1727. In his very influential
work Philosophi naturalis principia mathematica, he established the classical theory of universal gravitation and discovered what later became differential calculus to solve the equations
of motion.
15
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
Figure 2.3: When a photon passes through the first polariser oriented in
direction emerges polarised in that direction. When it encounters a second polariser oriented in direction passes through with probability
cos2 ( ). If the photon is initially already polarised in direction , nothing
changes if the first polariser is removed.
If the experiment is to be explained in terms of classical probability, with every polariser in direction [0, /2] is associated a random variable X {0, 1};
the random variables X are defined on a probability spaces (, F , P) where
represent the microscopic state of the photon. Now for the experimental
setting depicted in figure 2.3, the random variables X are correlated as
E(X X ) = P(X = 1, X = 1) =
1
cos2 ( ).
2
But now there is a problem because this correlation cannot be that of classical
random variables. Choosing in fact three polarisations 1 , 2 , and 3 , we have
P(X i = 1, X j = 0) = P(X i = 1) P(X i = 1, X j = 1) = 21 (1 cos2 (i j )) =
1
sin2 (i j ) for i , j {1, 2, 3}. The three-variable Bell inequality 2.3.1 reads
2
then
1
1
1
sin2 (1 3 ) sin2 (1 2 ) + sin2 (2 3 ).
2
2
2
The choice 1 = 0, 2 = /6, and 3 = /3 leads to the impossible inequality
3/8 1/8 + 1/8. Therefore, classical probability cannot describe this simple experiment.
On a second reading, this experiment is not very convincing because on
arranging polarisers on the optical table as described above, there is nothing
preventing conceptually the second random variable X to depend in fact on
both and . But then the correlation reads E(X X , ) = P(X = 1, X , = 1) =
1
2
2 cos ( ) and this can be satisfied by choosing, for instance, X and X ,
independent with P(X = 1) = 1/2 and P(X , = 1) = cos2 () which of course
can be easily conceived.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
Ca
PM1
PM2
Coincidence monitoring
Figure 2.4: Schematic view of the Orsay experiment [5]. A beam of calcium (Ca)
atoms is triggered by a laser. When thus excited, calcium atom emit simultaneously two photons (at different frequencies) in opposite directions and having
correlated polarisations. An ingenious system of optical switches is used whose
net effect can be described by the following equivalent description. The left polariser is oriented in one of the angles 1 or 2 , the right polariser into one of 1
or 2 . After passing through the polarisers, the photons are counted by photomultipliers (PM1) and (PM2) and only photons detected in synchronisation are
recorded. A careful design is made so that all photons travel on same optical
lengths and the choice of left and right polarisation is made after the photons
are emitted (so that any causal influence of the choice of orientations on the
manner the photons are emitted can be excluded).
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
1
sin2 ( ),
2
for every choice of and . (Note incidentally that the same conclusion is obtained using the not yet presented quantum formalism). Now the choice
1 = 0, 2 = /3, 1 = /2, and 2 = /6, should read 1 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4, manifestly violating the four variable Bells inequality 2.3.2.
To better grasp the significance of this experiment, it has been proposed,
see [32] for instance, to think of it as a card game between two players X and Y
who can pre-agree on any conceivable strategy in order to win the game. The
game is described in the following
Exercise 2.3.3. (The Orsay experiment as a card game [32]) The game is played
between players X , Y (see figure 2.4), and A who acts as an arbiter and as game
leader (A like . . . Aspect).
Description of the game
Questions
0 1
0 1
DX =
and D Y =
,
0 1
1 0
interpreted as meaning P(Answer of X is a | card colour is c) = D X (c, a)
for c {r, b} and a {0, 1} (and similarly for Y ). Hence the previously
described strategies are termed deterministic strategies. Determine all
deterministic strategies and show that for all of them, Bells inequality is
verified.
3. Propose a plausible parametrisation of the space of all strategies (deterministic and random) and show that this space is convex. Is it a simplex?
Show that the previous deterministic strategies are extremal points of this
space.
4. Conclude that in general any strategy can be written as a convex combination of deterministic strategies. Is this decomposition unique? How
such a convex combination is related to hidden variables? Conclude that
no classical strategy exists allowing to win this game.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
(Some hints concerning convexity and convex decomposition of stochastic matrices needed for the the two last questions can be found in the chapter Markov
chains on finite state spaces of the lecture notes [35]).
This exercise shows that any system described in terms of classical probabilities, even augmented to incorporate hidden variables, cannot win this game.
But the Orsay experiment proved that Nature wins! Therefore, the quantum
strategy used by Nature is strictly more powerful than any classical strategy.
Probably the first person to really understand this power was Feynman16 (see
[26, chap. 7 and 15] for instance), who first conjectured the computational power
of quantum mechanics and was the first who proposed to use atoms as quantum computers.
Richard Phillips Feynman, 1918 1988. American physicist with major contributions in
quantum mechanics, especially known for his work in the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics. Has been awarded the Nobel prize in Physics in 1965. Feynman was an unparalleled populariser of physics; he left co-authored with Leighton and Sands as legacy
to generations of young physicists the seminal 3-volume textbook known as The Feynman
lecture on Physics.
17
Niels Henrik David Bohr, 1865 1962,. Danish physicist with foundational contributions in
quantum mechanics.
18
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, 1858 1947. German physicist; has been awarded the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1918. One of the originators of quantum theory.
19
Erwin Rudolf Josef Alexander Schrdinger, Austrian physicist. Developed quantum theory.
20
Werner Karl Heisenberg, 1901 1976. German physicist with major contributions in quantum mechanics. The uncertainty relations are named after him.
21
Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac, 1902 1984. English physicist with major contributions in
quantum electrodynamics. Predicted the existence of antimatter. Has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933. For the needs of quantum mechanics he introduced the notion
of -function and its derivatives, known nowadays as Dirac measure and Dirac distributions
respectively after they have been given a rigorous mathematical status by Laurent Schwartz.
Another happy achievement of Dirac was the so-called Diracs notation in terms of bras and
kets (it will presented in 3.8).
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
Jnos / Johann / John von Neumann, 1903 1954, mathematician, physicist, and computer
scientist (before this last term has been coined by lack of . . . any computer), born as Margittai
Neumann Jnos Lajos in Hungary, achieved his PhD under the direction of Fejr Lipot at the
Institute of theoretical physics of the university of Budapest. Moved to Italy then Switzerland
where he completed studies as chemical engineer at the Eidegenssische technische Hohcschule
Zrich. Exerced as Privatdozent in Gttingen, Berlin and Hamburg but finaly emigrated in 1930
to the United States (Institute of Adanced Studies - Princeton) to escape from the prosecutions
against Jews that had started in Germany. (Source the biography of von Neumann: [6]).
Among his major achievements are the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics, a
class of operator algebras (known nowadays as von Neumann algebras), the construction of the
first computer in the world, the introduction of the theory of games, . . . . (See the impressive
sum of his collected works [52, 53, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57]).
23
Strictly speaking, equivalence classes of unit vectors differing by a global phase, called rays.
For the sake of simplicity we stick to unit vectors in this introductory section.
24
The structure of the set of arbitrary states is postponed to postulate 3.10.8 that generalises
the present one.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
states Sp .
Postulate 2.4.3 (Evolution). Any time evolution of an isolated quantum system
is described by a unitary operator acting on H. Conversely, any unitary operator
acting on H corresponds to a possible invariance25 of the system.
Postulate 2.4.4 (Observables). The set O of sharp observables of a quantum
system is the set of self-adjoint operators X acting on the phase space H of the
system. The space of outcomes of a sharp observable X is its spectrum, i.e. X =
spec(X ). Questions E [A] are special self-adjoint operators that are spectral projections for A B(R).
Postulate 2.4.5 (Measurement). Measuring a sharp observable represented by
its spectral projectors, in the pure state described by the unit vector , corresponds to determining the probability measure on the real line induced by the
spectral projectors through | E [B ] , for all B B(R).
These axioms will be revisited later, after some basic notions on Hilbert
spaces have been reminded. For the time being, it is instructing to illustrate
the implications of these axioms on a very simple non-trivial quantum system
and try to interpret their significance.
The time evolution of an isolated system leaves the physical quantity energy invariant.
Unitary operators are associated with conserved quantities. See definition 13.5.4 and the reformulation of the present postulate as postulate 13.5.5 for precise statements.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
General (unnormalised) vectors of H are denoted by small Latin letters f , g , h, etc.; normalised vectors, representing rays, by small Greek letters , , , etc.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
1
for X the matrix X =
2i
2i
. We compute easily
2
Eigenvalues
Eigenvectors
u ()
i
1
p
5
2
2i
1
p
5
1
3
2
Projectors
E [{}]
1 2i
1
5 2i
4
4
2i
1
5 2i
1
Hence
1
X=
E [{}] = (3)
5
{3,2}
X
1
2i
2i
4
1
+2
5
4
2i
2i
1
The operators E [{3}] and E [{2}] are self-adjoint (hence they correspond to
observables) and are projectors to mutually orthogonal subspaces. They play
the role of yes-no questions for a quantum system (recall remark ??.)
Now, let H be a pure phase; since u(3) and u(2) are two orthonormal vectors of H (hence also pure phases), they serve as basis to decompose
= 3 u (3) +2 u (2) , with kk2 = |3 |2 +|2 |2 = 1. Thus any pure state , with
probability | | u (3) |2 is in the pure state u (3) and with probability | | u (2) |2
is in the pure state u (2) .
Compute further
| X =
00
X
,0 ,00
00 0 u () | E [{0 }]u ( ) =
X
spec(X )
| |2 .
=
=
=
n
X
xi p i
i =1
n
X
p
p i xi p i
i =1
n
X
p
p i exp(i i )x i p i exp(i i ),
i =1
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
p arbitrary
x1
0
p 1 exp(i 1 )
..
.
..
. We have more, verifying kk = 1 and with X =
.
p
0
xn
p n exp(i n )
over seen that classical probability is equivalent to classical physics; thanks to
the previous lines, it turns out that that it is also equivalent to quantum physics
involving solely diagonal self-adjoint operators as observables. The full flavour
of quantum physics is obtained only when the observables are represented by
non-diagonal self-adjoint operators.
Consider now,
f = E [{}] =
u() | u ()
0
if spec(X )
otherwise.
Were only to consider this generalisation of probability theory to a noncommutative setting and to explore its implications for explaining quantum
physical phenomena, should the enterprise be already a fascinating one. But
there is even much more fascination about it: there has been demonstrated
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
lately that quantum phenomena can serve to cipher messages in an unbreakable way and these theoretical predictions have already been exemplified by
currently working pre-industrial prototypes27 .
In a more speculative perspective, it is even thought that in the near future there will be manufactured computers capable of performing large scale
computations using quantum algorithms28 . Should such a construction be realised, a vast family of problems in the (classical) complexity class of exponential time could be solved in polynomial time on a quantum computer.
27
See the article [25], articles in Le Monde (they can be found on the website of this course),
the website www.idquantique.com of the company commercialising quantum cryptologic and
teleporting devices, etc.
28
Contrary to the quantum transmitters and cryptologic devices that are already available
(within pre-industrial technologies), the prototypes of quantum computers that have been
manufactured so far have still extremely limited scale capabilities.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-phase.tex
34
3
Short resum of Hilbert spaces
For the sake of completeness, some standard results on Hilbert spaces are reminded in this chapter. Most of the proofs in this chapter are omitted because
they are considered as exercises; they can be found in the classical textbooks
[1, 27, 37, 41, 59] which are strongly recommended for further reading.
