How long-range coherence is encoded in the Weyl quasicharacteristic function

In this post, I derive an identity showing the sense in which information about coherence over long distances in phase space for a quantum state \rho is encoded in its quasicharacteristic function \mathcal{F}_{\rho}, the (symplectic) Fourier transform of its Wigner function. In particular I show

(1)   \begin{align*} \int \mathrm{d}^2 \gamma |\langle \alpha|\rho|\beta\rangle|^2 = (|\mathcal{F}_\rho|^2 \ast |G|^2)(\beta-\alpha) \end{align*}

where |\alpha\rangle and |\beta\rangle are coherent states, \gamma:=(\alpha+\beta)/2 is the mean phase space position of the two states, “\ast” denotes the convolution, and G(\alpha) = e^{-|\alpha|^2} is the (Gaussian) quasicharacteristic function of the ground state of the Harmonic oscillator.

Definitions

The quasicharacteristic function for a quantum state \rho of a single degree of freedom is defined as

    \[\mathcal{F}_\rho(\xi) := \mathrm{Tr}[\rho D_\xi] = \langle\rho,D_\xi\rangle_{\mathrm{HS}},\]

where D_\xi = e^{i \xi \wedge R} is the Weyl phase-space displacement operator, \xi = (\xi_{\mathrm{x}},\xi_{\mathrm{p}}) \in \mathbf{R}^2 are coordinates on “reciprocal” (i.e., Fourier transformed) phase space, R:=(X,P) is the phase-space location operator, X and P are the position and momentum operators, “\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_{\mathrm{HS}}” denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product on operators, \langle A,B\rangle_{\mathrm{HS}}:=\mathrm{Tr}[A^\dagger B], and “\wedge” denotes the symplectic form, \alpha\wedge\beta := \alpha_{\mathrm{x}}\beta_{\mathrm{p}} - \alpha_{\mathrm{p}}\beta_{\mathrm{x}}. (Throughout this post I use the notation established in Sec. 2 of my recent paper with Felipe Hernández.) It has variously been called the quantum characteristic function, the chord function, the Wigner characteristic function, the Weyl function, and the moment-generating function. It is the quantum analog of the classical characteristic function.

Importantly, the quasicharacteristic function obeys |\mathcal{F}_{\rho}(\xi)|\le 1 and \mathcal{F}_{\rho}(0)=1, just like the classical characteristic function, and provides a definition of the Wigner function where the linear symplectic symmetry of phase space is manifest:

(2)   \begin{align*} \mathcal{W}_{\rho}(\alpha) &:= (2\pi)^{-1}\int\! \mathrm{d}^2\xi \, e^{-i\alpha\wedge\xi}\mathcal{F}_{\rho}(\xi)\\ &= (2\pi)^{-1}\int\! \mathrm{d}\Delta x \, e^{ip\Delta x} \rho(x-\Delta x/2,x+\Delta x/2) \end{align*}

where \alpha = (\alpha_{\mathrm{x}},\alpha_{\mathrm{p}}) = (x,p) \in \mathbf{R}^2 is the phase-space coordinate and \rho(x,x')=\langle x | \rho|x'\rangle is the position-space representation of the quantum state. This first line says that \mathcal{W}_{\rho} and \mathcal{F}_{\rho} are related by the symplectic Fourier transform. (This just means the inner product “\cdot” in the regular Fourier transform is replaced with the symplectic form, and has the simple effect of exchanging the reciprocal variables, (\xi_{\mathrm{x}},\xi_{\mathrm{p}})\to (-\xi_{\mathrm{p}},\xi_{\mathrm{x}}), simplifying many expressions.)… [continue reading]

Gravitational transmission of quantum information by Carney et al.

Carney, Müller, and Taylor have a tantalizing paper on how the quantum nature of gravity might be confirmed even though we are quite far from being able to directly create and measure superpositions of gravitationally appreciable amounts of matter (hereafter: “massive superpositions”), and of course very far from being able to probe the Planck scale where quantum gravity effects dominate. More precisely, the idea is to demonstrate (assuming assumptions) that the gravitational field can be used to transmit quantum information from one system to another in the sense that the effective quantum channel is not entanglement breaking.

