2
$\begingroup$

I'm working to have a greater understanding of the arbitrary unitary transformation matrix when working in the context of the Bloch sphere. At this time I have found several equivalent representations of this arbitrary unitary, but I'm trying to bridge the gap between a version that I feel I understand well, and another that I'm not yet clear on why it is different.

The one that I feel I understand well is $$U_1=\exp(i\gamma)\exp(-i\alpha/2 \hat{n}\cdot\vec{\sigma})$$ which I found and worked through with the help of this set of notes from Ian Glendinning.

The second version is from Audretch's Entangled Systems; New Directions in Quantum Physics. I do not have a link for this book, but on Page 56 he gives the following version of the unitary with little explanation as to its derivation. $$U_2=\exp(i\kappa)\exp(-i\lambda/2\sigma_z)\exp(-i\mu/2\sigma_y)\exp(-i\nu/2\sigma_z)$$

I know that $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are just different names for the global phase factor.

I believe that $\alpha$ and $\mu$ represent the arbitrary angle of rotation around the $\hat{n}$ axis.

I believe the differences relate primarily to the fact that Audretsch's representation is representing the pairwise orthonormal columns and rows as discussed in Audretsch's book as well as in this post: General parametrisation of an arbitrary $2\times 2$ unitary matrix?)

Any help I could get in better understanding how these are equivalent representations would be appreciated.

With the help of Wikipedia and the stack exchange discussion about general parametrisation linked above, I have been able to fully understand the origin of $U_2$ and how to derive it from an arbitrary 2 x 2 matrix. I am still trying to equate this with $U_1$ above.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Both can be found in Nielsen and Chuang's book:) Theorem 4.1 of the book might answer your question. I just quoted: $\endgroup$
    – narip
    Aug 31, 2022 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ Since $U$ is unitary, the rows and columns of $U$ are orthonormal, from which it follows that there exist real numbers $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$, and $\delta$ such that $$ U=\left[\begin{array}{cc} e^{i(\alpha-\beta / 2-\delta / 2)} \cos \frac{\gamma}{2} & -e^{i(\alpha-\beta / 2+\delta / 2)} \sin \frac{\gamma}{2} \\ e^{i(\alpha+\beta / 2-\delta / 2)} \sin \frac{\gamma}{2} & e^{i(\alpha+\beta / 2+\delta / 2)} \cos \frac{\gamma}{2} \end{array}\right] . $$ $\endgroup$
    – narip
    Aug 31, 2022 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ I saw this in Nielson and Chuang's book and noted that it was the same as my $U_2$ once the rotations they discuss are applied. However, $U_2$ makes use of three rotation operators; $R_z, R_y, R_z$ while $U_1$ uses 5 rotations; $R_z, R_y, R_z, R_y\dagger, R_z\dagger$. Also, the number of angles used differs as $U_2$ uses 4 angles while $U_1$ uses two angles and a point. $\endgroup$
    – PGibbon
    Aug 31, 2022 at 15:34

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
0
$\begingroup$

The simplest way to see this, for me, is like this. If you ignore the global phase, which doesn't have any physical effect, $U_1$ represents a rotation in 3D around an arbitrary axis - this is clear in the Bloch sphere parameterization of a qubit's state. $U_2$, on the other hand, represents 3 successive rotations around the $z, y, z$ axes. There is a theorem stating that you can decompose any 3D rotation $U_1$ into such a sequence of rotations around two other axes, see for example https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1021727/is-it-true-that-a-arbitrary-3d-rotation-can-be-composed-with-two-rotations-const So, if you pick the correct angles for the 3 successive rotations, you will recover the original rotation exactly.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

With further reading, I believe I have an answer to my own question. This is a tentative answer for now, but if I find a better understanding, I will update.

I made the assumption that with these both being arbitrary unitary transformations that they were equivalent unitary transformations. However, $U_1$ is a unitary that can be used to rotate a given state around a specific axis, $\hat{n}$, while $U_2$ is used to arbitrarily change one state into another using rotations.

Since their purposes distinctly differ, I am no longer convinced that they can be equated.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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