This chapter is written with two different readerships in mind: those interested solely in finite dimensional applications of quantum mechanics and
those interested in full-fledged applications. The former can skip the paragraphs printed in colour.
3
1X
i k ku + i k vk2 .
4 k=0
Notice that very often in the literature, the scalar product is defined to be linear with respect
to its first argument. This is only a matter of taste that must be consistently kept in the whole
formalism. We stick in the definition given here because it greatly simplifies formul arising in
the quantum mechanical setting.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
36
the image (V) is dense in V. An arbitrary normed space (not necessarily complete) can be completed via a standard procedure we recall here briefly. Let
CS(V) be the set of Cauchy sequences on V, an equivalence relation on CS(V)
defined by
v w lim kv n w n k = 0,
n
that can be shown to be independent of the representative v of [v] becomes a complete normed space. On identifying elements of V with constant
we establish a canonical embedding : V V.
One can show that
sequences V
the completion is unique up to isomorphisms (see [27, 1.6, pp. 1721] for the
details).
Exercise 3.1.5. The following are classical examples of normed spaces.
1. The finite-dimensional vector space V = Cd with the ordinary scalar prodP
uct u | v = dn=1 u n v n is obviously a Hilbert space.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
37
Recall that a subset C of a real or complex vector space V is convex if for all
point (vectors) x, y C and all [0, 1], the point x + (1 )y belongs to C .
Theorem 3.1.6. Let C be a non-empty, closed, convex set in a Hilbert space H.
For any h H, there exists a unique point c C lying closer to h than any other
point of C , i.e.
h H, !c := c(h) C : kh ck = inf kh ak.
aC
Corollary 3.1.7. Let G be a Hilbert subspace of H. Then, for all h H, there exists
a unique g G, such that
kh g k = inf kh f k and h g G.
f G
Exercise 3.1.8. Let L 1 (, F , P; R) denote the vector space of integrable random variables over some probability space (, F , P) and G a sub--algebra of
2
F . Denote by F = L 2 (, F , P; R) and
R G = L (, G , P; R). On F a sesquilinear
form s can be defined by s(X , Y ) = X ()Y ()P(d ) that can be turned into a
scalar product by considering the space L 2 instead of L 2 .
1. Use corollary ?? to establish that for every X F there exists a Y G
(unique up to modifications differing from X on P-negligible sets), such
that X Y Z for all Z G.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
38
n
X
i e i k2 = khk2 +
i =1
n
X
|I c i |2
i =1
n
X
|c i |2 ,
i =1
where c i = e i | h .
The significance of the previous result is best grasped in the following:
Theorem 3.2.2. If (e i )i =1,...,n is an orthonormal collection of vectors in H, the
P
vector g vect(e 1 , . . . , e n ) lying closest to h is the vector g = ni=1 e i | h e i , verifyP
ing kh g k2 = khk2 ni=1 | e i | h |2 .
In particular, of h vect(e 1 , . . . , e n ), then h = g =
sults extend in infinite dimension.
Pn
i =1 e i
| h e i . These re-
39
vect(e n , n N) = H.
P
For all h H, khk2 = nN | e n | h |2 .
P
For all h H, h = nN e n | h e n .
40
3.3 Duality
Definition 3.3.1. Let V be a C-vector space. A map f : V C such that for all
u, v V and all , C,
F (u + v) = F (u) + F (v),
is called a linear functional. The space V0 of all linear functionals on V is called
the (algebraic) dual of V. (It is itself a C-vector space).
Example 3.3.2.
1. Let V = Cn and c 1 , . . . , c n fixed complex numbers and (e 1 , . . . , e n )
P
a fixed basis of V. The map F defined by F (v) = ni=1 c i v i where (v i ) denote the components of v in the basis (e i ) is a linear functional.
2. V = C ([0, 1]; R) and M1 (B([0,
R 1]) a probability measure on [0, 1] having
a density . The map F (v) = [0,1] v(t )(t )d t is a linear functional.
3. V = H a Hilbert space and g a fixed vector in H. The map F (h) = g | h is
a linear functional.
When the vector space V is equipped with a norm kk, with which it is complete (Banach space), we can consider continuous linear functionals.
Theorem 3.3.3. Let F be a linear functional on the complex Banach space (V, k
k). The following are equivalent:
1. F is continuous everywhere.
2. F is continuous at point 0.
3. sup{|F (v)|, v V, kvk 1} < .
The previous theorem establishes continuity of F provided it is bounded on
the unit ball of V. The bound sup{|F (v)|, v V, kvk 1} constitutes a norm,
denoted kF k.
Theorem 3.3.4. Let F be a linear functional on the Banach space (V, k k). The
space
V = {F : V C, F continuous }
is called the (topological) dual of V. When equipped with kF k sup{|F (x)|, x
V, kxk 1}, it becomes a Banach space on its own.
In finite dimension the algebraic and topological duals of a normed space
coincide.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
41
42
Notice that if an unbounded operator on a vector space V can only be defined on a domain Dom(X ) strictly smaller than V. The operator is said to be
essentially defined on V if Dom(X ) is dense in V.
Any bounded operator X L (V, W) is continuous.
Example 3.4.2.
1. L(Cm , Cn ) = B(Cm , Cn ) = Mnm (C).
2. For any vector space V, we have V0 = L(V, C) and any normed space (V, k
k), V = B(V, C).
3. Let H = L 2 ([a, b]; C) with a < b. For any function f C ([a, b]; C) define the
operator M : H H by M h(t ) = f (t )h(t ), t [a, b]. Then M B(H), with
kM k = k f ksup = supt [a,b] | f (t )|, is called the multiplication operator.
Theorem 3.4.3. If (W, k k) is a Banach space, then for every (V, k k) normed
space, B(V, W), equipped with the operator norm, is a Banach space.
Theorem 3.4.4. If U, V, W are normed spaces, X B(U, V), and Y B(V, W),
then X Y B(U, W) and kX Y k kX kkY k.
Theorem 3.4.5. An operator X B(V, W) is invertible , if there exists an operator Y B(W, V), such that Y X = I V and X Y = I W . The operator Y is then termed
the inverse of X and is denoted by X 1 .
Remark 3.4.6. Notice that in the above definition X 1 is required to be bounded
in order to be considered as the inverse of X . For instance, on H = `2 (N),
let (e n )nN be a complete orthonormal system and define the operator X by
its action on it,. For instance, suppose that X e n = n e n , with C \ {0} and
supn |n | < . Then X B(H) and X 1 is well defined as an element of L(H)
but not necessarily of B(H) since it may happen that kX 1 k = ; in that case,
X is not invertible.
Exercise 3.4.7. if dim H < and X B(H), the the following are equivalent:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
X is invertible.
X is injective.
X is surjective.
Y B(H) : X Y = I ,
Y B(H) : Y X = I .
Remark 3.4.8. In infinite dimension the above claims are not equivalent. Provide an example!
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
43
normal if [X , X ] := X X X X = 0,
self-adjoint if X = X ,
skew-adjoint if X = X (hence i X is self-adjoint),
unitary if X X = X X = I .
Self-adjoint, skew-adjoint, and unitary operators are all normal; nevertheless there exist normal operators that are of neither of the previous types.
3.5.2 Projections
Definition 3.5.2. Let V be a vector space and decomposed as a direct sum
V = XY into two vector subspaces X and Y. Define a linear operator P : V X
by
V 3 v = x + y 7 P v = P (x + y) := x X.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
44
45
sS
sS
sS
sS
46
( v, w) because these equalities are not implied by the definition 3.7.1. Let
R F (V W) F (V W) be the equivalence relation identifying pairs
(v 1 , w) + (v 2 , w) and (v 1 + v 2 , w),
(v, w 1 ) + (v, w 2 ) and (v, w 1 + w 2 ),
(v, w) and ( v, w),
(v, w) and (v, w).
Definition 3.7.2. The (algebraic) tensor product of the vector spaces V and W
is the vector space F (V W)/R, denoted by V W.
The tensor product between vectors is the bilinear map : V W assigning
to every pair of vectors (v, w) V W their equivalence class (v, w) := v w in
V W. It satisfies obviously the following equalities:
(v 1 + v 2 ) w = v 1 w + v 2 w,
v (w 1 + w 2 ) = v (w 1 + w 2 )
(v, w) = ( v, w) = (v, w).
Therefore, the tensor product possesses the universality property: let V, W,
and X be arbitrary vector spaces and b : V W X an arbitrary bilinear map;
then there exists a unique linear map l : V W X such that l = b, in other
terms, the following diagram commutes.
VW
b
VW
The tensor product allows thus the replacement of bilinear maps b by linear
ones l .
The notion of tensor product naturally extends to Hilbert spaces, although
in the case of infinite dimensional spaces, some care must be paid to ensure
completeness of the tensor product space as it shall be explained below.
Remark 3.7.3. Consider the case of finite dimensional Hilbert spaces G and H
with bases (i )i =1,...,m and ( j ) j =1,...,n respectively. Decomposing arbitrary vecP
Pn
tors g G and h H on these bases, g = m
i =1 g i i and h = j =1 h i j , and using
the bilnearity of the map , we get
(g , h) = g h =
m X
n
X
g i h j i j ,
i =1 j =1
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
47
X 11 X 12
X=
X 21 X 22
Y11 Y12
and Y =
,
Y21 Y22
X 11 Y X 12 Y
X 11 Y21 X 11 Y22 X 12 Y21 X 12 Y22
,
X Y =
=
X 21 Y X 22 Y
X 21 Y11 X 21 Y12 X 22 Y11 X 22 Y12
X 21 Y21 X 21 Y22 X 22 Y12 X 22 Y22
i.e. (X Y )i j ,kl := i j | X Y k l = X i k Y j l , for i , j , k, l = 1, 2.
Cette partie doit tre re-crite. The notion of algebraic tensor product is
given in 3.7.2 Here we extend this notion to hold in the case where the factor spaces of the tensor product are not mere vector spaces but (infinite dimensional) separable Hilbert spaces. Intuitively, we interpret the tensor map
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
48
Obviously L is a vector space. A sesquilinear form | L is defined by its action on simple tensor products in L , by
| 0 0 L := | 0 G | 0 H
and extended by linearity on all elements of L .
Lemma 3.7.7. The sesquilinear form | L is
1. well defined, and
2. positive defined.
Proof.
i =1
49
PM
i =1 c i
i and Complter.
Diracs notation
Orthonormal basis (e 1 , . . . , e n )
P
= i i e i
P
| = i i
H = { f : H C, linear}
: H H
: 7 f (() = |
| = f ()
X = X
|X = X | = X |
X u (i ) = i u (i )
E [{i }] projection on Cu (i )
P
X = i i E [{i }]
Tensor product
n symbols, eg. {e 1 , . . . , e n }
|e 1 , . . . |e n
P
| = i i |e i
P
| = i i
H = { f : H C, linear}
: H H
: | 7 |
| = ||
X = X
| X
(i )
X |u = i |u (i )
E [{}] = |u (i ) u (i ) |
P
X = i i |u (i ) u (i ) |
| | = |
50
51
2 0
1 1
X=
and Y =
.
0 0
1 1
It is an elementary computation to show that, since X is positive,
2 0
|X | =
.
