2
$\begingroup$

I have a unitary matrix $U$ and a quantum state $\vert \Psi \rangle$ such that $$ U \vert \Psi \rangle = e^{i \theta} \vert \Psi \rangle.$$ I also know that my unitary matrix and my quantum state can be written as $U = U_1\otimes U_2$ and $\vert \Psi \rangle = \vert \Psi_1\rangle\otimes\vert\Psi_2\rangle$ with matching dimensions (i.e. $U_1$ acts on the Hilbert state $\vert\Psi_1\rangle$ belongs to, same for $U_2$ and $\vert\Psi_2\rangle$).

My first equation then becomes $$U_1\vert\Psi_1\rangle \otimes U_2 \vert\Psi_2 \rangle = e^{i\theta} \vert \Psi_1 \rangle \otimes \vert \Psi_2 \rangle.$$

Can I deduce the 3 following assertions from my formula above?

  1. $U_1 \vert\Psi_1\rangle = e^{i\theta_1}\vert\Psi_1\rangle$
  2. $U_2 \vert\Psi_2\rangle = e^{i\theta_2}\vert\Psi_2\rangle$
  3. with $\theta = \theta_1 + \theta_2 + 2k\pi$.

The implication seems "logical" as we just separate $2$ non-related quantum states from each other, but I do not have enough confidence in my reasoning to accept this result yet. I searched for a mathematical proof, but the closer I found is the following theorem from here:

Theorem: Let $A$ and $B$ be two complex square matrices. If $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$ with corresponding eigenvector $x$ and $\mu$ is an eigenvector of $B$ with corresponding eigenvector $y$, then $\lambda\mu$ is an eigenvalue of $A\otimes B$ with corresponding eigenvector $x\otimes y$. Moreover, every eigenvalue of $A\otimes B$ arises as such a product.

that does not fit with my problem (not the good implication and more oriented toward eigenvectors).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I am not satisfied with my title but could not find anything more descriptive... Any edit is welcomed. $\endgroup$ – Nelimee Mar 11 at 15:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I suppose, technically, you might have $\theta=\theta_1+\theta_2+2k\pi$ for some integer $k$. Otherwise, yes. $\endgroup$ – DaftWullie Mar 11 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, I edited my question, thank you. About the "Otherwise, yes", does it mean I can deduce the 3 assertions? If so, is there any "proof"? $\endgroup$ – Nelimee Mar 11 at 16:32
3
$\begingroup$

Let's say I know that $$ U_1|\Psi_1\rangle\otimes U_2|\Psi_2\rangle=e^{i\theta}|\Psi_1\rangle\otimes|\Psi_2\rangle. $$ Now, let's imagine that $U_1|\Psi_1\rangle=|\phi_1\rangle$ and $U_2|\Psi_2\rangle=|\phi_2\rangle$. So, $$ |\phi_1\rangle\otimes |\phi_2\rangle=e^{i\theta}|\Psi_1\rangle\otimes|\Psi_2\rangle. $$ Now, I would just read off your desired relations, but as a proof, it depends on how deep we need to go... Let's take the inner product of both sides with $|\phi_1\rangle\otimes |\phi_2\rangle$, and calculate the absolute value. You have $$ 1=|\langle\phi_1|\Psi_1\rangle|\ |\langle\phi_2|\Psi_2\rangle|. $$ Both terms on the right-hand side satisfy $|\langle\phi_1|\Psi_1\rangle|\leq 1$, and can only achieve equality if $|\phi_i\rangle=e^{i\theta_i}|\Psi_i\rangle$ (do you need a detailed proof of that? Think of real unit vectors $\underline{v},\underline{u}$: $\underline{u}\cdot\underline{v}=\cos\gamma\leq 1$, where $\gamma$ is the angle between them.)

Hence, we get overall equality if $$ e^{i\theta}=e^{i\theta_1}e^{i\theta_2}, $$ which is true provided $$ \theta\equiv\theta_1+\theta_2\text{ mod }2\pi. $$

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Let $H_1,H_2$ be two Hilbert spaces and for unit vectors $u_1,v_1 \in H_1$ and $u_2,v_2 \in H_2$ we have $$ u_1 \otimes u_2 = v_1 \otimes v_2 \in H_1 \otimes H_2. $$ Then it must be $$ v_1 = \lambda u_1, ~~ v_2 = \frac{1}{\lambda} u_2, $$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$, $|\lambda|=1$.

To see why consider a scalar product $$ 1 = (u_1\otimes u_2, u_1\otimes u_2) = (u_1\otimes u_2, v_1\otimes v_2) = (u_1,v_1)(u_2,v_2). $$ Since $|(u_i,v_i)|\leq 1$ it must be $|(u_i,v_i)|=1$ for $i=1,2$. Hence $v_i = \lambda_i u_i$, where $|\lambda_i|=1$. But $u_1 \otimes u_2 = v_1 \otimes v_2 = \lambda_1 u_1 \otimes \lambda_2 u_2 = \lambda_1 \lambda_2 (u_1 \otimes u_2)$, thus $\lambda_1\lambda_2=1$.

From this you can deduce your 3 assertions, though DaftWullie essentially used this argument directly in his answer.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.