We suggest a test of a central prediction of perturbatively quantized general relativity: the coherent communication of quantum information between massive objects through gravity. To do this, we introduce the concept of interactive quantum information sensing, a protocol tailored to the verification of dynamical entanglement generation between a pair of systems. Concretely, we propose to monitor the periodic wavefunction collapse and revival in an atomic interferometer which is gravitationally coupled to a mechanical oscillator. We prove a theorem which shows that, under the assumption of time-translation invariance, this collapse and revival is possible if and only if the gravitational interaction forms an entangling channel. Remarkably, as this approach improves at moderate temperatures and relies primarily upon atomic coherence, our numerical estimates indicate feasibility with current devices.

Although I’m not sure they would phrase it this way, the key idea for me was that merely protecting massive superpositions from decoherence is actually not that hard; sufficient isolation can be achieved in lots of systems.… [continue reading]

Comments on Baldijao et al.’s GPT-generalized quantum Darwinism

This nice recent paper considers the “general probabilistic theory” operational framework, of which classical and quantum theories are special cases, and asks what sorts of theories admit quantum Darwinism-like dynamics. It is closely related to my interest in finding a satisfying theory of classical measurement.

Quantum Darwinism and the spreading of classical information in non-classical theories
Roberto D. Baldijão, Marius Krumm, Andrew J. P. Garner, and Markus P. Müller
Quantum Darwinism posits that the emergence of a classical reality relies on the spreading of classical information from a quantum system to many parts of its environment. But what are the essential physical principles of quantum theory that make this mechanism possible? We address this question by formulating the simplest instance of Darwinism – CNOT-like fan-out interactions – in a class of probabilistic theories that contain classical and quantum theory as special cases. We determine necessary and sufficient conditions for any theory to admit such interactions. We find that every non-classical theory that admits this spreading of classical information must have both entangled states and entangled measurements. Furthermore, we show that Spekkens’ toy theory admits this form of Darwinism, and so do all probabilistic theories that satisfy principles like strong symmetry, or contain a certain type of decoherence processes. Our result suggests the counterintuitive general principle that in the presence of local non-classicality, a classical world can only emerge if this non-classicality can be “amplified” to a form of entanglement.

After the intro, the authors give self-contained background information on the two key prerequisites: quantum Darwinism and generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs). The former is an admirable brief summary of what are, to me, the core and extremely simple features of quantum Darwinism.… [continue reading]

Moyal bracket with manifest (affine) symplectic covariance

Moyal’s equation for a Wigner function W of a quantum system with (Wigner-transformed) Hamiltonian H is \partial_t W = \{ H,W \}_\hbar where the Moyal bracket is a binary operator on the space of functions over phase space. Unfortunately, it is often written down mysteriously as

(1)   \begin{align*} \{ A,B \}_\hbar = \frac{2}{\hbar} A \sin \left( \frac{\hbar}{2} \left(\overleftarrow{\partial}_x\overrightarrow{\partial}_p - \overleftarrow{\partial}_p\overrightarrow{\partial}_x \right) \right) B, \end{align*}

where the arrows over partial derivatives tell you which way they act, i.e., C (\overleftarrow{\partial}_x \overrightarrow{\partial}_p ) D = (\partial_x C)(\partial_p D). This only becomes slightly less weird when you use the equivalent formula \{ A,B \}_\hbar = (A \star B - B\star A)/(i\hbar), where “\star” is the Moyal star product given by

(2)   \begin{align*} A \star B =  A \exp \left( \frac{i\hbar}{2} \left(\overleftarrow{\partial}_x\overrightarrow{\partial}_p - \overleftarrow{\partial}_p\overrightarrow{\partial}_x \right) \right) B. \end{align*}

The star product has the crucial feature that \widehat{A \star B} = \widehat{A}\widehat{B}, where we use a hat to denote the Weyl transform (i.e., the inverse of the Wigner transform taking density matrices to Wigner functions), which takes a scalar function over phase-space to an operator over our Hilbert space. The star product also has some nice integral representations, which can be found in books like Curtright, Fairlie, & ZachosThe complete 88-page PDF is here.a  , but none of them help me understand the Moyal equation.

A key problem is that both of these expressions are neglecting the (affine) symplectic symmetry of phase space and the dynamical equations. Although I wouldn’t call it beautiful, we can re-write the star product as

(3)   \begin{align*} A \star B =  A \exp \left( \frac{i\hbar}{2} \overleftarrow{\partial}_a\overrightarrow{\partial}^a \right) B. \end{align*}

where a=x,p is a symplectic index using the Einstein summation convention, and where symplectic indices are raised and lowered using the symplectic form just as for Weyl spinors: v_a = \epsilon_{ab}v^b and w^a = \epsilon^{ab}w_b, where \epsilon is the antisymmetric symplectic form with \epsilon^{xp} = +1 = \epsilon_{px}, and where upper (lower) indices denote symplectic vectors (co-vectors).