0 0
As for |Y |, first remark that Y is normal, hence diagonalisable. The eigenvalues
of Y are 0 and 2 with corresponding normalised eigenvectors
1 1
1 1
| e0 = p
and | e 2 = p
.
2 1
2 1
Normality of Y implies orthogonality of the eigenvectors. The corresponding
spectral orthoprojectors are the (self-adjoint) operators
1 1 0
1 1 1
E [0] = | e 0 e 0 | =
and E [2] = | e 2 e 2 | =
.
2 0 0
2 1 1
P
The spectral decomposition Y = spec Y E [] implies that
Y=
E [] =
spec Y
E [].
spec Y
spec Y
Hence Y Y = Y 2 =
1 1
|Y | = 2E [2] =
.
1 1
Similarly, we compute Z = X + Y . Be cautious however, that although the spectral decompositions of X and Y are already established, they cannot be used to
obtain the spectral decomposition of Z because the eigenspaces of X are different from those of Y . The computation of the spectral decomposition of Z
requires computation of eigenspaces afresh! Doing so, we compute
p
2 0
p
|Z | =
.
0
2
p
But now the operator W = |X |+|Y ||X +Y | has spec W = {2(1 2), 2} and since
there is a strictly negative eigenvalue, the operator W is not positive, therefore
the triangular inequality fails.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
52
tr X =
X
nB
n | X n R+ {+}.
53
kB1
54
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
55
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-hilbe.tex
56
4
First consequences of quantum
formalism
X
spec(X )
| |2
and when the operator X is self-adjoint, the spectrum is real and the expectation is then a real number. What makes quantum probability different from
classical one, is (among other things) the impossibility of simultaneous diagonalisation of two non-commuting operators. Following the probabilistic interpretation, denote by Var (X ) = E (X 2 ) (E (X ))2 .
Theorem 4.1.1 (Heisenbergs uncertainty). Let X , Y be two bounded self-adjoint
57
Var (X )Var (Y )
| | [X , Y ] |
.
2
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
58
Figure 4.1: The planes of oscillation of electric (red) and magnetic (blue) fields
are mutually perpendicular and intersect at the axis of propagation of the electromagnetic wave. We call classical transversal polarisation the angle of the
plane of the electric field with respect to an arbitrary origin.
Since nowadays light plays a key role in the transmission of digital information (let it be classical or quantum), it is important to practitioners of cryptography and communication to have some precisions on its properties. We use the
term light in a very broad sense, meaning electromagnetic radiation of every
frequency. The figure gives information about frequencies and wavelengths of
different types of radiation.
As already explained in 2.3.2, in its quantum mechanical description, light
is composed of a tremendous number of elementary light quanta, called photons, that propagate at a constant speed reading, in the vacuum, c = 2.99792458
108 m/s. Every photon has an energy (hence frequency) and is somehow localised in space, contrary to classical electromagnetic waves that propagate
unboundedly. It is useful, although strictly speaking wrong, to think of photons as small wave packets of given frequency (see figure 4.3). White light, as
the one reaching us from the sun, has a precise mixture of photons of various
frequencies. Monochromatic light, as the one emitted by a laser for instance,
has photons of a single frequency. When the light intensity is 1mW/cm2 , every
square centimetre2 receives 3.59 1020 red light photons/s and roughly half as
2
Red light has a median frequency of = 420THz. A single red photon carries an energy
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
59
Figure 4.2: Spectrum of visible light occupies only a tiny portion of the frequency range of electromagnetic radiation.
much violet photons ( = 700THz).
Beyond frequency, photons have another characteristic called polarisation3 .
If we are interested only to polarisation degree of freedom of a potion, the
pure state describing its polarisation (see exercise ??) is given by a ray H =
C2 . Denoting 0 and 1 the canonical basis of H, the general form of is parametrized
E = 2 = 2 1.05457 1034 Js 4.2 1014 s1 = 2.783 1018 J.
3
Photons are 0 mass particles, therefore in all frames they travel at the speed of . . . light c.
Strictly speaking, polarisation cannot be defined for particles not possessing a rest frame, only
a relativistic quantity called helicity can be defined for them. Nevertheless, for the purpose
of this course, we admit that polarisation exists for photons as a quantum degree of freedom
generalising classical polarisation.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
60
Figure 4.3: A non totally rigorous but useful mental representation of a photon. The envelope gives an estimate of the localisation and the frequency of
the enveloped wave an estimate of the frequency of the photon. Position and
frequency are determined only up to the precision allowed by Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
by two angles , :
cos()
=
.
exp(i ) sin()
Huge numbers of photons being involved even for modest intensities, the
appropriate method to study experimental results is through a statistical treatment of measurements.
The experimental setting of this experiment is depicted in the following figure 4.4.
When natural light passes through a horizontally oriented polariser, half of
the initial intensity is transmitted. When a vertical polariser is then placed in
the beam, the light is totally absorbed (first setting in figure 4.4.) On the contrary when three polarisers with respective orientations turned by 45 degrees
each time are placed perpendicularly to the light beam, the eighth of the intensity is transmitted.
If we consider polarisers not as filters, the experiment has a classical explanation. We give here the quantum explanation, proving at least the consistency
of the formalism.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
61
+ 2
+ 4
+ 2
PA
PB
PA
PI
PB
Figure 4.4: The experimental setting with two or three polarisers and a source
of non polarised light. In the left setting, after polariser P A , oriented at an arbitrary angle , half of the intensity passes; after polariser P B , crossed at right
angle with respect to P A , no light passes. In the right setting, after polariser P A ,
oriented at angle , half of the intensity passes; after polariser P I , oriented at
45 degrees with respect to P 1 , the fourth of the initial intensity passes, and after
polariser P B , oriented at 90 degrees with respect to P A , the eighth of the initial
intensity passes.
When the light beam is of natural light, it contains a huge number (ca. 1020 )
of photons. Any single photon has been produced by the decay of a different excited atom of the sun (or of a tungsten bulb); it is natural then to suppose that
every photon is described by a different pure state H
= C2 parametrized as
above, with , random variables, uniformly distributed on [0, 2]. The action
of polarisers P A , P I and P B is equivalent to projective measurements of respectively E [A] := | 0 0 |, E [I ] = 21 | 0 + 1 0 + 1 |, and E [B ] = | 1 1 |. It is an
easy matter to explain the results of the left setting. In the following table, we
summarise the results concerning the right setting.
Polariser
PA
PI
PB
Input state
| 0 = cos()| 0 + exp(i ) sin()| 1
| 1 = | 0
| 2 = p1 | 0 + 1
2
62
P(photon passes)
0 | E [A]0 = cos2 ()
1 | E [I ]1 = 12
2 | E [B ]2 = 12
R
1 2
d
2
4 0 cos () 2
= 18 , explaining the
The notion was introduced by Erwin Schrdinger himself who named this property Verschrnkung in German. The term has been translated into English (by Schrdinger himself )
as entanglement. Although the author of these lines advocates the term enchevtrement as the
French translation of this term, the French community of physicists has adopted the translation
intrication; therefore, we stick to the latter.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
63
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-quphe.tex
64
Part II
Quantum mechanics in finite
dimensional spaces and its
applications
65
5
Cryptology
67
Appeared as a first patent US Patent 1310719 issued on 22 July 1919, and further improved
in a series of patents: US Patent 1416765, US Patent 1584749, and US Patent 1613686.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-crypt.tex
68
69
Proof:
cd
= m ed
ed
ed
mod n
= m 1+k(n) ,
If Eve intercepts the message, to compute d she must know (n), hence
the factoring of n into primes. Security of the protocol is based on the conjecture that it is algorithmically hard to factor n. If we denote by N = log n, then
it is worth noticing that when the RSA protocol has been introduced, the best
known algorithm of factor n run in exp(N ) time. The best 2 known algorithm
nowadays [29] runs in exp(N 1/3 (log N )2/3 ) time. This algorithmic improvement,
combined with the increasing in the computational capabilities of computers,
allows the factoring of a 1000 digits number in ca. 8 months instead of a time
exceeding the age of the universe at the moment the algorithm has been proposed. Until May 2007, the RSA company ran an international contest offering
several hundreds thousand dollars to whoever could factor multi-digit numbers they provided on line. When the contest stopped the company gave the
official reasons explained in RSA factoring challenge.
2
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-crypt.tex
70
Q
Since | 6= 0 we get | n1
i =1 i | i =Q1 and since | 6= exp(i )| psi ,
it follows that 0 < | | | < 1. Subsequently, n1
i =1 | i | i | > 1 but this is impossible since for every i , | i | i | 1.
This theorem is at the basis of the BB84 quantum key distribution protocol
[10]. Alice and Bob communicate through a quantum and a classical public
channels; they agree publicly to use two different orthonormal bases of H = C2
(describing the photon polarisation):
+
B + = {+
0 = | 0 , 1 = | 1 }
|0|1 |0+|1
, 1 =
}.
B = {
p
p
0 =
2
2
The first element of each basis is associated with the bit 0, the second with the
bit 1. Moreover Alice and Bob agree on some integer n = (4 + )N with some
> 0, where N is the length of the message they wish to exchange securely;
it will be also the length of their key. Alice needs also to know the function
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-crypt.tex
71
+
0
+
1
T (x, y) =
if (x, y) = (0, 0)
if (x, y) = (0, 1)
if (x, y) = (1, 0)
if (x, y) = (1, 1).
72
73
74
Authentication
Must be treated after quantum computing. [8, 7, 34]
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-crypt.tex
75
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-crypt.tex
76
6
Turing machines, algorithms,
computing, and complexity classes
go
go
go
a0
0
1
]
s0
go
go
halt
d
L
L
R
Mind that during Turings times no computer was physically available. The external tape
was invented by Alan Turing who was fascinated by typewritters as an external storage
device.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
78
If the programme, described by this Turing machine, starts with the head over
any non-blank symbol of the input string, it ends with the head over the leftmost non-blank symbol while the string of symbols remains unchanged.
Other equivalent variants of the deterministic Turing machine may have
displacement sets with a 0 (do not move) displacement, have their alphabet A
partitioned into external and internal alphabet, etc. The distinction into internal and external alphabet is particularly useful in the case of semi-infinite tape,
an internal character , identified as first symbol, can be used to prevent the
head from going outside the tape. It is enough to define U (, go) = (, go, R).
Notation 6.1.3. If W is a finite set, we denote by W = nZ+ W n and W =
W = W Z+ . Notice that Z+ = {0, 1, 2, . . .} 6= N = {1, 2, . . .} and that W 0 = {;}. Elements of W are called words of finite length over the alphabet W . For every
w W , there exists n Z+ such that w W n ; we denote then by |W | = n the
length of the word w.
For every A b , we denote by A the completion of the word by
blanks, namely = (1 , . . . , || , ], ], ], . . .).
Considering the example 6.1.2, we can, without loss of generality, always assume that the machine starts at the first symbol of the input string = A b .
Starting from (, s 0 , h 0 = 1), successive applications of the transition function
U induce a dynamical system on X = A S Z. A configuration is an instantaneous description of the word written on the tape, the internal state of the
machine, and the position of the head, i.e. an element of X.
