8

Is coherence conserved under unitary transformation? As we saw in the process of generating entanglement, coherence between states of the subsystem is transferred to quantum correlations (related to quantum coherence?) between the two subsystems. Is there a quantity that represents total coherence which is conserved under this unitary transformation?

This question was inspired by reading several other excellent posts on entanglement: Entanglement and coherence, "FTL" Communication with Quantum Entanglement?, What is coherence in quantum mechanics?.

Note:- Its my understanding/interpretation that the quantum correlations that arise in entangled systems are a result of coherence between the subsystems. And in my view entanglement generation is transfer of coherence and the total coherence is conserved.

Progress:- If there is a quantity which represents quantum coherence in system denoted by $C(\rho)$, shouldn't it have following properties?

  1. $C(U^{\dagger}\rho U) = C(\rho)$, where $\rho$ is density matrix and $U$ is any unitary operation.

  2. $C(\rho^{a} \otimes \rho^{b}) =C(\rho^{a}) + C(\rho^{b}) $

  • 2
    You might be interested in resource theories of coherence, e.g. work by Baumgratz or Winter. – Mark Mitchison Feb 28 '16 at 17:48
  • 1
    Please clarify this sentence: "...coherence between states of the subsystem is transferred to coherence between the two subsystems". It's not clear what is the difference between "cocherence between states of the subsystems" and "coherence between the two subsystems". – DanielSank Feb 28 '16 at 18:40
  • @DanielSank By "coherence between states of the subsystem", I mean that the reduced density matrix of the subsystem is not completely mixed. And By "coherence between the two subsystems", I mean there is quantum correlations between the two subsystems at the expense of coherence of the reduced and separate subsystems. Its my understanding/interpretation that these quantum correlations are a result of coherence between the subsystems. And in my view entanglement generation is transfer of coherence and the total coherence is conserved. – Rahul Sawant Feb 29 '16 at 04:23
  • @MarkMitchison . Thanks a lot for the references. I have gone through them. But I don't think the quantities defined in the articles have the properties I mentioned in the updated question above. Did I misread? – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 06:50
  • I don't think your proposed properties make much sense. For example, condition 1 makes it impossible to generate coherence in a system. This means that lasers and pretty much every interesting quantum experiment become impossible. – Mark Mitchison Mar 02 '16 at 06:54
  • 2
    However, if you want to understand how coherence maps onto entanglement, you should read the article by Killoran – Mark Mitchison Mar 02 '16 at 06:56
  • 1
    The von-Neumann entropy is conserved under unitary transformations and it does represent coherence in some sense. don't know if thats what you are searching for though. – Wolpertinger Mar 02 '16 at 08:44
  • @MarkMitchison. I don't really understand the statement "For example, condition 1 makes it impossible to generate coherence in a system." There might be a process which can generate coherence, and this process might be Non-Unitary in the reduced Hilbert space of the system. The article by Killoran is informative, but still does not answer my question. Also in the article classicality is not defined at all. – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 11:22
  • @Numrok. The von-Neumann entropy satisfies property 2 but does not satisfy property 1. Also it is zero for all the pure states. – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 11:57
  • @RahulSawant: Sorry I didn't realise that. On the other hand this second property doesn't really make sense to me. You say you want a function that represents the coherence between the subsystems, but then 2. is saying that only the sum of the subsystems (i.e. no cross-terms contribute). I think 2 should really be saying that C only depends on the mapping between the subsystems, which is exactly what von-Neumann does. Where am I misunderstanding you? – Wolpertinger Mar 02 '16 at 12:05
  • @Numrok. There should be no coherence between the subsystems when the subsystems are separable. Which is what second property implies. There will definitely be a cross term when there is entanglement and the total coherence will include both this cross term and the sum. – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 12:37
  • @Numrok. Also I was wrong earlier. Von-Neumann entropy satisfies property 1. But the problem of it being zero exists. Maybe some quantity around it might do the trick. – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 12:46
  • @Rahul All pure states of a given Hilbert space are related by some unitary transformation. A little thought will show you that that condition 1) implies that all pure states have zero (or maximal) coherence. Likewise you can prove that all pure entangled states have the same amount of "coherence" as pure product states. You might be able to define such a quantity but it has nothing to do with coherence. You will need to add restrictions on the unitary to get something interesting here. – Mark Mitchison Mar 02 '16 at 13:26
  • @RahulSawant ok, i think the second property might be reasonable then, I didn't quite understand it initially. about the von-neumann entropy being zero for pure states: aren't pure states fully coherent? – Wolpertinger Mar 02 '16 at 13:28
  • @MarkMitchinson. I agree, all pure states will have maximal coherence (both separable and entangled) and is implied by property 1. But, would it be wrong to say, entanglement is related to coherence between the subsystems (related to cross term Numrok was talking about)? – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 14:27
  • @Rahul Yes, coherence is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for entanglement. But coherence is not conserved by unitary operations, particularly because that would imply the nonsensical result that all pure states are maximally coherent. This is not what we usually mean by coherence, which is the presence of off-diagonal density matrix elements in some preferred basis. – Mark Mitchison Mar 02 '16 at 14:58

2 Answers2

2

If we understand coherence as "coherent superposition", then yes, coherence is conserved in a certain sense.

A simple superposition of two states evolves unitarily as $$ \alpha\;|a\rangle + \beta\;|b\rangle \;\; \rightarrow\;\; \alpha\;e^{-iHt}|a\rangle + \beta\;e^{-iHt}|b\rangle \equiv \alpha\;|a(t)\rangle + \beta\;|b(t)\rangle $$ so we can say that at any time the relative phase of the evolved components $|a(t)\rangle$ and $|b(t)\rangle$ is the same as the relative phase of initial components $|a\rangle$ and $|b\rangle$.