With this, we can expand the Moyal equation as

    \begin{align*} \{ H,W \}_\hbar &= \frac{2}{\hbar} H \sin \left( \frac{\hbar}{2} \overleftarrow{\partial}_a\overrightarrow{\partial}^a \right) W \\ &= \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-\hbar^2/4)^n}{(2n+1)!} \left(\partial_{a_1}\cdots \partial_{a_{2n+1}} H\right)\left(\partial^{a_1}\cdots \partial^{a_{2n+1}} W\right) \\ &= (\partial_a H)(\partial^a W) - \frac{\hbar^2}{24}(\partial_a\partial_b\partial_c H)(\partial^a \partial^b \partial^c W) \\ &\qquad \qquad + \frac{\hbar^4}{80640}(\partial_a\partial_b\partial_c \partial_d \partial_e H)(\partial^a \partial^b \partial^c \partial^d \partial^e W) - \cdots  \end{align*}

where we can see in hideous explicitness that it’s a series in the even powers of \hbar and the odd derivates of the Hamiltonian H and the Wigner function W.… [continue reading]

Living bibliography for the problem of defining wavefunction branches

This post is (a seed of) a bibliography covering the primordial research area that goes by some of the following names:

Although the way this problem tends to be formalized varies with context, I don’t think we have confidence in any of the formalizations. The different versions are very tightly related, so that a solution in one context is likely give, or at least strongly point toward, solutions for the others.

As a time-saving device, I will just quote a few paragraphs from existing papers that review the literature, along with the relevant part of their list of references. I hope to update this from time to time, and perhaps turn it into a proper review article of its own one day. If you have a recommendation for this bibliography (either a single citation, or a paper I should quote), please do let me know.

Carroll & Singh

From “Quantum Mereology: Factorizing Hilbert Space into Subsystems with Quasi-Classical Dynamics”, arXiv:2005.12938:

While this question has not frequently been addressed in the literature on quantum foundations and emergence of classicality, a few works have highlighted its importance and made attempts to understand it better. Brun and Hartle [2] studied the emergence of preferred coarse-grained classical variables in a chain of quantum harmonic oscillators. Efforts to address the closely related question of identifying classical set of histories (also known as the “Set Selection” problem) in the Decoherent Histories formalism [3–7, 10] have also been undertaken.

[continue reading]

How to think about Quantum Mechanics—Part 8: The quantum-classical limit as music

[Other parts in this series: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.]

On microscopic scales, sound is air pressure f(t) fluctuating in time t. Taking the Fourier transform of f(t) gives the frequency distribution \hat{f}(\omega), but in an eternal way, applying to the entire time interval for t\in [-\infty,\infty].

Yet on macroscopic scales, sound is described as having a frequency distribution as a function of time, i.e., a note has both a pitch and a duration. There are many formalisms for describing this (e.g., wavelets), but a well-known limitation is that the frequency \omega of a note is only well-defined up to an uncertainty that is inversely proportional to its duration \Delta t.

At the mathematical level, a given wavefunction \psi(x) is almost exactly analogous: macroscopically a particle seems to have a well-defined position and momentum, but microscopically there is only the wavefunction \psi. The mapping of the analogyI am of course not the first to emphasize this analogy. For instance, while writing this post I found “Uncertainty principles in Fourier analysis” by de Bruijn (via Folland’s book), who calls the Wigner function of an audio signal f(t) the “musical score” of f.a   is \{t,\omega,f\} \to \{x,p,\psi\}. Wavefunctions can of course be complex, but we can restrict ourself to a real-valued wavefunction without any trouble; we are not worrying about the dynamics of wavefunctions, so you can pretend the Hamiltonian vanishes if you like.