Let = inf{n 1 : s n S f }. The programme starting from initial configuration (, s 0 , h 0 = 1) stops running if < , it never halts when = . While
1 n < , the sequence ((n) , s n , h n )n is defined by updates of single characters; if, for 0 n < , we have u((n)
, s ) = (a 0 , s 0 , d ), then ((n+1) , s n+1 , h n+1 ),
hn n
is defined by
s n+1 = s 0
h n+1 = h n + d
(n)
(n)
0 (n)
(n+1) = ((n)
1 , . . . , h 1 , a , h +1 , . . . , |(n) | ).
n
If the machine halts at some finite instant, the output is obtained by reading
the tape from left to right until the first blank character. The sequence of words
((n) )n is called a computational path or computational history starting from .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
79
80
81
http://www.claymath.org/millennium/
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
82
n1
X
x k b k Zb n .
k=0
83
x0
y1
y0
z2
z1
z0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
Table 6.1: The truth table of the Boolean function A4 A3 implementing the
addition with carry of two binary 2-digit numbers.
Classical computers are based on gates {XOR, AND} for example. It is easily
shown that these gates are irreversible. Therefore it is intuitively clear why classical computers can produce information. What is much less intuitively clear
is how quantum processes can produce information since they are reversible
(unitary).
In 1973, B ENNETT predicted that it is possible to construct reversible universal gates. In 1982, F REDKIN exemplifies such a reversible gate. Fredkins gate
is a 3 inputs - 3 outputs gate, whose truth tableau is given in table ??. This gate
produces both AND (since inputs 0, x, y return outputs x y, x y, x) and NOT
gates (since inputs 1, 0, x return outputs x, x, x.) The gates AND and NOT forming a complete basis for Boolean circuits, the universality of Freidkins gate is
established.
In 1980, B ENIOFF describes how to use quantum mechanics to implement
a Turing machine, in 1982, F EYNMAN proves that there does not exist a Turing
machine (either deterministic or probabilistic) on which quantum phenomena can be efficiently simulated; only a quantum Turing machine could do so.
Finally, in 1985, D EUTSCH constructs (on paper) a universal quantum Turing
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
84
Input
a b c
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
Output
a b0 c 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 1 0
1 0 1
1 0 0
0 1 1
1 1 0
1 1 1
0
Table 6.2: The truth table of Fredkins gate. We remark that c 0 = c and if c = 0
then (a 0 = a and b 0 = b) else (a 0 = b and b 0 = a.)
machine.
85
Define now onservables having (| )A , (| s )sS , and (| h )hZ as respective eigenvectors. To do so, identify the sets A with {0, . . . , |A| 1} and S with
and H the self-adjoint operators describing these
{0, . . . , |S|1}. Denoty by T , S,
observables, i.e.
S =
|S|1
X
s| s s |
s=0
h| h h |
hZ
= i Z Ti where Ti =
|A|1
X
a| a a |.
a=0
Y
j Z\{h}
j ,0 .
j
86
system. To proceed, suppose that S f = {halt} {0} and introduce a halting flag
operator F = | 0 0 |. Once the state s is set to 0, the function c is such that U
does not any longer change either the state s or the result of the computation.
A predicate is a projection operator P = | |. Let the machine evolve
for some time n: it is at the state | n = U n | . Perform the measurement
n | P F I n = p [0, 1].
Definition 6.8.4. A language L belongs to the BQP complexity class if there is a
machine M QTM such that
if L, then the machine accepts with probability p > 2/3,
if 6 L, then the machine rejects with probability p > 2/3,
within a running time poly(||).
Theorem 6.8.5. P BPP BQP PSPACE.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
87
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-turin.tex
88
7
Quantum formalism based on the
informational approach
89
Chapter 7
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-infor.tex
90
8
Elements of quantum computing
In this chapter, B denotes the set {0, 1} and elements b B are called bits; H
will denote C2 and rays | H are called qubits. Similarly, arrays of n bits are
denoted by b = (b 1 , . . . , b n ) B n ; arrays of n qubits by | = | 1 n Hn .
91
92
1
.
..
a b
c d
..
.
a b
U(2).
,
c d
p
c1
|c 1 |2 + |c 2 |2
.
W
=
c2
0
93
Definition 8.2.5. A unitary operator U : Hn Hn is approximated by a unitary operator U : HN HN , with N n, within if for all | Hn
kU 0 (| | 0N n ) U | | 0N n k kk.
Definition 8.2.6. For every unitary operator U : Hn Hn there exists a unitary operator C (U ) : H Hn H Hn , called the controlled-U operator, defined for all | Hn by
C (U )| | =
||
if = 0
| U | if = 1
C (U )| 1 k | =
| 1 k |
if 1 k = 0
| 1 k U | if 1 k = 1
0 1
Example 8.2.7. Let 1 =
be the unitary operator corresponding to the
1 0
where is the Toffoli gate.
classical NOT gate. Then C 2 (1 ) = ,
Definition 8.2.8. The set
G = {H , K , K 1 ,C (1 ),C 2 (1 )},
1 1
1 0
(Hadamard gate) and K =
(phase gate), is called
with H =
1 1
0 i
the standard computational basis.
p1
2
94
Exercise 8.2.10. Let 0,...,3 be the 3 Pauli matrices augmented by the identity
1
0
.
matrix, H the Hadamard gate, and () =
0 exp(2i )
1. Show that if A M2 (C) with A 2 = 1 and R, then
exp(i A) = cos 0 + i sin A.
), where
2. Let R j () = exp(i 2 j ), for j = 1, 2, 3 and R n () = exp(i 2 n ~
2
2
2
= (1 , 2 , 3 ). Express R j ()
n = (N1 , n 2 , n 3 ) with n 1 + n 2 + n 3 = 1 and ~
and R n () on the basis 0 , . . . , 3 .
3. Show that H = exp(i )R 1 ()R 3 (), for some , , to be determined.
4. If | C2 is a ray represented by a vector of the Bloch sphere S2 = {x
R3 : kxk2 = 1}, show that
R n ()| = | Tn ()x
where Tn ()x is the rotation of x around n by an angle .
5. Show that every U U(2) can be written as
U = exp(i )R n ()
for some , R.
6. Show that every U U(2) can be written as
U = exp(i )R 3 ()R 2 ()R 3 ()
for some , , , R.
and n are two not parallel vectors of S2 . Show that every
7. Suppose that m
U U(2) can be written as
U = exp(i )R n (1 )R m (1 )R n (2 )R m (2 ) .
8. Establish identities
H 1 H
= 3
H 2 H
= 2
H 3 H
H ( )H
8
= 1
= exp(i )R 1 ( )
4
for some .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qcomp.tex
95
1 1 1
H=p
.
2 1 1
1
H | = p ((1) | + | 1 ), B.
2
H
7
1 X
| 000 = p
| x .
8 x=0
1
0
() =
.
0 exp(2i )
()| = exp(2i )|
+ )H ()H | 0 = cos | 0 + exp(i ) sin | 1 .
4 2
0
C (1 ) =
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
.
1
0
96
0
C (()) =
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
1
0
0 exp(2i )
0
1
0
0
For x, y B ,
C (())| x y = exp(2i x y)| x y .
C 2 (3 )| x y z = | x, y, (x y) z .
Uf ||0 =
2m
1
X
2m/2
x=0
| x, f (x) .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qcomp.tex
97
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qcomp.tex
98
9
The Shors factoring algorithm
99
Chapter 9
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-shora.tex
100
10
Error correcting codes, classical and
quantum
101
Chapter 10
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
102
Part III
Quantum mechanics in infinite
dimensional spaces
103
11
Algebras of operators
The set Dom(T ) is generally a vector subspace of V which is not necessarily topologically
closed.
105
106
3. (a ) = a.
Involution is also called adjoint operation and a the adjoint of a. An involutive algebra is termed a -algebra.
An element a A is said normal if aa = a a, an isometry if a a = 1, unitary if both a and a are isometries, self-adjoint or Hermitean if a = a . On
denoting h : A1 A2 a homomorphism between two -algebras, we call it a
-homomorphism if it preserves adjoints, i.e. h(a ) = h(a) .
A normed (respectively Banach) algebra A is an algebra equipped with a
norm map k k : A R+ that is a normed (respectively Banach) vector space for
the norm and verifies kabk kakkbk for all a, b A. A is normed (respectively
Banach) -algebra if it has an involution verifying ka k = kak for all a A.
Theorem 11.2.3. Let T : H1 H2 be a linear map between two Hilbert spaces
H1 and H2 . Then the following are equivalent:
1. kT k = sup{kT f kH2 , f H1 , k f kH1 1} < ,
2. T is continuous,
3. T is continuous at one point of H1 .
Proof: Analogous to the proof of the theorem ?? for linear functional. (Please
complete the proof!)
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-algop.tex
107
108
A = { f : X C | f continuous} C (X).
Define
1. C A 3 (, f ) 7 f A by ( f )(x) = f (x), x X,
2. A A 3 ( f , g ) 7 f + g A by ( f + g )(x) = f (x) + g (x), x X,
3. A A 3 ( f , g ) 7 f g A by ( f g )(x) = f (x)g (x), x X,
4. A 3 f 7 f A by f (x) = f (x), x X,
Then A is a unital (specify the unit!) C -algebra for the norm k f k = supxX | f (x)|.
(Prove it!) The algebra A is moreover commutative.
Example 11.2.9. Let H1 and H2 be two Hilbert spaces. Then B(H1 , H2 ) is a
unital C -algebra. In general, this algebra is not commutative.
This example has also a converse, given in theorem 11.5.2, below.
Example 11.2.10. Let X be a compact Hausdorff space. Then
A = C (X) := { f : X C, continuous}
equipped with the uniform norm and pointwise multiplication is a unital Banach commutative algebra; further equipped with an involution defined by
complex conjugation, becomes a B -algebra.
Example 11.2.11. A = `1 (Z), with complter.
Example 11.2.12. A = L 1 (R), with complter.
The previous example must not induce the reader to erroneously conclude
that non-unital algebras have natural approximate identities since complter.
2
Recall that a topological space is called Hausdorff when every two distinct of its points possess disjoint neighbourhoods.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-algop.tex
109
11.4.2 Projections
Definition 11.4.6. Let P, P 1 , P 2 B(H).
3
In some general unital C -algebras there are only two trivial projections 0 and 1. Therefore
the situation arising in B(H) is far from being a general property of C -algebras.
4
Strictly speaking, the term Hermitean is more general; it applies also to unbounded operators and it means self-adjoint on a dense domain. The two terms coincide for bounded
operators.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-algop.tex
110
1. P is a projection if P 2 = P .
2. P is an orthoprojection if is a projection satisfying further P = P .
3. Two orthoprojections P 1 , P 2 B(H) are orthogonal, denoted P 1 P 2 of
their images are orthogonal subspaces of H (equivalently P 1 P 2 = 0).
Projections are necessarily positive (why?). The set of orhoprojections is denoted by P(H). All projections considered henceforth will be orthoprojections.
Exercise 11.4.7. (A very important one!) Let (P n ) be a sequence of orthoprojections. We have already shown that there is a bijection between P(H) and the set
of closed subspaces of H and orthoprojections, given by P(H) 3 P 7 P (H) H,
with P (H) closed.
1. Show that that P(H) is partially ordered, i.e. P 1 P 2 if P 1 (H) subspace of
P 2 (H) (equivalently P 1 P 2 = P 1 .)
2. For general orthoprojections P 1 and P 2 , is P 1 P 2 an orthoprojection?
3. Show that P 1 and P 2 have a least upper bound.
4. Is Q = P 1 + . . . + P n an orthoprojection?
5. Is Q = P 2 P 1 an orthoprojection?
6. Show that a monotone sequence of orthoprojections converges strongly
towards an orthoprojection.
