Timeline for Can you use Rz to flip from $|+\rangle$ to $|-\rangle$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 22, 2019 at 9:53 | comment | added | Martin Vesely | @kludg: OK, thanks for explanation. | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 9:43 | comment | added | kludg | This is the question of using common conventions. For example, it is possible to define Pauli matrices differently; fortunately physicists are wise to avoid a mess and everybody uses the form proposed by Pauli; IMO IBM Q designers were not wise when defined $R_z(\theta)$ matrix. | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 8:49 | comment | added | Martin Vesely | @kludg: I understand your objection but in the end the result is the same regardless which matrix (either QM approach or IBM approach) is used as the only difference is omission of global phase. Quantum states which differ only in global phase are considered to be same, so both approaches work. Or do I understand anything in wrong way? | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 7:50 | comment | added | kludg | I disagree with IBM Q conventions; in QM, spin 1/2 rotation matrices are related to Pauli matrices as $R_i(\theta)=\exp(i \theta/2\cdot \sigma_i)$ and this defines $R_z(\theta)$; and IBM for the sake of petty simplification is making a mess of QM conventions. | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 7:33 | history | answered | Martin Vesely | CC BY-SA 4.0 |