In order to get the acoustic analog of Planck’s constant \hbar, it helps to imagine going back to a time when the pitch of a note was measured with a unit that did not have a known connection to absolute frequency, i.e.,… [continue reading]

A checkable Lindbladian condition

Summary

Physicists often define a Lindbladian superoperator as one whose action on an operator B can be written as

(1)   \begin{align*} \mathcal{L}[B] = -i [H,B] + \sum_i \left[ L_i B L_i^\dagger - \frac{1}{2}\left(L_i^\dagger L_i B + B L_i^\dagger L_i\right)\right], \end{align*}

for some operator H with positive anti-Hermitian part, H-H^\dagger \ge 0, and some set of operators \{L^{(i)}\}. But how does one efficiently check if a given superoperator is Lindbladian? In this post I give an “elementary” proof of a less well-known characterization of Lindbladians:

A superoperator \mathcal{L} generates completely positive dynamics e^{t\mathcal{L}}, and hence is Lindbladian, if and only if \mathcal{P} \mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{PT}} \mathcal{P} \ge 0, i.e.,

    \[\mathrm{Tr}\left[B^\dagger (\mathcal{P} \mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{PT}} \mathcal{P})[B]\right] \ge 0\]

for all B. Here “\mathrm{PT}” denotes a partial transpose, \mathcal{P} = \mathcal{I} - \mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{PT}}/N = \mathcal{P}^2 is the “superprojector” that removes an operator’s trace, \mathcal{I} is the identity superoperator, and N is the dimension of the space upon which the operators act.

Thus, we can efficiently check if an arbitrary superoperator \mathcal{L} is Lindbladian by diagonalizing \mathcal{P}\mathcal{L}^{\mathrm{PT}} \mathcal{P} and seeing if all the eigenvalues are positive.

A quick note on terminology

The terms superoperator, completely positive (CP), trace preserving (TP), and Lindbladian are defined below in Appendix A in case you aren’t already familiar with them.

Confusingly, the standard practice is to say a superoperator \mathcal{S} is “positive” when it is positivity preserving: B \ge 0 \Rightarrow \mathcal{S}[B]\ge 0. This condition is logically independent from the property of a superoperator being “positive” in the traditional sense of being a positive operator, i.e., \langle B,\mathcal{S}[B]\rangle  \ge 0 for all operators (matrices) B, where

    \[\langle B,C\rangle  \equiv \mathrm{Tr}[B^\dagger C]  = \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{n'=1}^N   B^\dagger_{nn'} C_{n'n}\]

is the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product on the space of N\times N matrices. We will refer frequently to this latter condition, so for clarity we call it op-positivity, and denote it with the traditional notation \mathcal{S}\ge 0.

Intro

It is reasonably well known by physicists that Lindbladian superoperators, Eq. (1), generate CP time evolution of density matrices, i.e., e^{t\mathcal{L}}[\rho] = \sum_{b=0}^\infty t^b \mathcal{L}^b[\rho]/b! is completely positive when t\ge 0 and \mathcal{L} satisfies Eq.… [continue reading]

Quotes from Curtright et al.’s history of quantum mechanics in phase space

Curtright et al. have a monograph on the phase-space formulation of quantum mechanics. I recommend reading their historical introduction.

A Concise Treatise on Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space
Thomas L. Curtright, David B. Fairlie, and Cosmas K. Zachos
Wigner’s quasi-probability distribution function in phase-space is a special (Weyl–Wigner) representation of the density matrix. It has been useful in describing transport in quantum optics, nuclear physics, quantum computing, decoherence, and chaos. It is also of importance in signal processing, and the mathematics of algebraic deformation. A remarkable aspect of its internal logic, pioneered by Groenewold and Moyal, has only emerged in the last quarter-century: It furnishes a third, alternative, formulation of quantum mechanics, independent of the conventional Hilbert space or path integral formulations. In this logically complete and self-standing formulation, one need not choose sides between coordinate or momentum space. It works in full phase-space, accommodating the uncertainty principle; and it offers unique insights into the classical limit of quantum theory: The variables (observables) in this formulation are c-number functions in phase space instead of operators, with the same interpretation as their classical counterparts, but are composed together in novel algebraic ways.

Here are some quotes. First, the phase-space formulation should be placed on equal footing with the Hilbert-space and path-integral formulations:

When Feynman first unlocked the secrets of the path integral formalism and presented them to the world, he was publicly rebuked: “It was obvious”, Bohr said, “that such trajectories violated the uncertainty principle”.

However, in this case, Bohr was wrong. Today path integrals are universally recognized and widely used as an alternative framework to describe quantum behavior, equivalent to although conceptually distinct from the usual Hilbert space framework, and therefore completely in accord with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…

Similarly, many physicists hold the conviction that classical-valued position and momentum variables should not be simultaneously employed in any meaningful formula expressing quantum behavior, simply because this would also seem to violate the uncertainty principle…However, they too are wrong.

[continue reading]