111
112
113
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-algop.tex
114
12
Spectral theory in Banach algebras
12.1 Motivation
In linear algebra one often encounters systems of linear equations of the type
Tf =g
(12.1)
with f , g Cn and T = (t i , j )i , j =1,...,n a n n matrix with complex coefficients. Elementary linear algebra establishes that this system of equations has solutions
provided that the map f 7 T f is surjective and the solution is unique provided
that this map is injective. Thus the system has a unique solution for each g Cn
provided that the map is bijective, or equivalently the matrix T is invertible.
This happens precisely when det T 6= 0. However, this criterion of invertibility is of limited practical use even for the elementary (finite-dimensional) case
because det is too complicated an object to be efficiently computed for large
n. For infinite dimensional cases, this criterion becomes totally useless since
there is no infinite dimensional analogue of det that discriminates between invertible and non-invertible operators T (see exercise 12.1.1 below!)
Another general issue connected with the system (12.1) is that of eigenvalues. For every C, denote by V = { f Cn : T f = f }. For most choices of ,
115
12.1. Motivation
the subspace V is the trivial subspace {0}; this subspace is not trivial only when
T 1 is not injective (i.e. ker(T 1) 6= {0}.) On defining the spectrum of T by
..
D =
and U unitary. Then p l (T ) = Up l (D)U and letting l
.
n
we get f (T ) = U f (D)U . Thus, if T is diagonalisable, the computation of f (T ) is
equivalent to the knowledge of f (t ) for t spec(T ). For the infinite dimensional
case, the problem is more involved but again the spectrum remains fundamental.
The rest of this chapter, based on [2], is devoted to the appropriate generalisation of the spectrum for infinite dimensional operators.
Exercise 12.1.1. (Infinite-dimensional determinant) Let H = `2 (N) and (t n )nN
be a fixed numerical sequence. Suppose that there exist constants K 1 , K 2 > 0
such that 0 < K 1 t n K 2 < for all n N. For every x `2 (N) define (T x)n =
t n x n , n N.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
116
more precisely X `p Y.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
117
Res(T ) = C \ spec(T ).
Notice that in finite dimension, invertibility of an operator R reduces essentially to injectivity of R since surjectivity of R can be trivially verified if we
reduce the space V into Ran(R). In infinite dimension, several things can go
wrong: of course injectivity may fail as in finite dimension; but a new phenomenon can appear when Ran(R) is not closed: in this latter case, Ran(R) can
further be dense in V or fail to be dense in V . All these situations may occur
and correspond to different types of sub-spectra.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
118
119
f (y)g (x y)(d y)
turning this space into a commutative Banach algebra. This algebra is not unital (this can be seen by solving the equation f ? f = f in L 1 ), but it has an approximate unit (i.e. a sequence ( f n )n of integrable functions with k f n k = 1 for
all n and such that for all g L 1 (R), kg ? f n g k 0. (Give an explicit example
of such an approximate unit!)
Example 12.3.2. The algebra Mn (C) is a unital non-commutative algebra. There
are many norms that turn it into a finite-dimensional Banach algebra, for instance:
1. kAk =
Pn
i , j =1 |a i , j |
X
(1 a)1 =
an .
n=0
Moreover,
k(1 a)1 k
1
1 kak
and
k1 (1 a)1 k
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
120
kak
.
1 kak
lud on 12 January 2013
Proof: Since ka n k kakn for all n, we can define b A as the sum of the absoP
PN
n
n
lutely convergent series b =
n=0 a . Moreover, b(1a) = (1a)b = limN n=0 b =
N +1
1
limN (1 b
) = 1. Hence 1 a is invertible and (1 a) = b. The first maP
1
kakn = 1kak
. The second one follows from
jorisation holds because kbk
P nn=0
remarking that 1 b = n=1 a = ab, hence k1 bk kakkbk.
Exercise 12.3.5.
1. Prove that GL(A) is an open set in A and that the mapping a 7 a 1 is continuous on GL(A).
2. Justify the term general linear group of invertible elements, i.e. show
that GL(A) is a topological group in the relative norm topology.
Definition 12.3.6. Let A be a unital Banach algebra. For every a A, the spectrum of a is the set
spec(a) = { C : a 1 6 GL(A)}.
In the rest of this section, A will be a unital algebra and we shall write a
instead of a 1.
Proposition 12.3.7. For every a A, the set spec(a) is a closed subset of the disk
{ C : || kak}.
Proof: Consider the resolvent set
1
[(a ) (a 0 )] = (a 0 )2 .
0 0
lim
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
121
k(1 a/)1 k
||
1
||(1 kak/||)
1
.
|| kak
Thus lim f () = 0 and since this function is bounded and entire, by Liouvilles theorem (see [?] for instance), it is constant, hence f () = 0 for all C
and every linear functional . The Hahn-Banach theorem implies then that
(a )1 = 0 for all C. But this is absurd because (a ) is invertible and
1 6= 0 in A.
..
D =
and a unitary matrix U such that T = U DU ; we have then
.
dn
122
An orthonormal basis for H is a sequence E = (e 1 , e 2 , . . .) of mutually orthogonal unit vectors of H such that2 spanE = H. On fixing such a basis, we define a
unitary operator U : `2 (N) H by
Uf =
X
i N
fi ei
for f = ( f 1 , f 2 , . . .). Specifying a particular orthonormal basis in H is equivalent to specifying a particular unitary operator U . Suppose now that T B(H)
is a normal operator and admits the basis vectors of E as eigenvectors, i.e.
Te k = t k r k , t k C, k N. Then t = (t k )k ` (N) and U T U = M where M
is the multiplication operator defined by (M f )k = (U T U f )k = (U 1 T U f )k =
P
(U 1 T i f i e i )k = f k t k . Thus an operator T on H is diagonalisable in a given
basis E if the unitary operator associated with E implements an equivalence
between T and a multiplication operator M acting on `2 (N). This notion is still
inadequate since it involves only normal operators with pure point spectrum;
it can nevertheless be appropriately generalised.
Definition 12.4.1. An operator T acting on a Hilbert space H is said diagonalisable if there exist a (necessarily separable) -finite measure space (, F , ), a
function m L (, F , ), and a unitary operator U : L 2 (, F , ) H such that
U Mm = T U
where M m denotes the multiplication operator by m, defined by M m f () =
m() f (), for all and all f L 2 (, F , )
Example 12.4.2. Let H = L 2 ([0, 1]) and T : H H defined by T f (t ) = t f (t ), for
t [0, 1] and f H. This operator is diagonalisable since it is already a multiplication operator.
Notice that a diagonalisable operator is always normal because the multiplication operator is normal. The following theorem asserts the converse.
Theorem 12.4.3. Every normal operator acting on a Hilbert space is diagonalisable.
Proof: Long but without any particular difficulty; it can be found in [2], pp. 52
55.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
123
P
P
P
P
is monotone: F G P (F ) P (G),
is subtractive: F G P (G \ F ) = P (G) P (F ),
is modular: P (F G) + P (F G) = P (F ) + P (G),
is multiplicative: P (F G) = P (F )P (G).
Proof.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
124
4. By 1.
P (F G) P (F ) P (F G).
()
125
X F (x)P (d x).
Proof: The boundedness of F implies that the right hand Rside of the integral
gives rise to a well-defined sesquilinear
R functional ( f , 2g ) = X F (x)2 f | P (d x)g ,
for f , g H. Moreover, |( f , f )| X |F (x)|kP (d x) f k kF kk f k , hence the
functional is bounded. Existence and uniqueness of TF follows from the
Riesz-Frchet theorem.
126
spec(T )
p() f ,g (d ),
lud on 12 January 2013
for all p R[t ], verifying | f ,g (B )| k f kkg k, for all B B(C). Using the uniqueness of f ,g , it is immediate to show that for every B B(C), S B ( f , g ) = f ,g (B )
is a sesquilinear form. Now, |S B ( f , g )| = | f ,g (B )| k f kkg k, for all B . Hence the
sesquilinear form is bounded; therefore, there exists an operator P (B ) Bh (H)
such that S B ( f , g ) = f | P (B )g for all f , g H. Recall that neither f ,g , nor
S B , Rnor P depend on the initially chosen polynomial p. Choosing p 0 () = 1, we
get Rspec(T ) f | P (d )g = f | P (spec(T ))g = f | g and choosing p 1 () = , we
get spec(T ) f | P (d )g = f | T g , for all f , g H. To complete the proof, it remains to show that P is a projection-valued measure. It is enough to show the
multiplicativity property. For any fixed pair f , g H and Rany fixed real polynomial q, introduce the auxiliary complex measure (B ) = B q() f | P (d )g ,
with B B(C). For every real polynomial p, we have
Z
Z
p()(d ) =
p()q() f | P (d )g
= f | p(T )q(T )g
= q(T ) f | p(T )g (recall that [p(T ), q(T )] = 0)
Z
=
p() q(T ) f | P (d )g .
Therefore,
(B ) =
q()1B () f | P (d )g
= q(T ) f | P (B )g
= f | q(T )P (B )g
Z
=
q() f | P (d )P (B )g .
Since q is arbitrary,
Z
f | P (B C )g =
f | P (d )P (B )g
= f | P (B )P (C )g ,
and since f , g H are arbitrary, we get P (B C ) = P (B )P (C ).
Theorem 12.5.10. If T is a normal operator in B(H), then there exists a necessarily unique complex spectral measure on (C, B(C)), supported by spec(T ), such
that
Z
T=
P (d ).
spec(T )
127
128
u(b) u(a) =
Named after Laurent Schwartz 19152004, French mathematician; has been awarded the
Fields Medal in 1950 for his work on the theory of distributions conceived to give a precise
meaning to the Diracs delta function and its derivatives. The (class of tempered) distributions
are constructed as topological duals of S(R).
4
S(R) = { f C (R) : n N, 0, K ,n < , s.t. supxR |x f (n) (x)| K ,n }. Typical
examples of such functions are functions of the form f (x) = x exp(x 2 ), for some > 0.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
129
0.8
1.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 6
xi
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 10
10
xi
16
0.12
14
0.1
12
10
0.08
8
0.06
0.04
2
0.02
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 40
30
20
10
10
20
30
40
xi
100
0.02
80
0.016
0.018
0.014
60
0.012
0.01
40
0.008
0.006
20
0.004
0.002
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1 300
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-sptba.tex
200
100
100
200
300
xi
130
13
Propositional calculus and quantum
formalism based on quantum logic
Phenomenology is an essential step in constructing physical theories. Phenomenological results are of the following type: if a physical system is subject
to conditions A, B,C , . . ., then the effects X , Y , Z , . . . are observed. We further introduced yes-no experiments consisting in measuring questions in given states.
However, there may exist questions that depend on other questions and hold
independently of the state in which they are measured. More precisely, suppose for instance that Q A denotes the question: does the physical particle lie
in A, for some A B(R3 )? Let now B A be another Borel set in R3 . Whenever Q A is true (i.e. for every state for which Q A is true) Q B is necessarily true.
This remark defines a natural order relation in the set of questions. Considering
questions on given physical system more abstractly, as a logical propositions,
it is interesting to study first the abstract properties of a partially ordered set of
propositions. This abstract setting allows the statement of the basic axioms for
classical or quantum systems on an equal footing.