In fact, the same goes for density matrix elements of mixed states. We have $\rho(t) = e^{-iHt} \rho(0) e^{iHt}$, but also $$ \langle a(t) |\rho(t)|b(t)\rangle = \langle a |\rho(0)|b\rangle $$

Further, in a non-interacting bipartite system evolving under Hamiltonian $H = H_A + H_B$, the relative phase of contributions to a total pure state is preserved in the sense that $$ |\Psi_{AB}(0)\rangle = \alpha\;|\psi_A \otimes \psi_B\rangle + \beta\;|\phi_A \otimes \phi_B\rangle \;\; \rightarrow\;\; |\Psi_{AB}(t)\rangle = \alpha\;|\psi_A(t) \otimes \psi_B(t)\rangle + \beta\;|\phi_A(t) \otimes \phi_B(t)\rangle $$ where $$ \alpha\;|\psi_A(t) \otimes \psi_B(t)\rangle + \beta\;|\phi_A(t) \otimes \phi_B(t)\rangle \equiv \alpha\;e^{-iHt}|\psi_A \otimes \psi_B\rangle + \beta\;e^{-iHt}|\phi_A \otimes \phi_B\rangle $$ for $$ |\psi_A(t)\rangle = e^{-iH_At}|\psi_A\rangle, \;\; |\phi_A(t)\rangle = e^{-iH_At}|\phi_A\rangle\\ |\psi_B(t)\rangle = e^{-iH_Bt}|\psi_A\rangle, \;\; |\phi_B(t)\rangle = e^{-iH_Bt}|\phi_A\rangle $$ And although in this case the states of subsystems A and B are no longer "coherent" pure states, but "incoherent" mixed states, $\rho_{A(B)} = Tr_{B(A)}|\Psi_{AB}\rangle\langle \Psi_{AB}|$, we can say that a certain degree of coherence is still conserved in time even in the mixed states, since their matrix elements still satisfy $$ \langle \psi_A(t) |\rho_A(t)|\psi_A(t)\rangle = \langle \psi_A |\rho_A(0)|\psi_A\rangle,\;\;\;\langle \psi_A(t) |\rho_A(t)|\phi_A(t)\rangle = \langle \psi_A |\rho_A(0)|\phi_A\rangle\;\;, \text{etc} $$ and similarly for B.

Note however that we cannot talk of a single conserved quantity representing coherence. We can only say that a unitary evolution preserves relative phase relationships between unitarily evolved pure states, both in pure state superpositions and in mixed states.

udrv
  • 10,371
  • Thanks for the elaborate explanation. But I am looking for some kind of a measure which represents quantum coherence and has the properties as mentioned in the updated question. – Rahul Sawant Mar 02 '16 at 06:53
2

No, coherence is not conserved by unitary transformations, in general. It's easiest to see this with a simple example. Consider a one-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillator, with Hamiltonian ($\hbar = 1$) $$ H = \omega a^\dagger a,$$ possessing energy eigenstates $H\lvert n\rangle = n\omega \lvert n\rangle$. Now, coherence (in the usual sense of the word) can only be defined with respect to a particular choice of basis. In quantum optics, in the study of nano-mechanical oscillators, and in many other applications of the quantum harmonic oscillator, coherence is usually defined with respect to the energy eigenbasis. That is, a state $\rho$ possesses coherence if its expansion in the energy eigenbasis $$ \rho = \sum_{m,n} \rho_{mn} \lvert m \rangle \langle n\rvert, $$ has at least one term where $\rho_{mn}\neq 0$ for $m\neq n$. Indeed, such a term is technically referred to as a coherence (in the energy eigenbasis).

Thus, the ground state of the system $\lvert 0 \rangle$ does not possess coherence. On the other hand, a coherent state $\lvert \alpha\rangle$, such that $a \lvert \alpha\rangle = \alpha \lvert \alpha \rangle$, does possess lots of coherence (surprise!). However, the two are related by a unitary transformation, the well known unitary displacement operation $\lvert \alpha\rangle = D(\alpha)\lvert 0 \rangle$, where $$ D(\alpha) = \exp \left ( \alpha a^\dagger - \alpha^* a \right ), $$ and clearly $D^\dagger(\alpha) D(\alpha) = 1$. A coherence measure $C(\rho)$ satisfying the OP's condition 1 thus implies $$ C(\lvert \alpha \rangle \langle \alpha \rvert) = C(D(\alpha)\lvert 0 \rangle \langle 0 \rvert D^\dagger(\alpha)) = C(\lvert 0 \rangle \langle 0 \rvert ). $$ Therefore $C(\rho)$ is a rather poor measure, as it assigns the same amount of "coherence" to the vacuum state (normally considered to have no coherence) and to a coherent state (normally considered to have "maximal" coherence).

It is straightforward to generalize this to multipartite systems. One finds that, for example, $C(\rho)$ assigns the same amount of "coherence" to maximally entangled pure states and to separable pure states. Again, this is exactly the opposite of what one would normally call coherence.

Overall, we see that no sensible coherence measure can be invariant under all unitary transformations. In fact, a coherence measure should only be generally invariant under unitaries which are diagonal in the chosen reference basis (i.e. the energy eigenbasis in these examples).

  • Understood. What about unitary operators which arise only because of interaction between the two particles? Is there a way to distinguish these from other unitary operations? – Rahul Sawant Mar 03 '16 at 04:40