2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading an article about environmental monitoring and information transfer. Suppose $S$ represents a quantum system and $E$ is the environment. Assume at time $t=0$ there are no correlations between $S$ and $E$: $\rho_{SE}(0)=\rho_{S}(0)\otimes\rho_{E}(0)$, and this composite density operator evolved under the action of $U(t) = e^{-iHt/h}$, where $H$ is the total Hamiltonian. Let $P_\alpha$ be a projective operator on $E$. Then, the probability of obtaining outcome $α$ in this measurement when $S$ is described by the density operator $\rho_s(t)$ is given as

$$ \text{Prob}(\alpha|\rho_s(t))=\text{Tr}_E (P_αρ_E(t)) $$

and the density matrix of $S$ conditioned on the particular outcome $\alpha$ is

$$ \rho_s^{\alpha}(t)= \frac{\text{Tr}_E\{(I\otimes P_\alpha)\rho_{SE}(t)(I\otimes P_\alpha)\}}{\text{Prob}(\alpha|\rho_s(t))} $$

I'm wondering how those two equations coming from? Also, since the indirect measurement aims to yield information about S without performing a projective (and thus destructive) direct measurement on S, why there's $P_\alpha$ in the equation? Thanks!!

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I think there is a typo in the equation for $\text{Prob}(\alpha|\rho_s(t))$: don't you mean $\rho_{SE}(t)$ in place of $\rho_E(t)$? $\endgroup$ Jan 29 at 7:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The two equations - for outcome probability and post-measurement state - are density matrix variants of the equations in this question. They are also equations $(2.159)$ and $(2.160)$ in Mike & Ike with the caveat about subsystems described in this answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 29 at 7:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Adam Zalcman Thanks for the comment! No it's not a typo. The two equations come from eqn 13&14 in the Quantum Decoherence paper: doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001 $\endgroup$
    – ZR-
    Jan 30 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ You're right. I'm not sure why I thought otherwise. Perhaps I missed the fact that $P_\alpha$ are projectors on $E$ which is implicit in the use of partial trace and tensor product. I made a small change to your question to clarify this. Anyway, do the pointers to the other question and section 2.4.2 in Mike&Ike help you or is there something else that's not clear? :-) $\endgroup$ Jan 30 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ @Adam Zalcman Thank you so much!! I noticed the analogy, but I'm still wondering why the denominator doesn't have the square root in this case, and what's the meaning of two $I\otimes P_\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – ZR-
    Jan 30 at 4:26
2
$\begingroup$

The two equations are part of the measurement postulate of quantum mechanics which states that probability of the outcome $m$ in a measurement described by operators $M_m$ on a state $\rho$ is

$$ p(m) = \mathrm{tr}(M_m^\dagger M_m \rho)\tag1 $$

(c.f. $(2.159)$ in Nielsen & Chuang) and the post-measurement state is

$$ \frac{M_m\rho M_m^\dagger}{\mathrm{tr}(M_m^\dagger M_m \rho)}\tag2 $$

(c.f. $(2.160)$ in Nielsen & Chuang).


The first equation in the question follows from substitutions

$$ m = \alpha \\ \rho = \rho_E(t) \\ M_m = P_\alpha $$

in $(1)$. The second follows from substitutions

$$ \rho = \rho_{SE}(t) \\ M_m = I\otimes P_\alpha $$

followed by partial trace over the environment on the post-measurement state.

$\endgroup$

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.