131
132
{1, 2, 3}
{1, 2}
{2, 3}
{1, 3}
{1}
{3}
{2}
{}
Figure 13.1: The Hasse diagram of the lattice of subsets of the set {1, 2, 3}.
Proof: : Exercise!
133
134
This theorem serves to extend the notion of measurability, defined for maps
between measurable spaces, to maps defined on abstract Boolean -algebras.
Recall that if X is an arbitrary set of points equipped with a Boolean -algebra of
subsets X , and Y a complete separable metric space equipped with its Borel algebra B(Y), a map f : X Y is called measurable if for all B B(Y), f 1 (B )
X.
Definition 13.1.15. Let be an abstract Boolean -algebra and (Y, B(Y)) a
complete separable metric space equipped with its Borel -algebra. A Y-valued
classical observable associated with is a -homomorphism h : B(Y) . If
Y = R, the observable is called real-valued.
The careful reader will have certainly remarked that the previous definition
is compatible with axiom 2.2.17. As a matter of fact, with every real random
variable X on an abstract measurable space (, F ) is associated a family of
propositions Q BX = 1{X B } , for B B(R). The aforementioned -homomorphism
h : B(R) F , stemming from X () through the spectral measure K X (, B ), is
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
135
13.2. Classical, fuzzy, and quantum logics; observables and states on logics
given by
h(B ) = { : Q BX () = 1} = X 1 (B ) F .
Notice that this does not hold for quantum systems where some more general
notion is needed.
13.2 Classical, fuzzy, and quantum logics; observables and states on logics
13.2.1 Logics
Definition 13.2.1. Let (, ) be a poset (hence a lattice). By an orthocomplementation on is meant a mapping : 3 a 7 a , satisfying for a, b :
1. is injective,
2. a b b a ,
3. (a ) = a,
4. a a = 0.
A lattice with an orthocomplementation operation is called orthocomplemented.
We remark that from condition 2 it follows that 0 = 1 and 1 = 0. From
condition 3 it follows that is also surjective. Finally, conditions 1, 2, and 3
imply that a a = 1.
Definition 13.2.2. An orthocomplemented -complete lattice, , is said to be
a logic.
Remark 13.2.3. Let a 1 a 2 be arbitrary propositions. Modularity condition
reads c : a 1 (c a 2 ) = (a 1 c) a 2 ; applying this condition for c = a 1 , we get
a 1 (a 1 a 2 ) = (a 1 a 1 ) a 2 = a 2 . Therefore, we have shown that if a 1 a 2 ,
then there exists a b := a 1 a 2 a 1 such that a 1 b = a 2 .
The element a is called the orthogonal complement of a in . If a b
and b a , then a and b are said orthogonal and we write a b.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
136
Exercise 13.2.4. Assume that (, ) is a poset (hence a lattice) that is orthocomplemented. Let a, b be such that a < b. Denote by
[a, b] = {c : a c b}.
Show that
1. [0, b] becomes a lattice in which countable joins and meets exist and
whose zero element is 0 and unit element is b,
2. if we define, for x [0, b], x 0 = x b, then the operation 0 : [0, b]
[0, b] is an orthocomplementation,
3. conclude that [0, b] is a logic.
Example 13.2.5. Any Boolean -algebra is a logic provided we define, for any
element a, its orthocomplement to be its complement a 0 . Boolean -algebras
are called classical logics.
Example 13.2.6. Let H be a C-Hilbert space. Let be the collection of all
Hilbert subspaces of H. If is meant to denote be a Hilbert subspace of and
the orthogonal complementation in the Hilbert space sense, then is a logic,
called standard quantum logic.
Postulate 13.2.7. In any physical system (classical or quantum), the set of all
experimentally verifiable propositions is a logic (classical or standard quantum).
137
13.2. Classical, fuzzy, and quantum logics; observables and states on logics
1. x(;) = 0 and x(R) = 1,
2. if B 1 , B 2 B(R) with B 1 B 2 = ; then x(B 1 ) x(B 2 ),
3. if (B n )nN is a sequence of mutually disjoint Borel sets, then x(nN B n ) =
nN x(B n ).
We write O () for the set of all real observables associated with .
Exercise 13.2.9. Let be a logic and x O (). Show that for any sequence of
Borel sets (B n )nN we have
x(nN B n ) = nN x(B n )
and
x(nN B n ) = nN x(B n ).
Definition 13.2.10. Let be a logic and O () the set of its associated observables. A real number is called a strict value of an observable x O (), if
x({}) 6= 0. The observable x O () is called discrete if there exists a countable
set C = {c 1 , c 2 , . . .} such that x(C ) = 1; it is called constant if there exists c R
such that x({c}) = 1. It is called bounded if there exists a compact Borel set K
such that x(K ) = 1.
Definition 13.2.11. We call spectrum of x O () the closed set defined by
138
(B ) =
R if 0 B
; otherwise.
139
13.2. Classical, fuzzy, and quantum logics; observables and states on logics
2. if (a n )nN is a sequence of mutually orthogonal propositions of , and
P
a = nN a n , then p(a) = nN p(a n )
is called state (or probability measure) on the logic . The set of states on
is denoted by S ().
The concept of probability measure on a logic coincides with a classical
probability measure when the logic is a Boolean -algebra. For non distributive logics however, the associated probability measures are genuine generalisations of the classical probabilities. For standard quantum logics, the associated states are called quantum probabilities.
Theorem 13.2.16. Let p S (), where is a logic.
1. On defining a map p : O () M1+ (R, B(R)), by the formula: for every x
p
O () and for every B B(R), x (B ) = p(x(B )), then p is a state function.
2. Conversely, if is an arbitrary state function, then there exists a unique
probability measure p S () such that for every x O () and for every
B B(R), x (B ) = p(x(B )).
Proof.
140
P
p(a) = n p(a n ) establishing thus -additivity of p. Finally, for x O ()
and B B(R),
x (B ) = 1B x ({1}) = q x(B ) ({1}) = p(x(B )).
141
x (B ) = p(x(B )) =
X
nN
c n p n (x(B )) =
X
nN
c n x n (B ).
This decomposition has the following interpretation: the sequence (c n )nN defines a classical probability on N meaning that in the sum defining p, each p n is
chosen with probability c n . Therefore, for each integrable observable x O (),
P
the expectation Ep (x) = nN c n Ep n (x) consists in two averages: a classical average on the choice of p n and a (may be) quantum average Ep n (x).
Exercise 13.3.4. Give a plausible definition of the notion of integrable observable used in the previous remark and then prove the claimed equality: Ep (x) =
P
nN c n Ep n (x)
Definition 13.3.5. A state p S () is said to be pure if the equation p = c p 1 +
(1c)p 2 , for p 1 , p 2 S () and c [0, 1] implies p = p 1 = p 2 . We write S p () for
the set of pure states of . Obviously S p () = Extr S ().
Definition 13.3.6. Let D S () and p 0 S (). We say that p 0 is a superposition of states in D if for a ,
p D, p(a) = 0 p 0 (a) = 0.
P
It is an exercise to show that the state p = nN c n p n defined in the proposition ?? is a superposition of states in D = {p 1 , p 2 , . . .}. In the case is a Boolean
-algebra, the next theorem 13.3.7 shows that this is in fact the only kind of
possible superposition. This implies, in particular, the unicity of the decomposition of a classical state into extremal (pure) states. If is a standard quantum
logic, unicity of the decomposition does not hold any longer!
Theorem 13.3.7. Let be a Boolean -algebra of subsets of a space X. Suppose
that
1. is separable1 ,
2. for all a X, {a} .
1
i.e. there is a countable collection of subsets A n X, n N, generating by complementation, intersections, and unions.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
142
1 if a A
0 otherwise.
1
p(A A 0 )
p(A 0 )
1
p(A A c0 ),
1 p(A 0 )
()
()
we get p(A) = p(A 0 )p 1 (A) + (1 p(A 0 ))p 2 (A). Yet, applying (*) and (**) to A 0 ,
we get p 1 (A 0 ) = 1 and p 2 (A 0 ) = 0, hence p 1 6= p 2 . This is in contradiction with
the assumed purity of p. Therefore, we conclude that for all A , we have
p(A) {0, 1}. Replacing A n by A cn if necessary, we can assume without loss of
generality that p(A n ) = 1 for all the sets of the collection generating . Let B =
n A n . Then p(B ) = 1 and consequently B cannot be empty. Now B cannot
contain more than one point either. In fact, the collection of all sets C such
that either B C or B C = ; is a -algebra containing all the sets A n , n N.
Hence, it coincides with . As singletons are members of , the set B must be
a singleton, i.e. B = {a} for some a X. Put then p = a . Finally, let p 0 be a
superposition of states in D (all its elements are pure states). If p 0 = a0 but
p 0 6 D, then p({a 0 }) = 0 for all p D but p 0 ({a 0 }) 6= 0, a contradiction.
143
144
145
()
lud on 12 January 2013
action of on p, by (p)(a)
= p(1 (a)), for all a , then is a convex automorphism of S ().
Definition 13.5.1. A map : S () S () is a convex automorphisms if
1. is bijective and
2. if (c n )nN is a sequence of non-negative reals such that
(p n )nN is a sequence of states in S (), then
(
X
nN
cn p n ) =
X
nN
nN c n
= 1 and
c n (p n ).
nN c n (p
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
146
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
147
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
148
14
Standard quantum logics
14.1 Observables
Lemma 14.1.1. Let M 1 , M 2 . Then propositions associated with M 1 and M 2
are simultaneously verifiable if and only if [P M1 , P M2 ] = 0.
Proof:
(): Propositions M 1 and M 2 are simultaneously verifiable if there exist
mutually orthogonal elements N1 , N2 , N such that M i = Ni N , for
149
14.2. States
i = 1, 2. Then P Mi = P Ni + P N and the commutativity of the projectors
follows immediately.
(): If [P M1 , P M2 ] = 0, let P = P M1 P M2 . Then P is a projection. Define
Q i = P Mi P , for i = 1, 2; it is easily verified that Q i are projections and
PQ i = Q i P = 0. Therefore Q 1Q 2 = Q 2Q 1 = 0. If we define Ni = Q i (H),
for i = 1, 2 and N = P (H), then N1 , N2 , N are mutually orthogonal and
M i = Ni N which proves that M 1 M 2 .
Theorem 14.1.2. Let be a standard logic with associated Hilbert space H. For
any x O (), denote X the self-adjoint (not necessarily bounded) operator on H
with spectral measure given by the mapping B(R) 3 B 7 P x(B ) . Then
1. the map x 7 X is a bijection between O () and self-adjoint operators on
H,
2. the observable x is bounded if and only if X Bh (H),
3. two bounded observables x 1 and x 2 are simultaneously observable if and
only if the corresponding bounded operators X 1 and X 2 commute,
4. if x is a bounded observable and Q R[t ], then the operator associated
with Q x is Q(X ),
5. more generally, if x 1 , . . . , x r are bounded observables any two of them being
simultaneously observable, and Q R[t 1 , . . . , t 2 ], then the observable Q
(x 1 , . . . , x r ) has associated operator Q(X 1 , . . . , X r ).
Proof: Assertions 14 are simple exercises based on the spectral theorem for
self-adjoint operators. Assertion 5 is a direct consequence of theorem 13.4.4.
