I Bloch Sphere generalization for more than one qubit

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,396
Reaction score
1,573
In https://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mperkows/june2007/bloch-sphere.pdf, Ian Glendinning describes a derivation of the Bloch sphere for one qubit. To paraphrase his basic argument, one qubit in a pure state can be represented by 2 complex numbers, ##\alpha= a + bi## and ##\beta = c + di##. This yields the equation of a 3-sphere, a^2 + b^2 + c^2 + d^2, but noting that multiplying by a random phase which has no physical effects, one can choose such a phase multiplier to set b=0, giving rise to a 2-sphere representation, a^2+c^2+d^2=0.

This is still a double cover of the qubit, so further steps needed to be taken to recover the actual Bloch sphere, which involves a half-angle transformation.

The author mentions extending this to multiple qubits in "future topics", but I have not been able to find a publication of such extension. I believe he has retired, from the little bit of internet research I tried.

Attempting to pursue the approach on my own, two entangled qubits, the inital phase of the argument yields 4 complex numbers and a 6-sphere, and 3 entangled qubits result in 8 complex numbers and a 14-sphere.

I'd expect the 6-sphere to be a 4 fold cover of two entangled qubits, and the 14-sphere to be an 8-fold cover, but I don't really have any idea how to proceede further.

I'm ultimately interested in the representation problem, ideally is simply as possible, of how to geometrically represent n entangled qubits (in a pure state). However, I'm also interested in comments about my incomplete attempt to extend the author's argument to this case (do they make sense), and / or other authors approaches to the problem.

For instance, Wikipedia's approach to the Bloch sphere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere, starts with talking about projective spaces, which I am only mildly familiar with. To me, it seems basically equivalent to me to Ian's approach.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Check out

Solving The Travelling Salesman Problem Using A Single Qubit
Kapil Goswami,1, ∗ Gagan Anekonda Veereshi,1 Peter Schmelcher,1, 2 and Rick Mukherjee1, †

It seems to me impractical to scale this up to any meaningful value of n, but I think it is a clever idea.
 
I ran across the very interesting https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0302081, "Geometry of the 3-Qubit State, Entanglement and Division Algebras" which goes a long way to answering my own question.

partial asbtract said:
We present a generalization to 3-qubits of the standard Bloch sphere representation for a single qubit and of the 7-dimensional sphere representation for 2 qubits presented in Mosseri {\it et al.}\cite{Mosseri2001}. The Hilbert space of the 3-qubit system is the 15-dimensional sphere , which allows for a natural (last) Hopf fibration with as base and as fiber.

The extra phase factor is not eliminated
 
  • Like
Likes anuttarasammyak
pervect said:
The extra phase factor is not eliminated
n qubit has 2^n base with complex coefficients so they have 2^(n+1) real parameters. Normalization and the extra phase factor reduce 2 so we should have 2(2^n-1) dimension real manifolds or 2^n-1 complex manifolds to express n qubit states. For coefficients ##\{\ r_je^{i\phi_j}\}##, the manifold is

$$\{r_j \geq 0 \ |\ \sum_{j=1}^{2^n}r_j^2=1\} \cap \{0 \leq \phi_j < 2\pi\ |\ \phi_1=0 \} $$

It means that a model we seek may be combination of a point on a unit sphere of 2^n - 1 dimension
, and a set of 2^n-1 angles. How about it ?

I am not sure that Broch way to halve/double the angle ##\theta## to form a sphere from hemisphere where two bases are orthogonal visually, would be beneficial in higher n cases.
 
Last edited:
Hi, I'm trying to reconcile the view of the vacuum in General Relativity with the view in Quantum Field Theory. In GR, the vacuum is the stage for spacetime geometry, described by the metric tensor gμν. In QFT, it's a dynamic sea of virtual particles and zero-point energy. My question is: Do these two views imply that the vacuum has measurable physical properties, like an impedance, permittivity, or permeability? In GR, are these properties considered emergent from the geometry, or are...
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top