14.2 States
In chapter ??, we defined (pure) quantum states to be unit vectors of H. In
chapter 13, states have been defined as probability measures on a logic. We
first show that in fact rays correspond to states viewed as probability measures
on .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
150
Unit vectors of H are called rays. Let H, with kk = 1 be a ray and denote
by p : [0, 1] the map defined by
3 M 7 p (M ) = | P M = kP M k2 .
We have: p (1) p (H) = 1, p (0) p ({0}) = 0, and if (M n )nN is a sequence of
mutually orthogonal Hilbert subspaces of H and M = nN M n , then
X
X
p (M ) = kP M k2 =
| P Mn =
p (M n ).
nN
nN
Then for all T, T1 , T2 B+ (H) the trace has the following properties
1. is independent of the chosen basis,
2. tr(T1 + T2 ) = tr(T1 ) + tr(T2 ),
3. tr(T ) = tr(T ) for all 0,
4. tr(U T U ) = tr(T ), for all U U(H).
Proof: (To be filled in a later version.)
151
14.2. States
2. We show then that T1 (H) is a vector space. In fact, for every C, due to
the fact that |A| = |||T |, it follows that if A T1 (H) then A T1 (H) as
well.
For T1 , T2 T1 (H), denote by U ,V,W the partial isometries arising into
the polar decompositions T1 +T2 = U |T1 +T2 |, T1 = C |T1 |, and T2 = W |T2 |.
Then,
X
X
e n |U (T1 + T2 )e n
e n | |T1 + T2 |e n =
n
n
X
X
e n |U V |T1 |e n + e n |U W |T2 |e n
=
n
n
X
X
| e n |U V |T1 |e n | + | e n |U W |T2 |e n |.
n
Now,
X
X
1
1
e n |U V |T1 |e n =
|T1 | 2 V U e n | |T1 | 2 e n
n
X
X
1
1
( k|T1 | 2 V U e n k2 )1/2 ( k|T1 | 2 e n k2 )1/2 Cauchy-Scwharz on `2 (N
n
We conclude that
X
X
1
1
1
k|T1 | 2 V U e n k2 =
|T1 | 2 V U e n | |T1 | 2 V U e n
n
n
X
=
e n |U V |T1 |V U e n
n
X
e n |V |T1 |V e n
n
X
e n | |T1 |e n
n
= tr(|T1 |),
because U ,V are partial isometries. The second term is majorised similarly so that tr(|T1 + T2 |) tr(|T1 |) + tr(|T2 |) < , showing that T1 + T2
T1 (H).
3. Using the decomposition of every B B(H) into the combination of four
P
P
unitary operators B = 4i =1 c i Ui , we get tr(T B ) = 4i =1 c i tr(T Ui ) so that
it becomes sufficient to prove that T T1 (H)
that
p and U U(H) implies
p
p
1
U T = T T = |T | and |T U | = (T U ) T U =
T
U
,U
T
T
(H).
But
|U
T
|
=
(U
T
)
p
U |T |2U = U |T |U ; furthemore U |T |U 0. Hence tr(|T U |) = tr |T | =
tr(|U T |).
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
152
Exercise 14.2.4. Show the T T1 (H) implies that T T1 (H) (hence T 1 (H) is a
bilateral -ideal of T1 (H).
Exercise 14.2.5. Show that T T1 (H) is not necessarily closed with respect to
the operator norm stemming from the Hilbert norm. Nevertheless, T1 (H) is a
Banach space for the k k1 norm defined by kT k1 = tr |T |.
Definition 14.2.6. If D is a bounded, self-adjoint, non-negative, trace-class
operator on H, then D is called a von Neumann operator. If further tr(D) = 1,
then D is said to be a density matrix (operator). The set of density matrices on
H is denoted by D(H).
The states p , for a ray of H, can also be described in another way. Let D
be the projection operator on the one-dimensional subspace1 C. Then D is
trace-class and for every X B(H), it follows that D X is also trace-class. Let
(n )nN be an arbitrary orthonormal basis of H; without loss of generality, we
can then assume that 1 = . We have
tr(D X ) = tr(X D )
=
X
nN
n | X D n
= | X
= E (X ).
In particular, if X = P M for M ,
p (M ) = | P M = tr(D P M ).
Lemma 14.2.7. Let (n )nN be an arbitrary sequence of rays in H and (c n )nN
P
an arbitrary sequence of non-negative reals such that nN c n = 1. Denote by D n
the projection operator on the one-dimensional subspace Cn , for n N. Then
D=
X
nN
cn D n
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
153
14.3. Symmetries
Lemma 14.2.9. Let D be a density matrix defined as in lemma 14.2.7 and p :
R the mapping defined by 3 M 7 p(M ) = tr(P M D). Then p S () and
P
moreover it can be decomposed into p = nN c n p n .
Proof: First the superposition property follows from the linearity of the trace:
P
P
for all M , we have p(M ) = tr(P M D) = nN c n tr(P M D n ) = nN c n p n (M ). It
is now obvious that p is a state: in fact, p(0) = p({0}) = 0 and p(1) = p(H) = 1.
Conversely, if D is any density matrix, then the map 3 M 7 p(M ) = tr(DP M )
is a state in S (). States of this type are called tracial states. The natural question is whether every state in S () arises as a tracial state. The answer to this
question is one of the most profound results in the mathematical foundations
of quantum mechanics, the celebrated Gleasons theorem:
Theorem 14.2.10 (Gleason). Let H be a complex separable Hilbert space with
3 dim H 0 , D(H) the convex set of density matrices on H, and the logic of
subspaces of H. Then
1. the map D(H) 3 D 7 D S (), defined by D (M ) = tr(DP M ) for all M
, is a convex isomorphism of D(H) on S (),
2. a state p S () is pure if and only if p = p for some ray inH,
3. two pure states p and p are equal if and only if there exists a complex
number c with |c| = 1 such that the rays and verify = c.
The proof, lengthy and tricky, is omitted. It can be found, extending over 13
pages (!), in [47], pages 147160.
14.3 Symmetries
Definition 14.3.1. A linear map S : H H is a symmetry if
1. S is bijective, and
2. for all f , g H, the scalar product is preserved: S f | Sg = f | g .
Exercise 14.3.2. Let Aut() where is the standard quantum logic associated with a given Hilbert space H. Show that
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
154
In general, anti-unitaries may also occur as symmetries. They are not considered in this
course.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
155
14.3. Symmetries
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-stqlo.tex
156
15
States, effects, and the corresponding
quantum formalism
157
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-proca.tex
158
16
Two illustrating examples
d 2x
(t ) = F (x(t )),
dt2
159
m 2
x
2
F (y)d y.
x0
Hence the Newtons equation is equivalent to the system of first order differential equations, known as Hamiltons equations:
dp
dt
dq
dt
H
q
H
,
p
=
=
q(0)
q0
=
,
p(0)
p0
p2
160
p
H0
H
Figure 16.1: The phase space for a point mass in dimension one.
energy surfaces that are ellipses for the case of elastic spring, because potential
energy is quadratic in q (see figure 16.1.)
q(t )
If (t ) =
R2 represents the coordinate and momentum of the sysp(t )
tem at time t , the time evolution induced by the system of Hamiltons equations
2
can be thought
as
the flow on R , described by (t ) = T t (0), with initial conq0
dition (0) =
.
p0
The system is described by a mass m attached to a spring of elastic constant
k. The motion is assumed frictionless on the horizontal direction and the mass
originally equilibrates at point 0. The spring is originally elongated to position
q 0 and the system evolves then freely under the equations of motion. The setting is described in figure 16.2. The system was already studied in chapter ??.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
161
f (q(t )) = kq(t )
q(0) = q 0
q(0)
= v 0 = 0.
Introducing the new variable p = m q and transforming the second order differential equation into a system of first order equations, we get the vector equation
d
(t ) = A(t ),
dt
where
()
q(t )
q0
(t ) =
, with initial condition (0) =
p(t )
p0
and
0
A=
k
1
m .
T t = exp(t A) =
cos(t )
sin(t )
m
k sin(t ) cos(t )
p
k/m. Since det T t = 1, it follows that the evolution
is invertible and
q0
(T t )1 = T t . The orbit of the initial condition (0) =
under the flow reads
0
!
q 0 cos(t )
t
t
.
(T )t R , where (t ) = T =
q 0 k sin(t )
and =
The system is classical, hence its logic is a Boolean -algebra; the natural
choice is = B(R2 ). Now observables in O () are mappings x : B(R)
B(R2 ). Identify henceforth indicator functions with Borel sets in B(R2 ) (i.e.
for any Borel set B B(R), instead of considering x(B ) = F B(R2 ) we shall
identify x(B ) = 1F .)
Let now X : R be any measurable bounded mapping
and chose as
R
x(B ) = 1 X 1 (B ) for all B B(R). Then, on defining X = x(d ), a bijection
is established between x and X . Now since (T t )t R = (exp(t A))t R is the orbit of the initial condition 0 in , the value X (T t ) is well defined for all t R;
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
162
we denote by X t () X (T t ). Then
d Xt
d (T t )1
d (T t )2
t
t
() = 1 X (T )
+ 2 X (T )
dt
dt
dt
dq
dp
t
t
= 1 X (T )
(t ) + 2 X (T )
(t ),
dt
dt
provides the evolution of X under the flow (T t )t .
The Hamiltonian is a very particular measurable bounded map on the phase
space (hence an observable) H : R, having the formula H () = k21 /2 +
22 /2m. It evolves also under the flow (T t )t : Then
p(t )
d Ht
)+
)
() = kq(t )q(t
p(t
dt
m
) + q(t
)(k q(t
))
= kq(t )q(t
= 0.
Thus, the Hamiltonian is a constant of motion. Physically it represents the enkq 2
ergy of the system. Initially, H (q 0 , p 0 ) = 2 0 = E and during the flow, the energy always remains E , so that the energy takes arbitrary (but constant with
) and
respect to the flow) values E R+ . Moreover, 1 H (T t ) = kq(t ) = p(t
p(t )
t
). Hence we recover the Hamilton equations
2 H (T ) = m = q(t
H
dq
(t ) =
= 2 H
dt
p
dp
H
(t ) =
= 1 H .
dt
q
Therefore, ddXt t = 1 X 2 H + 2 X (1 H ) = L H X with L H = (1 H 2 2 H 1 ).
Hence, denoting for every two function f , g C 1 () by { f , g } = 1 f 2 g 2 f 1 g
the Poissons bracket, we have for the flow of an observable, assuming integrability of the evolution equation, X t = exp(t L H )X . This means that the flow
(T t )t ) on induces a flow (exp(t L H )X )t on observables. Notice also that
X t = exp(t L H )X is a shorthand notation for
Xt =
(t )n
X
{H , {H , . . . {H , X } . . .}}.
n=0 n!
163
Proof:
R
1. (T t B ) = T t B d 1 d 2 . Now, if T t B T t B . Hence, denoting
(x 1 , x 2 ) = T t (1 , 2 ), we have
Z
TtB
d 1 d 2 =
=
Z
ZB
B
(1 , 2 )
d x1 d x2
(x 1 , x 2 )
d x 1 d x 2 = (B ),
f ()L H g ()(d )
Z
= L H f ()g ()(d ) + bdry terms.
f | LH g =
Now the boundary terms vanish because f and g vanish at infinity. Hence,
on S(R2 ), the operator is skew-adjoint L H = L H and hence formally skewadjoint on L 2 (, F , ).
164
(p)(M
) = p D ((M ))
= tr(PU M D)
= tr(U P M U D)
= tr(P M D (U ) ),
with D (U ) = U DU . Physics remains invariant under time translations. Hence
time translation (evolution) must be a symmetry implemented by a unitary
operator U (t ) acting on H. Define U (t ) = exp(i t H /) (this a definition of
H .) Then H is formally self-adjoint, hence an observable (a very particular
one!) generating the Lie group of time translations. It will be shown below
that H is time invariant. Now U (t ) acts on rays of H to give a flow. Denoting
(t ) = U (t ), we have the Schrdingers evolution equation in the Schrdingers
picture:
d
(t ) = H (t ).
i
dt
Thanks to the spectral theorem (and, identifying for x O () and B B(R),
x(B ) with the projection-valued measure corresponding to the subspace x(B )),
thereR is a bijection between x O () and self-adjoint operators
on H through
R
X = x(d ). For every tracial states p D , we have Ep D (X ) = tr(x(d )D) and
E(p
D ) (X ) =
=
tr(x(d )D U (t ) )
= Ep D (X t ),
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
165
= exp(t L H )X
(i t )n
X
=
[H , [H , . . . , [H , X ] . . .]].
n
n=0 n!
Physics remains invariant also by space translations. Hence they must correspond to a symmetry implemented by a unitary transformation.
Lemma 16.1.4. The operator x is formally skew-adjoint on L 2 (R).
Proof: For all f , g S(R) (dense in L 2 (R)), we have, f | x g =
R
ddx f (x)g (x)d x + f g |
.
166
3. [H , A] = A,
4. [H , A ] = A ,
5. for n N, [H , (A )n ] = n(A )n .
Lemma 16.1.7. If 0 S(R) is a ray (in the L 2 sense) satisfying A0 = 0 then
1. 0 (x) = 1/4 exp(x 2 /2),
2. H 0 = 0 /2, and
3. H (A )n 0 = (1/2 + n)A n 0 , for all n N.
Proof:
1
p (P iQ)0
2
d
0 (x) i x0 (x) = 0
i
dx
0 (x) = c exp(x 2 /2),
A0 = 0
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
167
[n/2]
X
(1) j c n, j x n2 j ,
j =0
then
(x
while x n =
P[n/2]
j =0
d
) n (x) = n+1 (x)
dx
c n, j n2 j (x).
p
n + 1| n + 1 ,
p
n| n 1 , and
4. A A| n = n| n .
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
168
Figure 16.3: Comparison of probability densities. In blue is depicted the probability density of the classical oscillator. In red the corresponding density for
the quantum oscillator for n = 10 (left) and n = 60 (right).
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
169
Figure 16.4: Comparison of distribution functions. In blue is depicted the distribution of the classical oscillator. In red the corresponding distribution for the
quantum oscillator for n = 1 (left), n = 10 (middle), and n = 30 (right). Already
for n = 30, the classical and quantum distributions are almost indistinguishable.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-ilexa.tex
170
17
Quantifying information: classical
and quantum
Entropy is closely related to irreversibility since the second principle of thermodynamics states: Entropy of an isolated system is a non decreasing function
of time. It can remain constant only for reversible evolutions. For a system A
undergoing an irreversible transformation the entropy increases; however the
system can be considered as part of a larger isolated composite system (A and
environment), undergoing globally a reversible transformation. In that case
the total entropy (of the system A and of the environment) remains constant
but since the entropy of A must increase, the entropy of the environment must
decrease1 hence the missing information decreases. In other words, when the
1
Notice that this assertion is not in contradiction with the second principle of thermodynamics because the environment is not isolated.
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
172
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
173
References
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
174
Bibliography
References
[9] John S. Bell. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics.
Rev. Modern Phys., 38:447452, 1966. 21
[10] C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard. Quantum public key distribution system.
IBM Technical disclosure bulletin, 28:31533163, 1985. 71
[11] Charles H. Bennett. Quantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal
states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68(21):31213124, 1992. 75
[12] Daniel J. Bernstein, Johannes Buchmann, and Erik Dahmen, editors. Postquantum cryptography. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. 75
[13] Eli Biham, Michel Boyer, P. Oscar Boykin, Tal Mor, and Vwani Roychowdhury. A proof of the security of quantum key distribution. J. Cryptology,
19(4):381439, 2006. 74
[14] Eli Biham, Michel Boyer, Gilles Brassard, Jeroen van de Graaf, and Tal Mor.
Security of quantum key distribution against all collective attacks. Algorithmica, 34(4):372388, 2002. Quantum computation and quantum cryptography. 74
[15] David Bohm. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms
of "hidden" variables. I. Phys. Rev., 85:166179, Jan 1952a. 20
[16] David Bohm. A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms
of "hidden" variables. II. Phys. Rev., 85:180193, Jan 1952b. 20
[17] Paul Busch, Pekka Lahti, and Reinhard F. Werner. Proof of Heisenbergs
error-disturbance relation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:160405, Oct 2013. 58
[18] Nicolas J. Cerf, Mohamed Bourennane, Anders Karlsson, and Nicolas
Gisin. Security of quantum key distribution using d-level systems. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 88:127902, Mar 2002. 75
[19] Andrew Childs, David Jao, and Vladimir Soukharev. Constructing elliptic
curve isogenies in quantum subexponential time. J. Math. Cryptol., 8(1):1
29, 2014. 75, 99
[20] Andrew M. Childs. Universal computation by quantum walk. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 102:180501, May 2009. 99
[21] Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro DAriano, and Paolo Perinotti. Theoretical framework for quantum networks. Phys. Rev. A (3), 80(2):022339, 20,
2009. 28
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
176
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[22] Giulio Chiribella, Giacomo Mauro DAriano, and Paolo Perinotti. Informational derivation of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. A, 84:012311, Jul 2011.
28
[23] Luca De Feo, David Jao, and Jrme Plt. Towards quantum-resistant
cryptosystems from supersingular elliptic curve isogenies. J. Math. Cryptol., 8(3):209247, 2014. 75
[24] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev., 47:777780,
May 1935. 20
[25] Nicolas Gisin, Grgoire Ribordy, Wolfgang Tittel, and Hugo Zbinden.
Quantum cryptography. Rev. Mod. Phys., 74:145195, Mar 2002. 33
[26] Anthony J.G. Hey. Feynman and computation. Perseus Books Publishing,
1998. 27
[27] John K. Hunter and Bruno Nachtergaele. Applied analysis. World Scientific
Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2001. 35, 37
[28] Richard V. Kadison and John R. Ringrose. Fundamentals of the theory of
operator algebras. Vol. I, volume 15 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics.
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997a. Elementary theory, Reprint of the 1983 original. 49, 114
[29] A. K. Lenstra and H. W. Lenstra, Jr. Algorithms in number theory. In Handbook of theoretical computer science, Vol. A, pages 673715. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990. 7, 70
[30] A. K. Lenstra and H. W. Lenstra, Jr., editors. The development of the number
field sieve, volume 1554 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1993. 8
[31] Arjen K. Lenstra. Integer factoring. Des. Codes Cryptogr., 19(2-3):101128,
2000. Towards a quarter-century of public key cryptography. 70
[32] H. Maassen. Quantum probability and quantum information theory. In
Quantum information, computation and cryptography, volume 808 of Lecture Notes in Phys., pages 65108. Springer, Berlin, 2010. 21, 25
[33] Masanao Ozawa. Physical content of Heisenbergs uncertainty relation:
limitation and reformulation. Phys. Lett. A, 318(1-2):2129, 2003b. 58
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
177
References
[34] C. Pacher, A. Abidin, T. Lorijnser, M. Peev, R. Ursin, A. Zeilinger, and JA. Larsson. Attacks on quantum key distribution protocols that employ
non-ITS authentication, 2012. 75
[35] Dimitri Petritis. Markov chains on measurable spaces, 2014. Premiminary
draft of lecture notes taught at the University of Rennes 1. 27
[36] John Proos and Christof Zalka. Shors discrete logarithm quantum algorithm for elliptic curves. Quantum Inf. Comput., 3(4):317344, 2003. 75,
99
[37] Michael Reed and Barry Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics.
I. Functional analysis. Academic Press, New York, 1972. 35, 49
[38] R. L. Rivest, A. Shamir, and L. Adleman. A method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key cryptosystems. Comm. ACM, 21(2):120126, 1978.
8, 69
[39] Alexander Rostovtsev and Anton Stolbunov. Public-key cryptosystem
based on isogenies. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/145, 2006.
http://eprint.iacr.org/. 75
[40] Lee A. Rozema, Ardavan Darabi, Dylan H. Mahler, Alex Hayat, Yasaman
Soudagar, and Aephraim M. Steinberg.
Violation of heisenbergs
measurement-disturbance relationship by weak measurements. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 109:100404, Sep 2012. 58
[41] Walter Rudin. Real and complex analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York, third edition, 1987. 35
[42] Walter Rudin. Functional analysis. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, second edition, 1991. 112
[43] Raymond A. Ryan. Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces.
Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London Ltd., London, 2002. 49
[44] Claude Shannon. Communication theory of secrecy systems. Bell System
Technical Journal, 28:656715, 1949. 68
[45] Albert Nikolaevich Shiryayev. Probability, volume 95 of Graduate Texts in
Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984. Translated from the Russian by R. P. Boas. 17
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
178
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[46] Peter W. Shor. Polynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and
discrete logarithms on a quantum computer. SIAM J. Comput., 26(5):1484
1509, 1997. 6, 8, 67
[47] V. S. Varadarajan. Geometry of quantum theory. Vol. I. D. Van Nostrand Co.,
Inc., Princeton, N.J.-Toronto, Ont.-London, 1968. The University Series in
Higher Mathematics. 154
[48] V. S. Varadarajan. Geometry of quantum theory. Springer-Verlag, New York,
second edition, 1985. 28
[49] V. S. Varadarajan. Geometry of quantum theory. Springer-Verlag, New York,
second edition, 1985. 135
[50] Gilbert S. Vernam. Cipher printing telegraph systems for secret wire and
radio telegraphic communications, volume 55. 1926. 68
[51] Johann von Neumann.
Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Unvernderter Nachdruck der ersten Auflage von 1932. Die
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 38. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1968. 28
[52] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. I: Logic, theory of sets and quantum mechanics. General editor: A. H. Taub. Pergamon Press, New York,
1961a. 28
[53] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. II: Operators, ergodic theory and
almost periodic functions in a group. General editor: A. H. Taub. Pergamon
Press, New York, 1961b. 28
[54] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. III: Rings of operators. General
editor: A. H. Taub. Pergamon Press, New York, 1961c. 28
[55] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. IV: Continuous geometry and
other topics. General editor: A. H. Taub. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962. 28
[56] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. V: Design of computers, theory of
automata and numerical analysis. General editor: A. H. Taub. A Pergamon
Press Book. The Macmillan Co., New York, 1963a. 28
[57] John von Neumann. Collected works. Vol. VI: Theory of games, astrophysics, hydrodynamics and meteorology. General editor: A. H. Taub. A
Pergamon Press Book. The Macmillan Co., New York, 1963b. 28
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
179
Index
[58] Joachim Weidmann. Linear operators in Hilbert spaces, volume 68 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980. Translated
from the German by Joseph Szcs. 49
[59] Nicholas Young. An introduction to Hilbert space. Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988. 35
/Users/dp/a/ens/mq/iq-qinfo.tex
180